The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have member statements from the Member for the District of St. Barbe; the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile; the Member for the District of Port au Port; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the Member for the District of Bonavista North; and the Member for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Jakeman All Grade, a K-12 school in Trout River, on being awarded the Indigo Love of Reading grant. The grant is for $30,000.

Mr. Speaker, in applying for the grant the school had to show both a high need and a clearly mapped literacy mandate for the next three years. Included in this mandate are plans to continue an early intervention program, and to improve family and community relations by hosting literary nights where parents and grandparents can support the literary growth of their children.

The school's literary committee, which includes students, plans to upgrade the existing school library. This will include magazine subscriptions, a computer system and e-readers for the library. Mr. Speaker, since the community of Trout River does not have a public library this grant will have an enormous impact on students and the community with long-term benefits to both.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Jakeman All Grade School on receiving the Indigo Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jim Hayward, of Port aux Basques, upon his induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame over the weekend, in recognition of his long-time commitment to provincial hockey.

Jim was one of the fathers of hockey in Port aux Basques. He became involved with the Minor Hockey Association in 1967 and over the years he served as Director of the Atom, Peewee, Midget, and Juvenile divisions. He established junior hockey in Port aux Basques and was active in both junior and senior hockey in the 1980s and 1990s. He retired from hockey in 1998 but made a successful return to the bench in 2008, when he coached an alumni team in the Kraft Hockeyville alumni game at Port aux Basques.

Jim was a relentless fundraiser. He cajoled local businesses to donate prizes, and sold tickets on the items. He established a radio bingo which raised countless dollars. His wife, Lucy, was also heavily involved, cleaning and sewing uniforms and preparing bingo cards. Jim and Lucy have three daughters, three sons, and twelve grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending congratulations to Jim Hayward upon his induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize an inspirational student from my district, Asia Holloway of Musgravetown. Asia, daughter of Candida and Eugene Holloway was selected as the one successful candidate for our Province's nomination to Pearson College.

Pearson College, UWC is a two-year, pre-university school, Grade 12 and Gap Year, for up to 200 students from over 100 countries. There is only one way to get in, Mr. Speaker, and that is by scholarship, worth over $80,000 over two years. Asia attends school at Heritage Collegiate in Lethbridge as a Level II student and maintains an above 90 per cent average.

Asia is an accomplished musician and voice student, winning numerous awards since the age of four. She has performed with the New York Staff Band and has recently led a school choir trip to New York where she was accompanied by her group on piano and performed a solo selection.

Asia has a passion for children and has been a councillor in training with the Salvation Army's summer camp program and has assisted with many local church programs for the last several years. Asia will leave for Victoria, BC at the end of August.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing Asia Holloway.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I get great satisfaction today to rise and compliment the volleyball teams at Gill Memorial Academy in Musgrave Harbour.

Gill Memorial is a small, rural, K-12 school with a population of 125 pupils. Although they may be small in numbers, they have a rich and successful history on volleyball courts throughout the Province and in Eastern Canada. This year presented a challenge to produce a full complement of players to fill the teams. Gill Memorial Vikings compete in the A Division Volleyball regional and provincial tournaments at School Sport Newfoundland and Labrador.

The girls' teams, coached by staff member Mr. John Abbott, travelled to Rushoon. Player Hillary Hicks was presented with a sportsperson award and the team triumphantly returned home carrying a provincial banner. The boys, under the coaching of Mr. Blair Hann, competed at Conne River. Brandon Rae received a sportsmanship award there and the boys matched the girls with a provincial banner.

Principal Sheldon Gillam speaks very highly of the calibre of commitment that his players show to this program and how his students proudly represent his school.

I am sure all members will support my praise of these students and we all give them our best congratulatory greetings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bellevue.

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a newly developed walking trail that had its grand opening in Arnold's Cove.

The trail is named the War Path-Otter Rub Walking Trail and has completed its first stage. On Friday, May 18, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., with 170 persons in attendance, I had the great pleasure of joining the oldest original resident of Arnold's Cove, Ms Jessie Wareham, Mayor Tom Osborne, and MP Scott Andrews in the cutting of the ribbon surrounded by many students from Tricentia Academy, their teachers, and other volunteers. I would like to also recognize Ms Cindy Collins for her dedication and hard work in making this day a success.

This trail development was sponsored by the Arnold's Cove Heritage Foundation Inc. and is a redevelopment of a trail used by American solders of World War II. This trail will enhance tourists to the area and provide and promote healthy and active living for all the area, as well to all those who visit.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Arnolds's Cove Heritage Foundation Inc. on the opening of the War Path-Otter Rub Walking Trail.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to congratulate paralympic swimmer Katarina Roxon on making the team to represent Canada in swimming at the 2012 Summer Paralympic Games in London this August. This will be Ms Roxon's second time participating in the Paralympic Games.

Ms Roxon qualified to make the twenty-four-member Canadian team after she won a gold medal in the 100-metre butterfly and a bronze in the 100-metre breaststroke at the Canadian Olympic trials in Montreal earlier this year.

At the age of nineteen, Katarina has established herself as a tremendously dedicated, determined, and award-winning athlete. A native of Kippens, Ms Roxon has won numerous awards in provincial, national, and world swimming events. She was first named to the Canadian Paralympic Team in 2008 and was the only Newfoundlander and Labradorian represented at the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games. In 2010, she competed at the Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India. The Commonwealth Games is the only international multi-sport event where athletes with a disability are fully integrated into the competition program.

On behalf of our government and the people of the Province, I congratulate Ms Roxon on her accomplishment. She is certainly an outstanding ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador. I wish her the best of luck as she prepares to compete in the world's most prestigious athletic event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement on Katarina. We also on this side would like to congratulate Katarina on representing Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2012 Paralympic Games in London, and on her accomplishments all throughout the world on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is one little statement there, as a person from the West Coast – and I know the Member for Stephenville East can also agree – you are saying here that at age nineteen she established herself. We have been watching her grow up ever since she started athletics, since she was six years old. We knew the accomplishments that she had many, many years ago and we knew that she was going to represent our Province well.

On the West Coast she became a star at a very young age and proved her dedication and hard work was going to make sure that she represented the Province. She was Junior Female Athlete of the Year I think four years, back in 2005, 2006, 2007, and also in 2010. Her favourite quote, Mr. Speaker, is: Winning is not coming first, but knowing you did your best.

On behalf of all of us, I think she is a winner. I also know that she is doing her best for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to Katarina Roxon. How exciting it has been to watch Katarina over the years as she continued to excel in her sport. Katarina's commitment, dedication, and excellence have been an inspiration to all athletes in the Province to be the best that they can be. How impressive that at the age of nineteen she is about to attend her second Olympic Games.

We are proud of all our athletes who have achieved so much in recent years and it is incumbent on us and on the government to provide the resources so every young person can access recreation and sports programs, and that our programs be inclusive so that everyone can excel to the best of their ability.

Bravo and cheerio, Katarina.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to provide an update on an important project to preserve historical documents within my department. The digitalization of deeds project has been undertaken by the Commercial Registration Division within Service NL. This process involves the scanning of historical documents to preserve them in a digital format.

Mr. Speaker, digitalization will not only preserve these historical documents of importance to the Province, but once integrated into our on-line Companies and Deeds Online system will make them easily accessible to various stakeholders. When complete, the entire deeds registry will be digitized and available electronically to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our verification and digitalization team began work on the project in 2005, and by May 2007 had completed the conversion of deeds documents from microfilm to digital format for the periods of 1982 to June of 2004. This data represented 7.7 million pages and is now available on-line through our Companies and Deeds Online system, also known as CADO.

Following the completion of phase one in 2007, the team is now working on the verification of data and the digitalization of paper-based records for the period of 1825 to 1982. In addition, we recently partnered with the Queen's Printer to undertake a pilot project for the digitalization of bound paper volumes. This work involves the physical scanning of paper records as well, Mr. Speaker.

The preservation of data and vital events is an important aspect of our work in Service NL. This information tells a story of the real property history in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are pleased to report that the project is progressing smoothly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the preservation of historical documents is very important in our Province and it brings forward our Province's rich history. I would like to congratulate the digitalization team for all their hard work. It is tedious work and very time-consuming.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand our Aboriginal history. These are the true pioneers of our Province. There are certainly a number of important events that happened between 1825 and 1982 that are important. It is important that we capture and preserve all of these events that have shaped our culture in our Province. It is important that we relate the events that influenced the North Coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, like the Moravian mission and their impact on the evolution of Innu culture. Some of this work, Mr. Speaker, has already been done.

As technology evolves there are more methods and more ways to preserve important documents. The more sources for preservation the better it is for all of us. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this new digitization allows easier access to information by the people of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I am in favour of this government initiative as it makes information available to the public. Access to information is very, very important. It is good to see this documentation is using up-to-date technology, because that is going to make it easier to store and most likely reduce cost, especially when we look at making available information such as real estate and deeds.

This is a great first step, but I say, as we put it on-line: What about the more than 200 communities that do not have access to high-speed Internet? Government is still dragging its feet on that initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Based on the minister's comments today in the media, it appears that this government is tightening its control on the release of information. No longer will the media, the Opposition, or the public be allowed to see materials used to brief ministers when they assume new portfolios or prepare for the House of Assembly.

I ask the Premier: Why are you limiting access to information and making your government more secretive?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the first review of the ATIPPA legislation was completed last year. We commissioned Mr. John Cummings, QC to do that report. The legislative amendments we are bringing forward in the House this session are based on his recommendations and the consultations he got in from a number of a different stakeholders and public bodies.

Mr. Speaker, we think we have a good, comprehensive piece of legislation here that clarifies the act and at the same time brings it in line with all other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, I would add we have ample time this afternoon and however long it goes to debate this issue in the House. I am sure the members have lots of questions and we want to try to provide the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we see is that access delayed is indeed access denied. Denying access to briefing materials for five years means you will never know what information, for instance, any of the current ministers would have. With the proposed amendments this could be called, in our opinion, the official secrets act, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why you are going well beyond the recommendations of the Cummings report? Are you changing the legislation to merely protect current ministers from embarrassment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the majority of Mr. Cummings' recommendations have been accepted or modified. There have been some rejections but most of them have been accepted. We are quite pleased with the piece of legislation we put together. It took an awful lot of time and consideration and input to get us where we are. We have a comprehensive piece of legislation that will guide us for years to come. It is in line with other jurisdictions in the Province. Mr. Speaker, it is an Access to Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say that everybody has to have access to information, and we have to give out as much information as we can, this act gives that right; but also, Mr. Speaker, it strikes a balance in what is in the interest of good stewardship and the interest of good government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So far what we have seen is about half of those recommendations have not been accepted. Back in 2003, the Blue Book that the former Premier Williams stated that an effective Freedom of Information Act is the best safeguard against the tendency of governments to descend into secrecy and elitism. He promised that Cabinet documents would be in the public domain with full and prompt disclosure of information.

I ask the Premier: Why are you now abandoning this philosophy and instead descending back into secrecy and elitism?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings made some strong recommendations with respect to the secrecy of Cabinet documents. It is absolutely essential to have certain information that you cannot disclose, especially with regard to Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, this lays out a regime for Cabinet disclosure. It is a good regime. It lays out what cannot be disclosed and what can be disclosed. It is an Access to Information Act. It is not a secrecy act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So far what we have seen, it will add time and it will add cost to that access to information. When in Opposition, former Premier Williams worried that under ATIPPA Cabinet could hide information regarding, for instance, the development of Voisey's Bay and the Lower Churchill. Now the current Premier is limiting and restricting any access to this type of information.

I ask the Premier: Why are you limiting access to provide more secrecy around such important decisions to be made like the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who is concerned about access to information and the practice of this government only has to compare it to the kind of access to information former Administrations had for the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, it was little or nothing. There is more information available to the people of the Province now, Mr. Speaker, than ever before in our history.

As far as Muskrat Falls is concerned, Mr. Speaker, there is no project in the history of this Province that has more information released on it or more public discussion. A far cry from the two attempts by the former Liberal Administration to develop the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: There is no question that information will be much harder to get, especially when it comes to the Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government quietly announced the appointments to the Board of Directors of Nalcor. They appointed Mr. Terry Styles as Chair, even though he has no experience in energy or large-scale projects.

I ask the Premier: At such an important time in our history of this Province and with the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls looming, why did you make such an inexperienced decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning absolutely offensive. We have stellar people throughout this Province who are prepared to lend their efforts to the well-being of Newfoundland and Labrador, to good development in this Province, to bring their gifts, talents and experience.

I am delighted to have Terry Styles as Chair of Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, an experienced business person in this Province who has a vast experience, not only in business but of education, and is credible, is principled. We all should be grateful to have him, Mr. Speaker, not casting aspersions on him here in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: This is not about the individual. There are few checks and balances in place at Nalcor, and a strong board is required to hold the managers accountable. These appointments actually weaken the accountability of Nalcor.

I ask the Premier: The minister stated that these new appointees reflect a strong level of expertise at Nalcor, what experience is he talking about because none of these new appointees have any experience at Nalcor's business lines?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition should explain why the Liberals appointed Danny Dumaresque as Chair of Nalcor. Then we can see what standards they held, Mr. Speaker, and then compare the people that we have recommended to the board of Nalcor and see how they stand up.

I do not back away from any of the appointments we have made to the board, Mr. Speaker. They bring vast knowledge, experience, and integrity to this process, Mr. Speaker, and we are glad to have them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, government has amended the ATIPP Act on client-solicitor privilege without the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador decision released on October 26, 2011. This ruling only came out after the report was written and accepted by government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is government seeking to overturn the decision of the highest court in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member would repeat his question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question for the benefit of the minister. Again, I have lots of time here today.

Government has amended the ATIPP Act on client-solicitor privilege without the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador decision released on October 26, 2011. This ruling only came out after the report was written and accepted by government.

I would ask you, Mr. Minister: Why is government seeking to overturn the decision of the highest court in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court made a decision on solicitor-client privilege based on the vagueness of the information that was in the act. It was the interpretation of the Supreme Court that the language was vague enough to allow the Commissioner to have access to that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was the recommendation of Mr. Cummings, even before the Supreme decision came down, that solicitor-client privilege should be as absolute as possible. That recommendation was made even before the court decision.

Mr. Speaker, everybody would agree that solicitor-client privilege needs to be as absolute as possible. It is a right, a privilege of the law, and we have to stick with it, Mr. Speaker (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is disconcerting to hear the minister questioning the ability of the highest court in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, government is introducing a blanket exemption on the release of any information touching upon solicitor-client privilege; any appeal must be done through the Supreme Court rather than through the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, why is government forcing people of this Province into expensive and lengthy legal court action on matters which could easily be avoided by referring to the Privacy Commissioner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my previous answer. Solicitor-client privilege must be as absolute as we can possibly make it. It is exactly that, a client-solicitor privilege. That is what it is. It is respected in all areas of law, all the legal fraternity; judges as well will respect and want solicitor-client privilege. That decision was made based on the vagueness of the language in the act and that is the only reason it was made. It was an interpretation based on the vagueness of the language. The government has moved to correct the language, so as to protect solicitor-client privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills has indicated government will appeal the decisions to hold the college liable for the end of service gratuity mandated by Qatar law. The Citizens' Representative has indicated that government has already appealed decisions on this matter and lost, including appeals to the Supreme Court in Qatar.

I ask the minister: This is Qatar law. There is no recourse beyond the Qatari Supreme Court. To whom else does our government intend to appeal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the issue that was just brought forward by the member opposite is ongoing in Qatar at this time through another level of court. Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak, I suppose, of what is going to be the decision of the court down in Qatar. If it was in Canada, we still cannot pre-judge what that is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that we need a ruling on. It is also related to the fact that we do business through the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar, and we need some clarity on issues as we move forward. Mr. Speaker, clarity is obviously necessary, because there may be cost implications for this government. We need to make sure that we protect the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, a legal consultant in Qatar has indicated that because there are clear guidelines in Qatar labour law regarding one's entitlement to an end of service gratuity, courts will award the benefit, and any stipulation claiming otherwise will be void.

So I ask the minister: Do we not expect foreign companies in Canada to abide by Canadian law?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, based on companies that are in other countries doing work in Canada, I cannot give a blanket statement as to what the expectations or what any decisions would be. What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is this government is not prepared for any more giveaways. Any time we do business, whether with another country, within this country, wherever we do business, Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the rights and the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, articles 12.4 and 12.5 of the comprehensive agreement between Qatar and the college states that the contractor and its employees shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the State of Qatar, and that the agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Qatar.

So I ask the minister: You have gone to the courts in Qatar and lost, you have appealed these decisions in the Supreme Court and lost, you mentioned giveaways, when will you stop wasting taxpayers' money and pay the end of service gratuity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government will do what we feel is most appropriate under the circumstances in any contract that we enter into. What is always most appropriate, Mr. Speaker, is that we protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that we spend the taxpayers' money wisely.

Any time we enter into a negotiation, whether it with another state for a college or whether it is for the development of an oil field, Mr. Speaker, this government acts in the best interests of the people of this Province, and we will do nothing different in this ongoing negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, when we asked last day and today about the legal costs incurred in fighting college employees' entitlement to the gratuity legislated by Qatar, the minister continues to say the government will represent the best interests of the Province.

I ask the minister - illegally denying legislated benefits to employees is not in the best interest of anyone. I would ask you to answer the question: What legal costs have been incurred thus far fighting employees' entitlements to this gratuity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the people who are employed to work at the College of the North Atlantic signed the contract with the College of the North Atlantic. It is overseen in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we are presently negotiating a new contract. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is absolutely paramount is that we enter into a contract that not just supports the people of Qatar for the college, but is also a benefit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we enter this negotiation or any negotiation, we are not just going to spend money unless we understand why we are spending it, where it is going, and there is a return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. If there is no return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is absolutely no benefit or no need for us to be in any kind of contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the issue of seismic activity interfering with our fishing grounds is once again in the news. Fishermen are alleging that a prospecting company, MKI, has violated its approved plan on where and when it can conduct seismic testing. As a result, shrimp catch rates have dropped off considerably.

I ask the minister: Has this company been found in violation? If so, what safeguards are in place to ensure prospecting companies in our waters are properly monitored?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On June 8, the C-NLOPB issued a statement that it was aware of a report, Mr. Speaker, and indicated that it would be meeting with stakeholders this week. To make it clear, although Nalcor is an investor in the seismic surveys, they are not involved in the operation of the survey. Even though they are not directly involved, Mr. Speaker, they have been in contact with the company to ensure safety and that the environment is being observed in the survey. The C-NLOPB is looking into the issue, Mr. Speaker, and will report back directly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Province has informed the RED Boards that they will provide funding to the boards only until July 16 of this year, but there is no indication that provincial funding will be provided beyond that date.

I ask the minister: Will the Province be providing their share of provincial funding to RED Boards beyond July 16?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this issue came up, as we know, through the federal budget. The federal government, through ACOA, decided not to continue to fund the REDBs at 75 per cent. We were in for 25 per cent. We said at that time that we cannot backfill these programs for the federal government, but we will continue our economic activity as we have done.

We mentioned in this House there is up to $200 million in core funding and services and that we have built a capacity for economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are committed to that. Our Budget this year reflected we are still committed to it. We will be committed to it for years to come and continue the great work that is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, since the federal government announced the end of ACOA funding for RED Boards, staff have been leaving the boards and finding employment elsewhere. The Province has not confirmed their support to the future of the economic development board model.

I ask the minister: Is it the plan of this government to allow the economic development board model to die, or will you now commit to the sustainability of the board model for community economic development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, along with the entrepreneurs and private sector out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the small and medium enterprises are driving economic development. Those people that get up every day are driving small business; they are meeting payroll, they are investing, and they are doing those types of things that make small and medium enterprises the economic driver of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in response to those support services that are there, the volunteer groups, capacity within our department, IBRD, we have twenty-two regional offices and fifty-six economic development officers. We have capacity on the ground. We have tremendous volunteers our there. We expect that together we will continue to improve economic development. At this point in time, we have tremendous capacity on the ground and we are going to continue to use it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Today government is bringing into this House the most regressive and repressive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Who was consulted in the drafting of Bill 29?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner was given a mandate of things to review with respect to this particular piece of legislation. He was also given a mandate to have consultations across the Province. Eight consultations were held, two in Labrador, two on the West Coast, one in Gander, two in St. John's; there were eight hearings, Mr. Speaker, and ten people responded to the eight hearings.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the consultant made representations to the Leader of the Opposition, to the Leader of the Third Party, and to a number of – all health care boards and all school boards, to get written submissions, Mr. Speaker. The consultation was given all the way – including the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I asked the question: who was consulted in the drafting of the bill, not in the consultations that led up to the drafting, Mr. Speaker. There is a difference.

I have read carefully the submission the Information and Privacy Commissioner made to Commissioner Cummings, who conducted the legislative review of the Access to Information and Access to Privacy Act. I cannot see a reflection of the Information and Privacy Commissioner's recommendations in the new amendments to the act.

I ask the minister: Was the Information and Privacy Commissioner consulted in the drafting of Bill 29?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Cummings' report he made special reference to the tremendous amount of co-operation that he received from the commissioner's office and the commissioner's staff. It was very much a part of the consultations, and made some valuable input into this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, a commissioner is not involved in the drafting of the report obviously – the drafting of the legislation, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, he was not even consulted by the minister either from the sounds of it. This government came to power, Mr. Speaker, in 2003 with a Blue Book promising full and prompt disclosure of information including Cabinet documents to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What does she now have to say to the people of the Province regarding their right to access to information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with people having access to information. The more information you can provide to people, Mr. Speaker, the better informed they are, the better they understand your rationale for doing certain things. Mr. Speaker, it also requires when you are in governance that in the best interest of good governance and good stewardship that you moderate some types of information as far as making them available to the public.

This government is more open, provides more information, Mr. Speaker, than any government in the history of our Province. We are very proud of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Premier has ever looked at all the black marks on the pages that we get back to our requests.

Mr. Speaker, the Information and Privacy Commissioner in his report to Commissioner Cummings says we must maintain a fine balance between the right people have to information and the obligation government has to protect privacy, both of government and of public bodies. Both elements are necessary for a healthy functioning democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why has the government through this bill destroyed this essential fine balance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the Leader of the Third Party's preamble we found what the real essence of the trouble is with this legislation. It means that people on the opposite side are going to have to do their work instead of having public officials do it for them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, providing information to the people of the Province is critical. Mr. Speaker, there is confidential information that is made available to government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – on a regular basis. To do business properly in this Province, Mr. Speaker, there are covenants made to keep that information private. We believe in this legislation, in the modifications to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, the amendments, that we have found the balance between the public's right to know and good stewardship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 29 forces people to appeal decisions of the heads of public bodies and executive council directly to the courts, no longer to the Commissioner. This costly and time consuming procedure will be a barrier to many seeking information.

I ask the Premier: How does this new direction fit with their long-standing promise of full and prompt disclosure of information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in this process I will hopefully have the opportunity to demonstrate to people where their requests for information come from, and that is going to be very eye-opening to the people of the Province. Ordinary citizens who look to access information from this government do so readily, Mr. Speaker. They do it in record time, Mr. Speaker, at little or no cost. There are lots of vexatious requests for information, lots of phishing expeditions, Mr. Speaker, but they do not come from ordinary people here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in a scrum with the media, the Minister of Justice said that part of the rationale behind not making briefing notes to ministers accessible is the chill that such notes create for officials advising their ministers. Mr. Cummings says in his report that it is not the purpose of the act to make things easier for civil servants, and that providing information to the public is as much a part of their responsibilities as everything else they do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he please explain what he is referring to when he talks about the chill that comes over the public service sector?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to be debating this act for some time in this House, and all these questions will be addressed, and the hon. member will have lots of time to speak to it.

Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful to release all the – the Premier just mentioned. It would be wonderful to release all the information to the public, but, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of good stewardship and good governance that is just not possible. Certain information has to be protected. Ministers need to be briefed when they take over new portfolios; that stands to reason. On previous occasions – as you are well aware, there is lots of discussion in the media about ministers being briefed.

Certain information will be protected, Mr. Speaker, for five years – briefings for ministers taking over new portfolios will be prevented from disclosure for a period of five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, motivated by government advertising, seniors in my district have been applying for woodcutting permits, only to discover they are not eligible for the 35 per cent discount, despite government releases including woodcutting. When I looked into the matter, I found that government offices have not received direction on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Service NL: Can he explain to this House why the government is not honouring their own Budget commitment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that thinks very highly of the seniors in this Province. That is why we recently went out and made a significant investment in our seniors by reducing – my colleague from Service NL reduced the driver's licence, Mr. Speaker, which is a significant savings.

Mr. Speaker, from our perspective in Environment and Conservation, we reduced our salmon licences, the stays in parks, which is an excellent savings, especially on monthly sites and seasonal sites. To say that we do not do anything for our seniors, Mr. Speaker, is certainly incorrect. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member take up and read our press releases and see just what we do for seniors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, a press release on June 1 included woodcutting but did not include the fees. Many seniors in my district, Mr. Speaker, are on fixed incomes and they watch every dollar, the reason government used for creating those discounts and reduced government fees in the first place. They are finding they still have to pay full price for their woodcutting permits. I have constituents who have had to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Service NL: When can these people expect to receive their refund and an apology from the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were quite pleased earlier this year and through the Budget process, and back on June 1 when the Minister of Environment and Conservation and I were very pleased to roll out the 35 per cent reduction in fees that affected seniors throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We were quite pleased to announce some of those significant savings for seniors in the registration of vehicles, in the reduction of fees for their driver's licence, because we understand they have made a lifelong commitment to this Province of ours, Mr. Speaker. They made a lifelong commitment as residents of the Province. We understand there is a regulatory burden that exists on all people, and we try to alleviate some of that financial burden as well.

Now if the hon. member opposite, or seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador would like to come to us and talk to us about other ways that we can work with seniors, which we do, every member in this House does on this side of the House, we would be more than pleased to engage them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, we know this government's teacher allocation formula is not providing adequate resources for special needs education for senior high school classes, for French Immersion programs, just to name a few problem areas. These problems are more and more apparent at this time of the year when parents are seeing their children falling behind.

When will the Minister of Education step in and reform the current teacher allocation process?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to take a look at a report that came out of New Brunswick called Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools. Let me make it clear, just listen to this number. In New Brunswick, there is one special education teacher for every 217 students. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, there is one teacher for every eighty-four students. Mr. Speaker, this report even points to the teacher allocation model that we have in this Province as being the best in Atlantic Provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These concerns about the outdated and flawed teacher allocation model have been repeatedly raised –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – by the NLTA and by the provincial school council's federation.

I ask the minister: Is he aware of these concerns or is he simply choosing to ignore them?

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

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, never will we ignore the people of the Province and any other factor that impacts upon the students of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning of sitting with about forty students who did the rural education program at Memorial. I just wanted to sit and listen to what they had to say. Mr. Speaker, their message is loud and clear: This Province is a wonderful one to teach in. We have wonderful students. We have the most qualified teachers in the country, Mr. Speaker. From there, Mr. Speaker, the record speaks for itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, that I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

Further, I give notice, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 11, that I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, I was just wondering, this being Monday, I think the Member for St. John's Centre was about to file a notice of motion for Private Members' Day on Wednesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to introduce a notice of motion.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the provincial government currently only has a strategy for social housing that does not deal with the full crisis of affordable housing in the Province; and

WHEREAS the home ownership assistance program promised by this government in the provincial election has not come to fruition; and

WHEREAS shelter is a human right and all people in the Province have the right to housing that meets the national occupancy standards; and

WHEREAS the House of Commons passed the motion on May 4 that the federal government should: a, keep with Canada's obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; b, support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness; and c, adopt measures to expand the stock of affordable rental housing with a view to providing economic benefits to local housing construction businesses;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to commit to a provincial housing and homelessness action plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to call upon the federal government to renew the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, the Affordable Housing initiative and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program when the programs are up for renewal in 2014; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to create a division of housing and homelessness that will be given the responsibility to coordinate government-wide action, work with all levels of government and the community on affordable housing, and be responsible for research and the development of provincial housing policy issues.

Seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is to report that the motion just read will be the motion debated in the House on Wednesday, June 13.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion on the floor for the Government House Leader, moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that we now call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the Orders of the Day be now called.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Monday, June 11, 2012.

I further move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Monday, June 11, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn on Monday, June 11, at 5:30 p.m. and it has been further moved that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2012.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill, an act entitled, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, Bill 29, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 29 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act", carried. (Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, second reading of Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act". (Bill 29)

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

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

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 29 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection of Privacy Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill 29, which will amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to implement many of the legislative amendments and recommendations coming out of the review or report by Mr. John Cummings, QC.

Mr. Speaker, the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act, also known as ATIPPA, is a very important piece of legislation for this Province. It applies to more than 460 public bodies from government departments and agencies, to health care and educational bodies, as well as to municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, by way of history, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was one of the first provinces in Canada to officially adopt legislation establishing a statutory regime for citizens to access information in the custody of public bodies. On June 16, 1981, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador proclaimed the Freedom of Information Act, which granted citizens increased opportunity for informed participation in the democratic process and the assurance of greater government accountability.

Mr. Speaker, given the length of time that this legislation was in place, a committee was established to review the Freedom of Information Act in December 2000; that committee was given a broad mandate to review and make recommendations on all aspects of the Freedom of Information Act.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, recommended at that time that the Freedom of Information Act be repealed and replaced with new legislation which would provide specific rights of access to information; which would provide for protection of personal privacy; which would ensure access to one's own personal information; and to establish, Mr. Speaker, an independent process for reviewing decisions made by departments and agencies.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant the committee's recommendations, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act received royal assent on March 14, 2002. Mr. Speaker, on January 17, 2005, ATIPPA came into force by this government, with the exception of Part IV, Protection of Privacy, and that was proclaimed in January of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, after five years of coming into force by legislation, ATIPPA required a comprehensive review, and it had to be done not more than five years after its coming into force. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2010, as Minister of Justice, I announced the appointment of John Cummings, QC, as Commissioner to carry out the ATIPPA legislative review. We were pleased to have Mr. Cummings carry out this review. He is eminently qualified, a former civil servant, and has worked on many of the top issues facing this Province. He has held executive positions, including Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General for the Province. He also served as Clerk of the Executive Council, and Secretary to the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings was provided with a mandate which required him to examine a number of things, including the following, but not limited to the following: public experience in using the ATIPPA; and public-body experience in using and administering ATIPPA. He was asked to review whether there were any types of information that should be made more readily available, whether or not there were any types of information that required greater protection. He was also asked to review an examination of the complaints process through the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There were other things in his mandate, Mr. Speaker, like response times and fee structures, examination of the mandatory and discretionary exemptions, but these were basically the core of his mandate.

As I mentioned in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings mandate also required him to hold public hearings throughout the Province. These public hearings took place in May and June of 2010. They took place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador City, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, Clarenville, and St. John's. Mr. Cummings, in his report, noted that there was a lack of response through the public hearing sessions. In total, he heard from approximately ten members of the general public. These hearings were well advertised, Mr. Speaker, but in the eight hearings they received responses and heard from ten members in the public sessions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings was also given a mandate, in addition, to conduct consultations with key stakeholders and to receive written submissions from public bodies. He solicited submissions from the Office of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party, all government departments, all schools boards, and all health care boards. He also contacted some key government agencies, key government boards, commissions, and municipalities.

Mr. Cummings also received, as I mentioned earlier, a great deal of co-operation from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Ed Ring, as well as Mr. Ed Ring's staff. Mr. Cummings noted that he received a very detailed written submission from the Commissioner's office, which was valuable in preparing his report. Mr. Speaker, the ATIPPA review resulted in thirty-three recommendations in total, of which twenty-eight are legislative and the focus of this bill. The others, Mr. Speaker, are mostly policy recommendations that are under further review and need to be fleshed out. This bill deals only with the legislative amendments.

I would like to take you, Mr. Speaker, now through some of the key legislative amendments contained in Bill 29. They are extensive amendments, many of which we model on similar legislation from other jurisdictions in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I should say that this statutory review, while necessary because of its provision in the legislation itself, this is very sensitive legislation and very comprehensive legislation. Even though there is little representation in the consultations, there was a lot of public discussion in the media because of this legislation, one of the most significant pieces of legislation in government. It was a new piece of legislation. In the five years we spent going through it, Mr. Speaker, we came up with procedural anomalies, matters that need to be clarified, and matters that need to be amended. Subsequently, this was a very important review.

We had to balance, it was mentioned earlier today, the need for people to access information and have access to public records; we need to balance that with, also, the best interests of the public. That is a delicate balance to find, Mr. Speaker. We think we have found it in this piece of legislation and we have tried to incorporate that balance in the amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, it is nice to be able to give public information and it would probably be very politically advantageous to do that. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of good stewardship and in the interest of good governance, that is not always possible; some information has to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all refer to section 18 of ATIPPA, which is the Cabinet confidence section. As recommended by Mr. Cummings, for consistency, the definition of Cabinet records will reflect the list found in the Province's Management Of Information Act. These records include, Mr. Speaker: a memorandum, the purpose of which is to inform or recommend policy to Cabinet; a discussion paper or policy analysis, or proposal, or advice, or briefing material prepared for Cabinet; a record that is used for or reflects communications or discussions among ministers on matters relating to government decisions; a record created for or by a minister for the purpose of briefing that minister on a matter for the Cabinet; and a record created during the process of developing and preparing a submission for Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the matter of Cabinet confidences has now been extended to include all the definitions of Cabinet records as put forth by the Management of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill, the Cabinet records are classified in three ways: there are official Cabinet records, there are discontinued Cabinet records, and there are supporting Cabinet records. If I can elaborate somewhat, an official Cabinet record, Mr. Speaker, is a record that is considered in a meeting of Cabinet. It enters a Cabinet room and is discussed at a meeting of Cabinet. A discontinued Cabinet record is a record that was originally intended to inform the Cabinet process but eventually got withdrawn, taken back, or not included. A supporting Cabinet record informs the Cabinet process, but it is not an official Cabinet record; it does not get inside the Cabinet room.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things Bill 29 provides is that all Cabinet records may be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner with the exception of the official Cabinet records. Those are the ones that go inside the Cabinet room. These official Cabinet records, Mr. Speaker, are only official Cabinet records if they are certified by the Clerk. That certification process in and of itself is conclusive that the record is an official Cabinet record.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to note, and indeed, Mr. Cummings took great pains to explain that the need for Cabinet confidentiality is very important. Again, I wish to emphasize that all Cabinet records may be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner in the event of a dispute of whether or not a Cabinet record should be disclosed; there is access to the Privacy Commissioner to review those records, with the exception of official Cabinet records that have been certified by the Clerk.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to Cabinet confidences have potential consequences for the Auditor General; therefore Bill 29 also amends the Auditor General Act to preserve the current practice of providing the Auditor General with certain information to perform his necessary duties. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with provisions in the Child and Youth Advocate Act and with the Citizens' Representative Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to move to section 27 with regard to business information. As proposed by Mr. Cummings, Bill 29 provides greater protection for business information. Currently under section 27 of ATIPPA, the exception requires satisfying all parts of a three-part test. If the information meets all three parts of the test then that information is exempted. The three parts are: if the information contains trade secrets, if it consists of commercial and financial information that was supplied in confidence, or consists of commercial and financial information that could result in significant financial loss or gain if it was disclosed. These are the three parts of the test.

Mr. Speaker, the new section 27 in Bill 29 is similar to that section; however, only one of the three circumstances must be satisfied now to protect business information. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the bill is the similar to other jurisdictions; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut all have similar provisions allowing for the protection of business information using a similar one-part test.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment also includes protection for royalty information, except for aggregated royalty information. The aggregated royalty information will be available, but not the individual royalty information.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings emphasized in his report that it is essential when the Province is in negotiation on a transaction that its negotiation strategy and tactics be confidential. Real harm may be done to the Province if this information falls into the wrong hands. The amendment, Mr. Speaker, to this business information provision will offer more flexible and comprehensive protection to third party business information.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not provide that all business contacts should be protected from disclosure. This is a democratic society, and any business has to accept that there will be a certain level of disclosure when dealing with government. As recommended by Mr. Cummings, section 27 now gives us more flexible and comprehensive protection to third party business information.

Also as recommended by Mr. Cummings, Bill 29 replaces section 30 of ATIPPA with a new provision to permit greater flexibility for the disclosure of personal information. Mr. Speaker, the new section 30 of ATIPPA will permit a public body to disclose personal information if it is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The current act, Mr. Speaker, is very restrictive in what we can release in terms of personal information. The new act makes much more personal information available. It will allow, for example, a school board to disclose to an MHA a student's achievement so that it can be recognized by the MHA at a public ceremony. This was not possible before under current legislation.

Mr. Speaker, section 30 will permit a public body to disclose personal information if it is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Bill 29 provides direction on what is an unreasonable invasion of privacy. For example, disclosure of personal information is not an unreasonable invasion if the third party to whom the information relates has already consented to or has in fact even him or herself requested the disclosure. Neither is it an unreasonable invasion if compelling circumstances exists affecting a person's health or safety, or in fact, an act or a regulation authorizes the disclosure. The disclosure of personal information will be presumed to constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy if it relates to medical, psychiatric, or psychological history. For example, if it consists of an individual's bank account or credit card information, if it indicates racial or ethnic origins, religious beliefs, political beliefs or associations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings, in his consultations with the Information and Privacy Commissioner's Office, with the Department of Justice, with Memorial University and other public bodies, felt that a reasonable case had been made for permitting increased disclosure of personal information when it is clear that the release will not do any harm and may be desirable. That is an improvement, Mr. Speaker, significantly, over the old act. It allows more information to be made available and it is in line, Mr. Speaker, with other jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. They all have similar provisions in their legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as recommended by Mr. Cummings, this bill amends section 60 of ATIPPA concerning the review of solicitor-client privilege records. The bill amends section 60 to clarify that where there is a dispute relating to a claim of solicitor-client privilege, the issue should be referred to the Supreme Court Trial Division for resolution of the matter. Mr. Cummings felt that solicitor-client privilege should be as near to absolute as possible, and the only way to provide for this is to entrust its review to the courts. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and it agrees with Mr. Cummings' recommendation.

New Brunswick legislation contains a provision that solicitor-client privilege records cannot be reviewed by the Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I think most people in the legal fraternity would agree with this recommendation. Mr. Speaker, I might just reiterate a question from Question Period that there is some concern that we are overriding the opinion of the courts here. We are not doing that at all, Mr. Speaker. The court, in reviewing this issue previously, made a decision that the solicitor-client records under the act had to be made available to the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, they based that decision on the vagueness of the language in the act, that the language was not strong enough in the act to keep that information from the review of the Commissioner. Mr. Cummings, in his report, long before this decision was made in the court, made this recommendation, that solicitor-client privilege be as near to absolute as possible. Mr. Speaker, we agree with that. All governments agree with that. All legal fraternity agree with that. Nothing should be more privileged and more private than solicitor-client privilege.

Mr. Speaker, section 20 of ATIPPA currently provides that advice and recommendations prepared for a minister or by a minister can be protected from disclosure. Section 21 of ATIPPA is being amended to include additional categories of records, which would be protected under this section. Currently, as we mentioned, it provides advice and recommendations for a minister to be protected, but Bill 29 also adds protection for analysis, policy, policy options, consultations or deliberations. Mr. Cummings felt that this will ensure the proper functioning of government when addressing public policy issues. Again, several jurisdictions, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, all contain similar provisions for consultations and deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 also contains protection for the contents of formal research or an audit report that is incomplete. An audit report or a piece of research that is in preliminary form, or in draft form or is under review – in other words, that is incomplete – will be protected under this bill, as it is in PEI and Alberta, for example, unless no progress has been made on that piece of research or audit report for three years. If no progress has been made on the research or audit report for three years, then the protection is off.

Bill 29 also amendments section 7 to protect for five years a record created for the purpose of briefing a minister assuming a new portfolio and a record created for preparing a minister for sittings in the House of Assembly. Again, this is modeled after Alberta's legislation. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and to repeat, Mr. Cummings felt that had to be amended to ensure the proper functioning of government when addressing public policy issues.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that during the review Mr. Cummings recommended that ATIPPA be amended to provide protection for records in workplace dispute resolution processes. As a result, ATIPPA is being amended, similar to New Brunswick's legislation, to provide a public body with the ability to refuse to disclose records relating to a workplace investigation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight, however, that the parties involved in that investigation will be able to access their own records, as will witnesses to the investigation will be able to access their own statements.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw your attention to the new section 26.1 of ATIPPA, which will extend the protection afforded to labour relations records under ATIPPA. In his review report Mr. Cummings recommended that government consider whether additional protection was required for labour relations records. Government considered this issue and as a result this bill extends the protection afforded to third party labour relations records to public bodies as an employer. Previously, only third party labour relations records were protected under ATIPPA; now they are protected as they relate to public bodies as employers. Mr. Speaker, Ontario and Nova Scotia both protect the labour relations records of public bodies as an employer.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to a very significant piece of this legislation. Bill 29 amends ATIPPA to include a frivolous and vexatious provision which is not currently included in the act. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings found, in his consultations, a lot of presentation from different stakeholders of the immense amount of time and resources that had to be employed to requests for information that were not followed up on, that were not received, that after the work had been done the people came back and said I really do not need it. A lot of time was spent on frivolous and vexatious requests, so now, Mr. Speaker, we are amending ATIPPA to include a provision which is not in the current act. The provision, Mr. Speaker, is that ATIPPA will be amended to permit a public body to disregard an access request if the request is frivolous or vexatious, if it is made in bad faith, trivial, if it is repetitious or systematic, or amounts to abuse of process.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of guiding a public body in determining what is frivolous or vexatious there is an amount of information available that will help advise and inform direction with respect to this. There are a lot of Commissioner reports from other jurisdictions that we can draw on, there is case law that we can draw on, and there are policy manuals provided which will provide guidance on what constitutes a request that is frivolous or vexatious. Mr. Speaker, over time as we build up our own collection of decisions and material, that will help inform us as to refine this process even further.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, the public body will not need to obtain prior approval from the Commissioner's office to make this decision, but an applicant, if he feels aggrieved by that decision, has a right of appeal through the Commissioner's office.

Mr. Speaker, language has also been added to provide a public body with the ability to disregard a single request that is excessively broad; excessively broad will recognize very broad concepts and will recognize that guidance will be required on what is excessively broad. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, prior approval will be required from the Commissioner's office before that request can be disregarded.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 also amends the timelines for the Commissioner's office to conduct informal and formal reviews. Mr. Cummings recommended the Commissioner's office be given the discretion to determine the length of informal review periods in all cases. There is now thirty days, Mr. Speaker, to complete an informal review. Bill 29 amends ATIPPA to provide the Commissioner's office with an additional thirty days in which to complete informal reviews bringing the time limit to sixty days. This approach, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with the Personal Health Information Act as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting here that in the National Freedom of Information Audit released in May 2010, this jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador, the response time, we were second in the country. Only 7 per cent of personal responses, Mr. Speaker, responses for personal information were outside the statutory deadlines. We were already doing a good job in getting out personal information.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings also recommended the Commissioner's office be given more than ninety days to complete a formal review. Now he has ninety days to complete a formal review. Most reviews, I should point out, are done within the informal time period, but if a formal review is needed there are up to ninety days now available. He recommended a 120-day time limit with the possibility of an indefinite extension. Mr. Speaker, our recommendation, our amendment to this bill provides the Commissioner's office with a 120-day time limit; this approach is also consistent with the Personal Health Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, section 5 records are exempt from the act all together. Section 5 exempts a whole list of documents from the act: judge's notes, decisions of judges, records in a court file, personal records of an MHA, constituency records of an MHA, and so on; there is a list of them there that are outside the act altogether.

Section 5 now, Mr. Speaker, has been amended to also include, in addition to these, two other pieces of information. An incomplete police investigation file is now outside the act. A police investigation that is still ongoing and is not complete is outside the act. Police informant information is also exempted from the act. In the past, Mr. Speaker, we exempted ongoing prosecution records, but we felt the same protection needed to be extended to incomplete police investigations and police informant information.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to section 5 records, two recent court decisions have confirmed that the Commissioner does not have the ability to review any of the categories or records excluded from ATIPPA under section 5. Two items have been added to that, as I mentioned: ongoing police investigations and police informant information. These records, Mr. Speaker, are exempt completely outside of the act and will not be available to the Commissioner for review. There is still an oversight provision here, because the public continues to have the right to have these records reviewed by a court. There is still an oversight provision.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, as we embarked on the public consultation process, this government was open to a comprehensive and critical review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Mr. Speaker, the amendments in Bill 29 reflect input received during the public consultations and are the result of extensive jurisdictional analysis.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 includes many positive changes to our Province's access to information regime. As a result of these amendments, public bodies will have the ability to disclose personal information in legitimate circumstances where it could do no harm and where it could not do so before without compromising an individual's expectation of privacy. Mr. Speaker, these amendments to ATIPPA would also ensure more flexible and comprehensive protection of third-party business information. Our Province will have the ability to negotiate with businesses and provide assurance that negotiation strategies and tactics remain confidential.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Bill 29 will extend the time provided through the Information and Privacy Commissioner's Office to conduct informal and formal reviews. It is desirable for all parties involved in a complaint to provide the Commissioner with additional time to resolve that complaint informally. Additionally, Bill 29 codifies the Commissioner's authority to investigate a complaint by an individual that their personal information has been handled inappropriately by a public body. Mr. Speaker, these amendments are sound changes to our Province's access to information regime.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 will correct the procedural and substantive insufficiencies and inefficiencies that exist in the current legislation. It will modernize the legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, it will make our legislation consistent with national standards and jurisprudence. The process, Mr. Speaker, has been an important exercise not only for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also for the people of our Province. The amendments outlined above reflect input submitted during the consultation. Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to openness and transparency. The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act is a clear demonstration of this belief.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 29. I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and look forward to participation from members on both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I cannot say I am happy to stand here and debate this bill today. I will say right at the beginning that I do not agree with the intent of the amendments to this piece of legislation, and I think that is quite clear from the questions we asked in Question Period today. I guess we may as well get that right out of the way. I think I am going to take the course of this next hour to explain my issues with this piece of legislation, discuss some of the amendments, and also maybe to go back in history a little bit and talk about some of the things that were said over the last ten or so years.

Again, I would start –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. I ask all members of the House if they would respect that acknowledgement and take their private conversations outside.

Thank you.

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

Again, I would begin by saying that there have been some comments made that the purpose of this legislation has to do with good stewardship and good governance, and I think that we can certainly remove that pretence and say it has absolutely nothing to do with that in my opinion. That has nothing to do with this. This is nothing but a very deliberate attempt to conceal more information from being put out into the public domain. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

I have some notes I will refer to. I listened to what the minister had to say with great interest. It seems funny, Mr. Speaker, that something like whistle-blower legislation which has been in the works for some six years now – my God, we cannot make any movement on that. Then we talk about this legislation, to get it done so quickly, to get it out so fast. Especially after this most recent Court of Appeal decision was put out to the public, I mean major changes were done very quickly.

Just a few points here; the Premier suggested today in Question Period that as an Opposition, now we are going to have to go out and do our homework and do our work instead of having members of government and government staff do it. What I say, that is going to be impossible, Mr. Speaker, because how are we going to have access to that information when it is being locked away and never see the light of day? Anything whatsoever that has to do with Cabinet is never going to be put out into the public whatsoever. There is absolutely no way around that. A lot of this is done based on the report, Mr. Speaker, of Mr. Cummings, who came up with a number of recommendations after a review. A mandatory review of legislation is necessary. We always need to make sure that our legislation is reviewed, especially something as important as this piece of legislation.

What I would say, one thing that struck me over the last number of days that we have had to prepare for this and review the information, and prepare ourselves for the debate is that these recommendations were passed in just over twelve months ago, back in January, 2011, the most recent Court of Appeal case where the Privacy Commissioner took the Department of Justice to court. It actually was a matter that went to the Court of Appeal, the highest level of court in this Province. That case was not heard until June, and the decision came out in October. I think it was October 26, 2011. It was very clear in that decision which was given, I guess it was a majority opinion, was that we talk about something like solicitor-client privilege, and in that case what the court clearly found is that the Privacy Commissioner did have access to this and should have access to this. Some of this legislation seems to be a clear intent or attempt to circumvent the rulings of our Court of Appeal.

I am going to take an opportunity to go through some of my notes here, Mr. Speaker. I just want to go back a little ways in history. As we know, our first piece of legislation was introduced back in the early 1980s. It was much needed, came out and we had it, then it was some time around the turn of the century that this became another issue. You had the passage of roughly twenty years. Again, it was undertaken by the Liberal government at that time: We need to have a committee; we need to make sure that we review this legislation.

I would note that at that time the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, made it very clear, in no uncertain terms, their thoughts and positions on the topic of access to information. They have done that, whether it be in press releases, whether in Question Period, or whether in their policy books. The 1999 PC Blue Book, I believe, actually said that the Transparency and Accountability Act would greatly enhance openness and accountability in government, but a comprehensive and effective Freedom of Information Act is the best safeguard against the tendency of governments to descend into official secrecy and elitism. Again, the Opposition Leader at that time, and later our Premier, made very clear of the fact that there should be no secrecy; everything should be out in the open. In fact, I believe that was one of the major components of that campaign, is, look, we cannot have any secrecy here. The people of this Province deserve all the information. How can we not have good democracy if we do not allow that?

There are just a couple of parts to that, Mr. Speaker. We talked about every government commissioned report would be put out in the public within thirty days of receiving it. Again, there would be amendments clearly identifying what should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents which would require full and prompt disclosure. There is more from the PC Blue Book back in 1999, Mr. Speaker. Just some of the quotes that you pull out here – again, I guess we have turned a 180 on this: Government departments must be prepared to have their activities openly scrutinized by the public. What I would say is that our new definition of what constitutes a Cabinet document completely flies in the face of that and what they ran on back in 1999.

At that time, one of the campaign promises, Mr. Speaker, was that a PC government would establish a new Freedom of Information Act. Again, they discussed that but we know that there was a review done and the new ATIPP legislation was brought in back, I think, in 2001. Again, everybody knew that there was work that needed to be done on this legislation. It was quite dated. At that time, it was stated that a PC government would establish a new act to reduce the cost of accessing information, to reduce the wait for information, and to ensure ministers actually provide the information requested where that information belongs in the public domain. What I would say is, again, with the new definition of Cabinet documents it appears that there is nothing in Cabinet that should be discussed out in the open, or out in public – absolutely nothing. Any scrap of paper used to inform the Cabinet – secret, not allowed to see it, not going to get it, and we have timelines put on it after.

I continue on actually – and I believe that the former Premier who was then Leader of the Opposition, when he took over, in his speech he took the time to quote one of the finest American Presidents, that being Abraham Lincoln, "Let the people know the truth, and the country is safe". "We will keep the people of this province fully informed at all times. There will be no secret documents. There will be no hidden agenda." These amendments are in direct contradiction of those words – direct contradiction. What we are asking is that all Cabinet documents be kept secret, absolutely no discretion to be exercised by the Privacy Commissioner, an independent Officer of this House who should have the right to review this information. I am not even going to get started with him yet because he has basically had the majority of his powers removed. He has had it taken away from him. This is an independent Officer who is supposed to have an opportunity to look at this information, we are not even going to let him look at this now so he can at least make a decision on whether it should be public or it should not be public.

In leading up to this, I took the time to go back through Hansard, I took the time to go back through the archives, and I actually reviewed much of the debate and much of the Question Period that happened ten years ago when we talked about this legislation. Again, the Opposition at that time was very clear that this is not good enough. We need to have information out there to the public. The public deserves to know. How can we have good government? Again, it is funny how things change when Oppositions become government and they turn around and in this case now – I guess that legislation was not put in force until 2005 with another part in 2008. How times have changed. Now we do not want anybody to see anything.

There was lots of opportunity here going through – there were a lot of questions that happened back in December of 2001, a lot questions by the Opposition, the then Premier at that time. He talked about ATIPP legislation is good, and I am not disputing that ATIPP legislation is good and has a purpose. We all know that, but what I would say is that we are changing from what the purpose of that legislation was. When ATIPP was introduced in 2001, when it was brought in, in place of the former Freedom of Information Act, it had the intent of ensuring that access to information would be treated as a matter of public right as opposed to government discretion. Well, these amendments are changing the ball game around here. Now it is a part of what does government want to let go in their discretion, which is apparently nothing.

It is funny, I have heard some different names put out for this information. Instead of the access to information, it is the denial of information, or – I like this one – it is the official secrets act; in some ways, if you think about it, we do not want Cabinet deliberations, or documents leading to Cabinet deliberations, or documents leading to documents that led to Cabinet deliberations. We do not want any of that to get out there; maybe we should call it the act to ensure that Cabinet ministers are not embarrassed or have any information disclosed in any way, shape, or form.

What we are trying to do is – again, we talk about that balance; we talk about that balance. We create the legislation that is balancing a citizen's right of access against those reasonable exceptions to access. We all know that there has to be a fine line there. Not everything should be out in the public eye. We would not want people's personal information disclosed so in certain ways it could be used against them. That is why we have it. We would not want police investigations to be getting out into the public and, in a way, compromising the investigation. We do not want that.

I do not think that these amendments – and again, this is a pretty substantial amendment here; we have twenty pages, number of sections, a lot of information to go through. What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that the purpose of this act is very clear, very clear: let us make sure Cabinet does not have to out anything on anything, only what they chose, and, while we are it, why do we not eliminate the Privacy Commissioner; let us just let people go to court.

Now, when I talk about a lot of the questions that the former Premier, Premier Williams, asked back in the day, one of those big concerns – and it was addressed by all three sides that discussed this bill – was one of the aspects is the cost to access. The cost to access, as it stands, is already prohibitive. You have to pay a significant amount of money to get this done, because there is a lot of work that goes into this. No doubt, there are a number of government staff when a access report comes in, whether it be from the Official Opposition, whether it be coming from a private organization or a private citizen, people that we would probably want to have that right of access extended to.

What I would say is that when we put those requests in, people had to go and get that information. That is fine and dandy. We know that is one of the costs of doing business; that is one of the costs of being government. In this case, you put that request in – what we are allowing now is that there are already times where the department or public body will come back and say: No, we are not putting this information out there. This information is privileged and you are not going to be allowed to have a look at it. Go to court. Go directly to court, do not pass go, and do not get $200.

At least then you had the right, though, to go to that Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner could review the matter, review the information, and make a decision. That is the whole point of putting that Ombudsman there: to represent the rights of the people and balancing it with government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Now, I will not get into right yet the fact that the Commissioner could only make recommendations, which can be ignored by government if they wish. Now we are eliminating that right of appeal and that layer of oversight. That is being taken out in many cases. What we are saying is: No, go to court.

We have a court system that, as many members know, is already overburdened, stacked up, and delayed. Now we are saying: Let us put more matters into court. Let us put more money into this. Let us let people go to court, fight this out, have matters heard by the Supreme Court Trial Division or the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. That is just what we need to do. That is just what our private citizens deserve, to have to go out and spend their money to find out what information their government is holding from them. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker. It is not right.

I referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to a Supreme Court, Court of Appeal decision. It was a case between the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This was an appeal of a decision at the Trial Division level. It was between the Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador. In this case, which is quite a substantial decision, an individual in the Department of Justice requested their own file. What happened here is the department said: No, you cannot see your own file. We are not letting you have it. It is all privileged. This person had to go to court. It is funny when you read some of the comments made by the judges in this case.

One of the things that struck me when I looked at it was some of this stuff that makes up part of a person's record might be things like pay stubs and employment information. Sure, it could even be a resume or the resume submitted when they got the job. Who knows what is in the person's employment file? In this case, instead of going through it and actually making it look like they looked through the file and could pass back some stuff, what they did was a blanket coverage of: you are not going to get it; you are not going to see this.

That was one of the concerns expressed in the decision. This was done with a majority; you had the three Supreme Court judges agreeing on this. One of the things they discussed, Mr. Speaker – and this is what they call obiter. It is just reasons that were brought up here. "The court is concerned by the possibility of misuse of authority conferred by the legislation." That is what we are doing now; we are getting around this court's decision. We are getting around the concerns expressed by this court because we are going to change the legislation. We are going to allow this blanket coverage. We are going to allow government to wipe away people's rights to access the information.

Really, if you think about it, it is an iron curtain government that we are moving into here. We are moving into a – I have heard these terms out there, repressive, secretive, draconian, regressive, these all apply. You can check off all these boxes, Mr. Speaker, because they all apply in this case.

One of the forms of misuse would be for the Department of Justice to claim a blanket privilege for files. That is one of the things – and I know it is hard work. I know it takes time to go through people's files to see what is privileged and what is not privileged, I understand that. The fact is that not everything is privileged, not everything. There are things in there that have nothing to do with any form of privilege. In this case what we are getting at was there is an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to cover everything, to just say no, we are not going to do that. That is what you see as time goes on.

It is funny, because as the Official Opposition, one of your duties in holding government accountable to ensure that government is best representing the people in the best interests – that is just how the nature of our system works – is that we have to make numerous access to information requests and freedom of information requests. This is just an attempt to circumvent that. We already had a suspicion or inkling, over time you would get something back and certain things would be blacked out or redacted and certain things will be disclosed. As time goes on, more and more things are redacted and fewer things are disclosed. It is too much work letting the people know what the government is discussing.

The good thing about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be a savings to government in black markers. There will be a tremendous savings. We are not going to have to spend all that money at Staples buying all the black markers that were used to redact information because now we do not have to give them the information in the first place. Lock and key, throw it away.

I will just refer, and this is coming from the highest court in this Province, very well-renowned jurists. "Another form of misuse of authority would arise if the information commissioner demanded to have documents produced that he could reasonably conclude, without inspecting them, were covered by solicitor-client privilege." How is he supposed to determine what solicitor-client privilege applies to if he is not even given a chance to look at them in the first place? Again, this is an independent officer of this House and he is being cut out of the loop here because government does not want to let anything go.

Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, and I do not mean quickly as in I am going to get out, because I have plenty of time and I intend on using it all. I am just going to segue way very quickly into solicitor-client privilege. I agree very much so with the minister that solicitor-client privilege is vital and important. What I would say is that solicitor-client privilege is vital and important. I think what we are going to see is you will soon see a lawyer or a solicitor in every single meeting that government has. What better way to get solicitor-client privilege than to stick a lawyer in the corner: Oh, solicitor-client privilege, we cannot disclose it.

I do not know, perhaps we are even going to have solicitor-client privilege extended in here now. We will have lawyers sitting in to make sure that nothing can get out. That is my concern, Mr. Speaker. That is why this Commissioner has the right and has the duty and has the need to examine the information, which he does privately, and he makes that reasoned decision on whether it is or is not or should be allowed out. In this case, no, we are not going to do that. What you are going to see, mark my words, is that you will have lawyers on every single meeting held by government. Therefore, everything possibly could be termed solicitor-client privilege documents.

Actually, it is funny how this is going to extend because this covers the public bodies. I believe there were 460 or so. Now, we are already trying to extend that number. There should be more sub-committees of committees, and committees of that, and sub-committees of every other public body. They are all covered by this as well. It will not be long before Eastern Health starts doing their meetings with the lawyers in there. It will not be long before Western Health, which is up for review, and Central or Nova and Labrador-Grenfell, we are going to have lawyers in on all of this solicitor-client privilege everything. That is what is going to happen. It is a very convenient way of circumventing the system.

I would say that some of the words expressed by these judges in this decision, Mr. Speaker, the key to all of this is good faith in the exercise of authority. With that comes mutual trust by the Commissioner that justice officials are being truthful, and by justice officials that the Commissioner will not unreasonably call for the production of legal opinions and advice. There is that relationship there. We have to have a balance between everybody here, but that balance is no longer there. We have eliminated that altogether. What better way to get around the court than to change the law. What better way to win the game than to change the rules of the game that you are playing.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the decision speaks for itself. I do not know if – I know, actually, that Mr. Cummings did not review this decision when he presented his recommendations, because the decision had not been made. Now, it would be interesting to know if Mr. Cummings had an opportunity to review it after it came out and maybe pass that information on to government. I do not know if that is the case or not.

It is funny how history works, though. Again, we have the luxury of written history. You look back now – it is funny, I had some time and I was going through old newspapers one day at The Gulf News office in Port aux Basques. You look back and the news in the 1990s was the same as the news in the 1980s, which was, in some cases, the same as the news in the 1970s. It is the same stories. Well, it applies here too: press release, April 5, 2000, government subverting right of public access under Freedom Of Information Act. Now, that was something that was touted by what is now our government. They put it out: oh, my God, government is doing terrible things, a deliberate policy to subvert the public's right of access. My God, that was some bad then. No, should not be the case; government has done a terrible, terrible thing. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did that? (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I believe that was the former critic, I believe he may have been the Member for Lewisporte back in the day. I do not know whatever happened to him. I think there was a little dispute of some sort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: It is funny, you could read this today; this will probably be the same press release we could put out today. We could probably just change the names of the people around, change the date, and issue it, because it is the same thing going on. We have come a long way, but we are going a long way backwards, Mr. Speaker. This is regressive. This is intentional. There is no doubt about it.

Now, just want to talk about – I know that we are going to get plenty of opportunity in Committee to stand and ask specific questions on the legislation; it is quite substantial, and some of the pieces are less contentious than others. Some of the pieces are grammatical in nature; some are just little changes, housekeeping items.

I think it is important at this juncture, Mr. Speaker, that I note I have had plenty of opportunity to stand and speak on a whole wide range of bills in this, many of our first sittings as MHAs. All of the members in the House know that in many cases I have agreed with what government has done. It is not a case of criticizing for the sake of criticizing. I agree with legislation we debated last week, whether it is the Personal Services legislation; I agreed wholeheartedly and commended government for it. I agree with the government on aquaculture. I agree with the government on a lot of other housekeeping or substantial bills.

I need to put that out there. This is not a case of the Opposition disagreeing just because we are the Opposition. The government knows full well I will support them when they take the right steps. That is why I must say in situations like this and with legislation like this that I cannot agree at all. In good conscience I cannot allow the people of our Province to have their rights trampled – trampled – when it comes to the right to information. That is what is going on here.

What we are setting up here – we are increasing barriers. It is funny how we talk about, when you hear the ministerial statements come out, how we are reducing barriers or removing roadblocks; we are making sure that people get access to services, whether it be health services or justice services. In this case, we are setting up those roadblocks and we are putting up those barriers to make sure the people do not always know what the government is up to. I do not know why government would want to be that way.

We all understand there is sensitive information. That is a part of democracy. There is always that fine balance there. We understand that Cabinet does not necessarily want all of its information put out there. Sometimes that is necessary. That has always been the case. That is why we have this Privacy Commissioner who can look into this and make sure that is the case.

No, what we are doing is avoiding the possibilities that ministers or senior officials might say something that is not exactly popular. God forbid the government do something that is not popular or might result in a poll coming out that is not exactly beneficial. We would not want that. I do not know if that has been happening lately or not.

It is funny. We talk about one of the big changes to this piece of legislation. For the record, it is section 18, Cabinet confidences; a Cabinet record, Mr. Speaker, is: advice, recommendations or policy considerations submitted or prepared for submission to the court; draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Cabinet; a memorandum, the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to the Cabinet; discussion papers, policy analyses, proposal, advice or briefing materials, including factual background material prepared for the Cabinet; an agenda, minute or other record of Cabinet recording deliberations or decisions; a record used for or which reflects communications or discussions among ministers on matters relating to them making government decisions. Again, there are three more sections there, Mr. Speaker: a record created for or by a minister for the purpose of briefing that minister on a matter to Cabinet. I guess that is one of the tools that we are no longer going to have access to, those briefing books – those briefing books which, again, we would submit.

I know there was a period of time where ministers were getting briefed verbally there. You would sit down and you would learn all the workings of your department all by mouth and sit there and take it all in. The retention level of some of these ministers had to be amazing for them to take in – I tell you, they took it all in. God forbid we put it on paper. I see a few of those ministers over there nodding their heads, yes. My God, a lot of sponges on the other side there – sponges for information. Again, we do not have to worry about that now because we are going to put it all on paper because we do not have to give anything to you – nothing. It is funny how we have extended that now and you have discontinued Cabinet record, or an official Cabinet record, or a supporting Cabinet record. Now there is a difference –

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

MR. A. PARSONS: Because it is in the legislation I would say, Mr. Speaker. I am reading the legislation that the minister tabled here today, so that is how I know what is in there.

It says here that the head of a public body shall refuse to disclose a Cabinet record, including official, discontinued, or supporting Cabinet records; with an official record meaning a Cabinet record that is referred to, which was prepared or considered in a meeting of Cabinet. Then we have the supporting ones, meaning a Cabinet record referred to, which informs the process, but is not an official Cabinet record. So we will just make sure we cover off that possibility. Then we have a discontinued Cabinet record, which means a Cabinet record referred to paragraph (a) the original intent of which was to inform the Cabinet, but which is neither a supporting Cabinet nor an official Cabinet document.

Like I said, you are going to get all the information now, we are going to put it all out there, we will figure out what we want to do, we will move on with that direction, but we do not have to disclose any of that to the public. Because, my God, why would the people of this Province be interested in what government was actually considering doing. Now the good news is the legislation – and again, just for the record of Hansard in case somebody reads this ten years from now: please insert sarcasm.

Section 4 where a question arises as to whether a Cabinet record is an official Cabinet record – so one that is excerpted so that we cannot see it – the certificate of the Clerk of Executive Council or his or her delegate stating that the record is an official Cabinet record is conclusive of the question. When we look at something we are going to say: Is that official? The Clerk or his delegates are going to come over: Yes, official, sorry, you cannot see that. I cannot imagine that for the rest of the time this legislation, if it is passed, I cannot imagine there is ever going to be another unofficial Cabinet record, everything will be official. We are going to spend that money we saved in black markers now and we are going to put it on Cabinet seals; we are going to make sure everything is sealed.

I look at the new paragraph 19(2)(a) of the act and this is what I call the oops rule, the oops section. This is one where we talk about that the draft of a resolution, by-law or legal instrument, a private bill or the subject matter of deliberations has been considered, other than incidentally, in a meeting open to the public. That is the case where if you are talking about something and you slip up and reveal something, do not worry, we have law to protect you, we have law to make sure that was not actually said. We are covering off all of our bases here to make sure that the people are not getting the information for which they should be entitled to, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to move on to some other information here that I have. We have to come back because sometimes maybe there is a forgetfulness of the reason we have ATIPP legislation, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy. The overarching purpose, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation is to facilitate democracy – facilitate or to help democracy. It does so in two ways, Mr. Speaker: the first is to help ensure that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process; and, the second being that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizens.

Well, in one fell swoop we are going to eliminate that. It eliminates some of that need to be accountable; there is no doubt about that. Certainly, it does not ensure that citizens have all the information that they need to participate meaningfully in this. Access laws are to make sure that the information is out there and it is distributed as widely as possible so that all the people of a Province have access to it, and so that they can think and have these meaningful conversations and ask those question of their government. We are all elected here by the people, so in this case the people need to have the information to make sure that they are informed. We all know about the term informed decision. Well, in this case we are taking out the informed.

I am going to go back for a second, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, I am going to get plenty more opportunity to talk to this, specifically to the different sections. We talk about the Cabinet records, which are all heretofore, will now be signed by the Clerk saying they are official. The good news is if you want to appeal that certification, you can do it. You can do it right to the court. Right to the court, go out and get that money – because we all have plenty of money to spend on access to information, and we are going to take this right to the court.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in doing this – and I have come up with a number of notes here, a number of notes. I have a ton of information here. I actually came up with top-five problems or issues I have with this bill, in no particular order. Number one, Mr. Speaker, obviously, as I referred to, the expansion of the definition of Cabinet documents. I have already talked about that. The fact is everything at all now is no longer accessible. We are going to have to figure a new way to figure out what it is that our government does.

The second part, which the minister referred to, was we are extending the timelines. I would state, Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Well, as the hon. Member for Humber Valley said today, access delayed is access denied. There is no doubt about that. The fact is that over the course of time, as this legislation was introduced and it was used, we have already known that if there is a deadline, whether it be thirty days or sixty days, if you think you are going to get your information before then, well I would say do not hold your breath. That is not going to happen. We have already gotten to the point where information will be passed forward on the last possible date and in some cases beyond that and you have to go and fight for it, but the thing is now we are going to expand those deadlines, expand those timelines.

I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner has done a pretty good job of making sure that his information or decisions are put forward under the timelines, but the problem he has is he has to rely on those public bodies which he has to go after to make sure the information is there. That is the issue. All we are doing is making it easier for those public bodies to drag this out longer than it already has been.

When I say the access denied part, the fact is a lot of information is time sensitive. We want that information now. We need that information now. It is no good if we get it later on when the issue is not even relevant anymore, or if a bad decision has been made. The fact is, this has happened before where we have had access to information requests which – it is funny how they showed up the day after the House of Assembly closed. It was just a perfect timing of coincidence that your report you get back comes the day after the House of Assembly closed. We have seen that done. It is just funny how that worked. That was just a chance there. Extending the timelines, in my mind, is not going to do anything to enhance this process. It is just going to allow the people dragging their heels to drag them a bit longer and make it harder for the Privacy Commissioner to do his job.

While I am at it, on a side note, we follow the recommendations, in many cases, of Mr. Cummings. That is what we looked at. One of the recommendations was that our Privacy Commissioner be given a five-year term. Now, as it stands, they have a two-year term. In many other provinces, the majority of provinces have a five-year term. I am unsure as to why – why would we not want somebody to have a five-year term?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, that is exactly right. God forbid this person makes a decision that government does not agree with. We are not going to wait five years to turf them. We are going to allow them to turf them a bit quicker. What I would say is that if we are strengthening our legislation, which is what was discussed, or what this is all under the pretence of: Why would we not allow our Privacy Commissioner ample opportunity to do the job? We all know that two years – by the time they are put in and learn their new position, and learn their way around, by the time they get it and start making decisions, they are going to be out. We have a new one in, and we are going to go through all that again. So, I am not sure as to that, but I will have an opportunity to ask that question when we do the Committee stage. I am not sure why that was not addressed.

While we are talking about that Commissioner, as we have stated many times before, certainly what we are doing is we are narrowing the jurisdiction for this Commissioner. We are narrowing what it is that they do and what their office does. In many cases, like I have said here already, we are going to go straight to court. We are not going to bother having somebody, an individual who was represented for the benefits of all the citizens of this Province and all the organizations of this Province, we are not going to allow him or her to have a right to look at this. We are just going to put it on to court.

Again, I cannot state how much – this is obviously going to delay the court, because these cases already end up in court as it is, but we are going to continue on and add to that, and add to people spending money on that. Well, the good news is to know that if government loses in court, they can always change the law. That is the positive step here. We know that if government gets the decision which is not exactly to their liking, they have a right to come in and change this.

Mr. Speaker, in effect what we have done makes it harder, longer, and more expensive for people to get the information they need. I look at the individual who was the subject of this Court of Appeal case. This is somebody who wanted their employment file, not somebody else's employment file – their employment file – denied, and we had to go through all of that process for them to get that. We are just making those types of situations easier to happen.

Another new clause that has been added to this legislation is the frivolous and vexatious requests. Now, according to the response we get some days in Question Period when we ask questions, it is fair to assume that any request is going to be deemed frivolous or vexatious. You can excuse me if I make that assumption, Mr. Speaker. That is how it feels sometimes when we ask the questions.

I am not sure what is going to happen here. Who decides the frivolous and vexatious? The public body does. The group you are going to, the organization you are going to and asking for information, they are going to have the ability to say whether it is frivolous or vexatious or not. After that then we are going to have figure out: Okay, we get that back and it is not going to work. Do not worry. You can go on to court and have it out in court. Figure out what is frivolous and what is vexatious. Frivolous and vexatious – you see that in civil court. It is not a common occurrence. Certainly they are there, but in this case it is being put in the legislation. I just think it is another barrier being put there and another means for government to achieve the ends, which are deny information and deny access. How can it be said any other way? That is the whole crux of this matter and the whole thrust of this legislation.

We talk about, Mr. Speaker, frivolous and vexatious. I had the opportunity to hear the briefing given by the minister today downstairs. The media asked the question: What is frivolous and what is vexatious? The answer certainly was not clear. It sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, that we are now giving politicians the right to determine what is frivolous and what is vexatious. That is what it sounds like to me. It sounds like we are saying to politicians, look – it is funny, if you think of it – I am going to ask you for information and then you are going to say: No, that is frivolous. Again, I am wondering what the standard is going to be there. What constitutes frivolous or vexatious information? I am sure we all have different opinions on that. I am sure my opinion as Opposition is certainly going to be different than your opinion as government on what is frivolous. It is probably the same, I do not know, we will see. We will see when we get into that.

My time is running down there, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly intend to avail of every minute I have. I had the luxury of studying history and it is funny how, again, I come back to history and we talk about back in 2003. Now there are some members here who ran and was part of that 2003 government, when they formed government, and they ran on a platform and that platform involved a blueprint of promises. It is funny because those promises, they were made then, but those are not exactly the same promises that are being made now. There is a different kind of promise being made now. It is a promise that look, if we discuss it in Cabinet, we promise that you will not see it. We promise that.

We have had some time – we look back at 2005, there was a battle over information. It is funny I think it was information involving government polling information and the government battled for six months and battled with their own Information Commissioner and said: We cannot release that government polling information because it will compromise the secret deliberations of Cabinet. It will comprise it. Again what they said was: Even if he decides against us, we are not going to listen to him because it is just a recommendation. We do not have to listen to it. We do not have to follow it. That is what is going on here. It is funny if you look back, this government, which for the years leading up to when they formed government – and again, we have the press releases here and there is a number of them. Actually, I think I put the press releases over here. I have all these press releases: Offering constructive criticism of Access to Information and Privacy bill – this was a press release of the Opposition then back on December 3, 2001. Again, remember, what I am offering is just constructive criticism. That was fine back then for you guys, so that is what I am doing now; I am offering constructive criticism.

Then, when I continue on, Mr. Speaker – I continue on when we look at the questions; new access to information act does not live up to its advanced billing. I think I am going to just save myself some time; I am going to cut and paste and use that title as the heading on my next press release when I talk about how this new access to information act or these amendments are not living up to their advanced billing.

I do not know, what is being discussed that we cannot get out there? It was fine and dandy back then, the question was – I think back then the big talk was Voisey's Bay and we need to have all that information out there. We cannot make a deal where we do not have all that information. How can Cabinet withhold all that? We were talking about, I think it was, a natural resources, big issue then. It is funny, now we are talking about a big, natural resources issue, and we want to change it so we can go back to what was there. It is the most hypocritical thing when you think about it, Mr. Speaker. It is just amazing.

It is funny – cut and paste, my God, I am going to save myself a lot of time. As it stands, the Citizens' Representative has no teeth, Williams said. I am going to change that: as it stands, the Citizens' Representative will have no teeth, Parsons said. The party who rejects it can completely ignore the recommendation of the Citizens' Representative and that is significant. Quotes from back in the day, how they come back now and we get to use them.

It is funny, when you look through VOCM: critical of new legislation; privacy protection bill actually puts privacy in jeopardy. It is amazing. Then: Williams attacks information bill. Back then, the Opposition Leader at that time said: government's new freedom of information legislation does not meet the Premier's own claims of openness and accountability.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is the same thing. These new amendments do nothing. It is good; I was getting tired of hearing this transparency and accountability stuff that has been going on. We can now eliminate that from any more conversations by this government. We do not need to worry about that, because this legislation takes care of that. We can move on to some new policy slogans.

Access to information legislation entrenches secrecy; my God, I mean, it is amazing. I love the Internet. I love when you go back and look at the old files. My God, I think I am just going to take all these and start putting them out every day to save me some time to question the government on what it is they are trying to pull here. What they are trying to pull is to keep any information out of the public eye, going back to the Dark Ages. That is what is going on here, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: The cone of silence, buddy.

MR. A. PARSONS: The cone of silence is back in effect, I say, Mr. Speaker. I like that; it is funny.

It is funny how you go back – and again, there are a number of members on the other side who have all said their little pieces on access to information. It is just amazing when you go back through all the different reports here, Mr. Speaker, and all the different quotes that have been made. I love the campaign promises, I really love those, when we had those campaign promises, especially in 1999, and in 2003, and in 2007; first it is: we are going to bring openness and accountability, and then it is: we are going to keep openness and accountability. I do not know if it was in the last book: once you put us in there, we are wiping out openness and accountability, Mr. Speaker.

In this case, the government did a very good job in breaking that promise, I would say that to you. Actually, I have to go back to this quote; I think it is worth reiterating, Mr. Speaker: a Progressive Conservative government will proclaim legislation which will include amendments that clearly identify information that should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents. They have gone the complete opposite way here, Mr. Speaker. That is not what is happening. That is not what they are doing. They are trying to keep the information out of the public eye.

Again, we can talk about strengthening it; oh, my God, yes, we have strengthened it. It is iron clad now. Look, the people do not deserve to know what is going on. It is strengthening it for the betterment of government. That is who it is being strengthened for here. Again, we have lost that balance. I disagree certainly with the fact that we are maintaining a balance here when it comes to the release of information and the withholding of information.

Again, like I said, Mr. Speaker, I have so many different concerns with so many different aspects of this legislation. 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. It was good when it was brought back in 1981, it was good when it was revised or renewed in 2001, but in this case, we are not going in the right direction. So, Mr. Speaker, if you will just bear with me one moment here, I have a plethora of information to refer to – lots of time.

Now, what I would say to government is: Look, I appreciate the fact that you are sitting down and you are listening to what I have to say, and I will certainly afford that same opportunity. When I sit down, I will allow you to give me my medicine as well and tell me how good and strong and progressive this legislation is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, they can continue to cheer how strong this is. I have to say for the sake of Hansard in ten years, insert sarcasm here. Insert it right here, Mr. Speaker, because the fact is that what is going on here is really unprecedented in that we talk about so many ways in which we are trying to move forward in this Province. We talk about it on a daily basis. The government promises it, and we argue with the government. We are moving forward. We are always trying to move forward, but this is not moving forward, Mr. Speaker, not moving forward one bit. This is moving backwards. It is my opinion that this is something we are debating today, but this is going to be out in the public. They are becoming aware of what is going on here and what is transpiring. They are not going to be happy with this, Mr. Speaker. There are not going to agree with this. They have their right to information pulled out from under their feet.

We are going to allow people with resources the opportunity to access information. People who can afford to go to court, you can have it. You just go to court and fight for it. God forbid, if people out there do not have those resources and do not have that ability, they are not going to be able to access the information they are entitled to, that they should get, that was promised to them on multiple occasions. It is not going to happen.

We talk about the timelines put on some of this. I believe some of these records are actually going to be opened up in five years time. In five years they will be opened up. That is just enough time for somebody to retire or switch portfolios and reset the clock again. Oh, five years is almost up, we are going to allow it then. That is no good. People need timely access to information, Mr. Speaker. People need the ability to see information that may affect their lives, their quality of life and their ability to know what government is deliberating. The things that are being delivered are going to affect them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: You are going to improve it, yes. If your case of improvement is keeping somebody in the dark then you are succeeding, I say, minister. You are succeeding at that. If that is your intent, My God, you are succeeding at that, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Certainly, I appreciate the attentiveness of all the people here and we are all going to have an opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation. What I would say at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment.

I move, seconded by the Member for St. Barbe, that the words after "that" be deleted and the following be substituted: Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act be not now read a second time this day but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Burgeo – La Poile if he could provide us with a copy of the amendment. We will take a brief recess to consider whether the amendment is in order.

The House now stands in recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have considered the amendment as put forward by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. The amendment is in order.

I recognize the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I look forward now to speaking about the amendment that we just made a motion for and how it relates to this draconian piece of legislation that is being attempted to be rammed down the throats of this House of Assembly and the people of this Province.

This amendment calls for a six-month delay. Why are we asking for a six-month delay? Quite simply, we think that the public deserves a right to review this bill. They have not had that right given to them thus far. Was there a consultation process undertaken? Yes, a consultation process was undertaken. Do you know what? A lot of those consultation recommendations were flicked out the window and not used, or they have just gone and applied the most stringent ones that we could have.

What I would say is that the public deserves a right to review this piece of legislation, which was not revealed until today. The media are obviously very interested in this because they have that little job – what is that job? Oh, that is right: informing the people of this Province of what is going on and making sure they are up-to-date and informed. They were given this piece of legislation today. Again, I would say that this legislation is similar to a bad movie, in that: What do you do with a bad movie? You do not put it to the reviewers. No, you want to bypass the people looking at it. You do not want to have negative or critical remarks. You just want to get it out there. This legislation is the same way. Let's bypass that. Let's bypass the media or the public – because that is what has been done here. The public has never had an opportunity to review this piece of legislation. It has been tossed in here and we are debating it. I mean boom, it is being jammed down our throats here, really.

Why wouldn't we want to take enough time to make sure that it is what the Province needs? I can already tell you I am pretty sure that if I were still given six months, unless they make serious changes to it, that is not a good piece of legislation. Again, why would we want to give ample time to review a piece of legislation? Why would you want to avoid passing a bad law? Surely, that has never happened in the past here. Surely, there has never been legislation that was debated in an expeditious manner that led to a negative result, maybe like expropriating a mill and costing the people of the Province hundreds of millions of dollars. Certainly, we would not want to provide an opportunity for people to have an adequate amount of time to review the legislation and the possible repercussions of this legislation. Again, it is not a little small housekeeping piece; it is a very large, comprehensive amendment.

Now, why are we continuing on with this, Mr. Speaker? Well, the fact is that the public certainly deserves a right to know the repercussions and the results of this piece of proposed legislation if it comes through. Because anybody who says that it is in the best interest of the public, certainly I do not think that they have read the bill or understand the bill. I will put that out there. If you think that this is going to help the public, then I believe you to be wrong.

Again, the old saying goes: haste makes waste. We are rushing something through here and there is a reason for it. We have a government built on transparency and accountability, and those terms are out the window.

We go back to the early parts of this century where we talked about: Oh my God, if the government were to attempt to suppress the rights of the people to see information, or to make them pay money, or force them to go to court, my God, that is a terrible thing. There are people who got elected on those promises and they have taken the time now to make sure that we will just change the law so we do not have to live up to that promise. That is exactly what is going on here, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to the continuation of this debate. I am sure many members on both sides are going to have an opportunity to discuss their points of view and their opinions of this. I would hope that a piece of legislation this important has been reviewed by other members who will speak to it. I look forward to seeing who is going to support this.

I hope they will support our amendment in that we need a proper amount of time for the people of this Province to see what it is the government is trying to pull here. I would hope that the members, when they stand up to speak to this, will be able to explain to me, because I do not quite understand it yet, how these measures are going to improve governance, how they are going to improve accountability, and how they are going to improve transparency. It is not there. It is impossible, I say.

What I would say to the members on the other side is that when you consider these laws you have to look at it from a number of perspectives and a number of angles. What I would say to you is sit down and look at it from the point of view of a person asking for information. We all have a duty to consider both sides. Look at it from the point of view of a citizen who is looking for their personal file. Look at it from an Opposition that is trying to hold government accountable and say: Is this the right thing to do?

If you review the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal case, it is difficult to read that and know that these changes have been made, and say that these changes are going to be in the best interest of the people of this Province. There is only one best interest being looked after here, and that is by the government, there is no doubt about that, and by the Cabinet that runs the government. The cloud of darkness, the cone of silence is now there. We do not have to worry about anything we say because not a word of it will ever hit the light of day, nothing. It is all under lock and key. We will let it go years and years down the road when it is well past the time when it could have had some relevance, or could have made a difference, or could have mattered.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of this amendment is in an attempt to show the people, and the best word I can come up with for this is how hypocritical, how backwards, how oppressive this piece of legislation is. I think people deserve to know that and to see how this is going to affect the people of this Province.

In drafting this legislation – which we had an opportunity to do the briefing, a very strict briefing, one piece of legislation was given to us and said all of you can share. They would not even allow us to make photocopies. As you do in many cases, you look at other provinces and look at other pieces of legislation to see what are the best practices or what are other jurisdictions doing. In our case, what we have done is we have looked at other provinces and we figured out which ones have the biggest locks on the doors and those are the ones that we are going to follow. Those are the ones that we are going to take. We are going to get the most strict, stringent, and locked down piece of legislation we can get.

For instance, five out of six provinces agree with the tests and agree with sections 24 and 27; a number of other provinces. Do we agree with that? No, we did not agree with that. We went to Manitoba, one province, because Manitoba had the toughest law. That is what we need. When we talk about the rights of our citizens and their right to get information we need the toughest. We need the hardest law, the law that makes it the hardest for them to get information that they should be privy to. That is what has gone on here. There has been a cherry-picking of legislation and clauses from other jurisdictions to make sure that no - sometimes we are not going to use what has been used by the majority of other provinces. It is a case of look, let's find out where the toughest ones are and let's go there.

I have not been in Opposition that long, I have talked to members. One of the things you do learn very quickly is when it comes to FOI requests which we need in order to hold government accountable. The minute that a government forgets that they need to be accountable then I would say that government is in trouble. We need to hold you accountable, and one way we do that is through freedom of information. It is funny when you think about that term, freedom of information. Well, our freedoms have been diminished.

What I would say is that we have already discovered – it is funny as time has gone on we figured out and the government has found they have been very, very good at finding ways to set up more barriers. One of those barriers has been costs. We are going to make it hard and expensive for you to get access to information. It is funny, because you only go back ten short years ago when the number of people – actually some people on the other side were part of it – complained about the cost that people had to pay to get access to information as the most terrible thing ever. It was only terrible ten years ago, though, when this crowd was in Opposition; now that they are in government, apparently it is not a bad thing. It is not a bad thing now. Go ahead and spend that money, go ahead and expend those resources.

The people's right to know, Mr. Speaker, is being shut down, plain and plump, simple as that. Again, there are two affronts here, really; there are two problems with it. One is the fact that it is being shut down; the second part is the crowd that are shutting it down is the crowd that complained about it in the first place – a complete 180. Not all of the member over there on the other side, or some members on this side, were around when this legislation was put in and when it was amended. We cannot lay claim to that, but we have a right now to do the right thing and put your name on it or against it.

I do not think for a minute that the government, or members of the government, are going to review this and come to the realization: you know what, he is right; these amendments are regressive. My God, let us put up as many roadblocks and put locks on the doors to information and that freedom to information.

Again, I would just hope that over the course of this debate, you will review the legislation and see how many changes it is making to previous legislation and how that flies in the face of everything that government stood for before, talked about, preached about, and complained about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: You still stand for it. Yes, you stand for the people's right to information to be suppressed. That is what is going on here. Do not ever think that we are moving forward and making sure that people have the right to information. Do not ever get that illusion, because that is all it is, an illusion. What we are doing here is making it harder. We are cutting the teeth out of the Privacy Commissioner. I do not know if we are going to need that position. I know his term is running out soon. Maybe we will not need to appoint that person, because right now you have taken out their ability to do their work properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: There is no doubt about that.

Again, it was funny, I did take the opportunity to review the Commissioner's reports and recommendations, certainly not all of which were introduced here. One of the things that he would not even hear about that was actually asked for by two departments was we definitely wanted to make sure that Nalcor was not forced to be privy to FOIs. The Department of Justice asked for it. The Department of Business asked for it and he said no, I am not even touching it. I do not want to go there.

That just tells you something. That was one of the recommendations that he made. It just tells you about what is going on here, when we have a company that belongs to us, that wants to be exempt from giving out information – and a lot of that information now, on a day-to-day basis, relates to what is possibly the biggest deal in the history of this Province, the biggest deal ever. Let us not have them have to disclose any of that; sure, that was the rallying cry back then with Voisey's Bay: oh, my God, we cannot have a decision made without people knowing information. My God, that would not be right. Ten short years later, that is exactly what is going to happen, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the rights to government-held information have to be designed to improve the workings of government. We need government to be more effective, more responsible, more accountable. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, this here is going right in the face of that. It is the opposite of that. We are not making our government more accountable to people or more transparent to people or more open to people; no, sir, that is not what is going on here.

We have laid out a number of grounds here in these amendments to make sure that information does not get out. We have put up a number of different fronts, whether it be the solicitor-client privilege, whether it be the Cabinet document, whether it be the shred of paper that was used to inform Cabinet; that is secret. Whether it be a report that was given to Cabinet, but Cabinet did not use – secret; will not see the light of day. No reason we should see any of that.

It has been said that the right of access to information is of such fundamental importance that it has been considered quasi-constitutional in nature – quasi-constitutional in nature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left, but I am sure I am going to have plenty of opportunity over the course of this day and hopefully the next one, and I will continue educating the members on the other side about what I consider to be, quite simply, the irresponsible provisions of this amendment.

As I have said on many occasions, I have complimented government on some legislation. I have complimented government on some initiatives, so remember that when I say to you that what you are attempting to do is wrong. It is wrong. I do not hear much in response, because again I really do think, Mr. Speaker, that the government members, in their heart, know that what is being suggested is not for the benefit of constituents. It is not beneficial of your constituents. How can you say it is? How can keeping information secret from people help them? How is that supposed to help them? It is helping yourselves – it is helping yourselves.

So again, I look forward – I took the opportunity to listen to the briefing. I took the opportunity to question the minister on multiple occasions – and I guess in some cases, repeat the questions. I listened to those answers. I took the opportunity to listen to this part of the debate, and I am going to continue to listen because that is what we need to do here. We need to get all the facts out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: It is a lot of information, and I would say to you that if you have not reviewed it, it is high time you get on it, because before you know it is going to be jammed down our throats. I look forward to the members, all the members, make sure you speak out about it, and make sure you get your say out there. If you are for it, by all means get up and speak for it, but if you are against it –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. A. PARSONS: If you are against it, get up and speak against it. If you do not really know, well, maybe that means you are not going to say anything about it.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back very quickly, and these are my main points of issue. The Cabinet definitions, which have been greatly expanded to increase the scope of all documentation that will fall under the Cabinet and be excluded from the public eye, is wrong. The timelines, which have been extended solely for the purpose of giving public bodies more time to drag their feet and not produce the information to the Privacy Commissioner and not produce it to the people, is wrong. The Commissioner – an independent Officer of this House, an independent Officer who again was asked for by the government when they were in Opposition – has been basically kicked to the curb, not going to have any effect, and that is wrong. We have the solicitor-client privilege, which the government now – the decision has been released – is going to circumvent that decision. We are going to get around the high court of this Province and we are going to stamp solicitor-client privilege on every single document we can and not have to disclose it; it is wrong.

Finally, the increased costs that this government is about to impose on the people by forcing them to go to court and to pay more into this system already – it is barely freedom of information. I question whether we should use the term freedom because our freedom has been compromised here. What we are doing is going back to what you complained about when some of you ran a number of years ago. It is wrong. These are all against everything you stood up and preached for. I do not have to put any time into my press releases because I am going to use the same ones the government used ten years ago when they complained about it. I can use all of the same press releases. I can cut and paste. I am going to save our time and money because we are going to have to spend that going to court to get information out of this government.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the remainder of this debate and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill and this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I listened with interest to the hon. member opposite and all I heard was an oppressive legislation, a backwards legislation, a threat to the public, not in the best interest of the public, and we are moving backwards rather than forwards. He did not state anything specific or substantive, Mr. Speaker, about what the act should have and what the act should not have, but a whole lot of rant and roar about a typical opposition to a piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member brings is a hoist amendment. The adoption of this amendment basically strikes this act from the Order Paper. It cannot even be brought back at the end of the delay. This is an important piece of legislation. It is important not only to this government, but is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was done on the basis of a review that we had commissioned back in 2011 in which extensive consultations were held. The hon. member makes reference to the fact that the public should have a chance here to examine this bill. Mr. Speaker, in eight hearings around the Province, ten people showed up. The public is very happy, Mr. Speaker, with the way we conduct our affairs in this Province, as is evidenced by the numbers that showed up.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will inform this government and control this government's activity with respect to access to information for the next several years going forward. It is a very important bill. To even suggest that it be dropped at this stage of the game is ludicrous. It is certainly not in the best interest of this Province. Mr. Speaker, it applies to more than 460 public bodies in this Province – 460 government departments, health care boards, school boards, and municipalities. What we have done here is we have gone out into the public. We went to consultations in eight communities in this Province. We got written submissions –

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS: The Minister of Justice has stated by bringing this hoist amendment that we are dropping the piece of legislation, the amendment, off the Order Paper altogether –

AN HON. MEMBER: The bill.

MR. A. PARSONS: The bill. The amendment itself says very clearly: be not now read a second time this day but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. It is going to come back to this House, but it is going to be done over a period of time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I was going to make a comment about a hoist amendment, but I cannot seem to find it there now.

I will go back to the hon. the Minister of Justice to continue.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: "The adoption of a hoist amendment is tantamount to defeating the bill by postponing its consideration. Consequently, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement period has elapsed." Mr. Speaker, it strikes this bill and that is not in the best interests of this Province.

This is a piece of legislation that clarifies procedural anomalies, that sets our legislation in line with other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner has a right of review for all of this information that is in this act with three exceptions: official Cabinet records, solicitor-client privilege, and section 5, which he has no right of review now. Mr. Speaker, he has right of review for all other information today. Mr. Speaker, what we have done in this act is what we talked about when we were in Opposition.

I will look at my notes now, Mr. Speaker. When we embarked on the public consultation process, we were open to a comprehensive and critical review of this act. The amendments that we have in Bill 29 are the results of this extensive jurisdictional analysis. There are many positive changes, as I mentioned in my initial presentation of this bill. What we have done, we have now allowed public bodies the ability to disclose much more personal information than they could before. We have now, Mr. Speaker, ensured much more flexible and comprehensive protection of third-party business information. We now can negotiate with business and provide assurance that negotiation strategies and tactics remain confidential. Mr. Speaker, we gave more time to the Commissioner; speaking about infringing on the Commissioner's rights, we are giving more time to the Commissioner to respond to formal and informal complaints. He requested more time, he needs more time, and we are giving it to him.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments are sound changes in this access to information. This is an important bill. It is too important to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have clarity and direction in access to information. It would be politically great, Mr. Speaker, if we could release all information, but in the interest of good governance and good stewardship that is just not possible. With respect again to the Privacy Commissioner, his job, Mr. Speaker, is to implement the legislation, and he knows that. He has already said that in a media release today. It is not his job to draft the legislation, he acknowledges that. His staff and his office, Mr. Speaker, are well resourced, well staffed. He is quite happy with the resource that we have given him.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this amendment. We will not support this amendment. For example, with respect to solicitor-client privilege, the hon. member across the way is a lawyer, an officer of the court. I cannot imagine for the life of me an officer of the court getting up and taking issue with solicitor-client privilege. Every member of the Canadian Bar, every member of the judiciary will support solicitor-client privilege; it needs to be absolute, Mr. Speaker. To have a lawyer on the other side get up and deny that is just amazing.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment will eradicate the bill, take it off the Order Paper. That is not in the best interest of this Province and I encourage everybody in this House to vote against the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would just like to take a minute to clarify; the Member for Burgeo – La Poile raised a point of order in relation to what the Minister of Justice was talking about. We have a hoist amendment on the floor, and while the amendment reads: it is a six-month hoist, I would just like to clarify for members that, in fact, when a hoist amendment is proposed, if it is adopted – and I am reading from our parliamentary procedure book, O'Brien and Bosc, on page 746 – "If it is adopted, the bill is deemed withdrawn for the remainder of the current session." If you go further to page 747, on the bottom of the page it goes to explain that: "The adoption of a hoist amendment (whether for three or six months) postpones further consideration of the bill for an indefinite period. For this reason, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and may not be introduced again, even after the period specified in the hoist amendment has elapsed." Just for clarification, I wanted to bring that to member's attention. I will recognize the next speaker.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment is indeed a very well-thought-out amendment. It certainly will provide enough time for the government to come back and get the legislation right. It is interesting to note the concern that the Minister of Justice has that this legislation go forward today; however, the act that it is amending was passed in 2002 by the previous Administration, finally proclaimed in 2005, passed in 2002. Now, seven years later, we are in a big hurry to change it. Why are we in such a hurry if we have waited for seven years? Even this government should not have needed seven years to review one act, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to start with the name of the act. It seems to be a little bit misguided. I think we would have choices between the official secrets and denial of democracy act. That would be one choice. That may be too harsh because democracy will not be completely denied and there will be retribution in three-and-a-half years. ATIPPA could be all the information the party in power allows. ATIPPA, all the information the party in power allows. That would seem to be consistent with the act that is proposed, the bill as proposed.

Mr. Speaker, in going through the recommendations that were provided by Mr. Cummings, there are a number of recommendations and some have been acted on, some have not been acted on, some have been varied or modified. Take the first recommendation, for example. Mr. Cummings recommended every department have a policy on routine disclosure. He further recommended that funding be made available to public bodies to provide them with the ability to post as much information as possible on their Web sites. Mr. Speaker, that seems like a really insightful and a good recommendation, but the response of the government is this is a non-legislative amendment which requires further review. Mr. Cummings' report was completed a year or so ago, so how much more review should it need for a non-legislative amendment to deal with posting information on Web sites? Mr. Speaker, that is one item that if the bill is deferred by six months then the government will have the opportunity to, in fact, go along with that recommendation.

The second recommendation says: Mr. Cummings recommended increased privacy training for all public bodies and the development of written privacy policies. The government's response again is this is a non-legislative amendment which requires further review. How much further review can this possibly need a recommendation that people should be trained in releasing information? Clearly, the bill is not as well thought out as the mover might have us think.

In the third recommendation, Mr. Cummings recommended improved information management and the response was the same. This is a non-legislative amendment which requires further review. How much more further review? Mr. Speaker, a year later if none of this has actually happened, then why should we rush into a bill right now?

Mr. Speaker, there are other areas in the bill that are a real concern. Recommendation 8 said Mr. Cummings recommended the current fee structure in ATIPPA remains unchanged. The response is this recommendation has not been accepted as processing fees will be raised from $15 to $25 an hour to be more consistent with other jurisdictions. It includes the types of processing activities that can be charged will be expanded, e.g. contemplation time for severing.

Mr. Speaker, does that mean the person who is seeking access to information is now going to have to pay for an hourly rate, pay $25 an hour, while somebody tries to decide if they should give them the information or not? Clearly, this seems like Mr. Cummings' recommendation in that respect really could have stood. He said leave the current fee unchanged. Why not leave it unchanged?

When the legislation was enacted, the governing members will be quick to tell us how desperately poor we were and how bad things were in 2003 when they took over. All of a sudden, now we are a have Province. We have all of this extra money, but we have to charge our citizens more money to access information from Canada's newest have Province. It is inconsistent with logic, Mr. Speaker.

The other items, in Recommendation 10, Mr. Cummings says he recommended that ATIPPA be amended to permit a public body to refuse to respond to an access request if it is frivolous or vexatious, made in bad faith or trivial, and so on with prior approval of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Why would this Administration not go along with that? The response is amended to reflect Mr. Cummings' recommendation with the exception of requiring prior approval from the OIPC because such documents as Commissioners' reports, caseloads, and so on are already exempt. When the response from the government is we have accepted the recommendation but we have made this change, then in fact it has not accepted the existing recommendation.

Recommendation 11, Mr. Cummings recommended section 18 be amended to include a complete listing of Cabinet records found in the Province's Management of Information Act. This includes, for example, an agenda, a memorandum to present proposals to Cabinet, a discussion paper, policy analyses, or proposal. The response is amended to include, and this is really almost comical, "a complete listing of almost all Cabinet records". How can it be complete if it is only almost all? If it is complete, it is complete. If it is almost all, then it is almost all, but it certainly is not complete.

Mr. Speaker, the response to recommendation 13 – and I think it is probably noteworthy that thirteen is the number of the recommendation; some people associate thirteen with superstition and bad luck. I will call the response to recommendation 13 the Stephen Harper amendment. The reason, I would say, is because of the nature of the amendment. It says, "This approach is similar to Alberta's legislation." Recommendation 13 was, Mr. Cummings recommended that ATIPPA be amended to include protection for analyses, policy options, consultations, or deliberations. The response from the government is: amended to protect – and it lists a whole set of information. It also says, "records created solely for the purpose of briefing a minister assuming a new portfolio for five years."

Mr. Speaker, if it is important that briefing notes of a minister be provided, then clearly five years means they will be worthless. In fact, this Province has a four-year term, so the effect of this particular amendment will mean that no sitting Cabinet minister will ever have his briefing notes disclosed. The term will be over, the government will be over; there will be a new government, a new Cabinet. This five-year amendment to require ministers' briefing notes to be sat on or kept secret for five years really destroys the use of briefing notes by anybody who wants to know what would inform the minister's decisions.

The real clincher in this part is that it says, "This approach is similar to Alberta's legislation." Mr. Speaker, I think that most of us will acknowledge that Alberta has certainly one of the most conservative, if not most extreme, governments in this country. In fact, the Progressive Conservative government that has governed Alberta for more than forty years had to face a splinter group within the last year because the Wildrose Party felt that they were not being conservative enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Consequently, this amendment is absolutely restrictive; it serves no useful benefit. All it does is create secrecy around Cabinet ministers' briefing documents; they are not to be available to the public for a five-year period – or anybody seeking information.

Mr. Speaker, recommendation 21 deals with an OIPC appointment term. It is interesting that whereas the government wishes to make it a five-year period before a minister's briefing notes can be obtained, they take exactly the opposite position when it comes to the term of the appointment of the OIPC. Mr. Cummings recommended the term of the appointment to be extended to at least five years; the government's response was: This recommendation has not been accepted as the process of appointing the officer for a two-year term has worked well in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is completely inconsistent to say that we want to sit on Cabinet ministers' briefing notes for five years, but we refuse to extend the term of the officer for more than two years. Clearly, a longer term would be better; it would provide for more continuity and consistency.

Recommendation 23, Mr. Cummings recommended appointing a person to review OIPC decisions about the disclosure of its own information. The government's response was that, "The current provision providing for appeals to the court is adequate given this situation would likely be a rare occurrence." Mr. Speaker, what this does is it means that if the Information and Privacy Commissioner refuses to provide information, then there could be a non-judicial source of appeal whereby a layperson or anybody could simply appeal that decision and that recommendation was not acted upon. The result is that the individual seeking information that may be just relatively routine information – not overly valuable information, but information necessary, they may need – is going to be left with the option of simply paying thousands of dollars to go off on an application to the Supreme Court, when this recommendation could have been a very useful recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, recommendation 30 seems to really boggle the mind. If we look at some of the legislation that has been passed during this term, legislation that would deal with the rights of incompetent people, this deals with exercising the rights of another person. Mr. Cummings recommended amending the ATIPPA to permit the nearest relative of a deceased person to exercise rights or powers in relation to the administration of the deceased person's estate, where the deceased has no personal representative. The government's response is: This recommendation requires further review. So, Mr. Speaker, what better use of a six-month hoist amendment than to provide the government with the time that the government acknowledges it needs in order to more completely review Mr. Cummings recommendations.

Recommendation 32 is in exactly the same situation. Mr. Cummings recommended government consider whether information protected by section 8.1 of the Evidence Act remains relevant, and that information covered by that section should be protected from disclosure under ATIPPA. The government's response is: This recommendation requires further review. Well, Mr. Speaker, what further review would be necessary than either refer the matter to the Department of Justice for an opinion, or if the Department of Justice is overtaxed or unable to provide such an opinion, to refer this particular recommendation concerning the Evidence Act to any one of 400 or more lawyers in the Province who could provide an opinion as to whether this recommendation should be acted upon. It seems to be relatively non-contentious.

Mr. Speaker, there are some areas where the government has acted on parts of recommendations, and not acted on other parts. A very interesting one deals with Recommendation 33 which deals with protection of information. Mr. Cummings recommended government consider the following issues: whether additional protection is required for labour relation records, the sharing of student information in the school system, the interaction of ATIPPA with the Elections Act, and the access to health information by an MHA. The government's response was: Amended to protect labour relations information of the government as an employer; other issues in this recommendation require further review.

So, Mr. Speaker, how can it be if a recommendation deals with a number of areas and the government feels that it is reasonable or acceptable to simply reach into that recommendation, set of recommendations, pull out the recommendation that immediately suits the government's own purposes, and say that the remaining part requires additional review. So, Mr. Speaker, that is all the more reason that we should have more time provided in order to be able to deal with this bill.

Mr. Cummings also recommended, under recommendation 6, the definition of a public body. This should be relatively straightforward in the definition section of any legislation because all legislation tends to contain its own definitions or make reference to another statute whereby the definitions are found. Recommendation 6, Mr. Cummings recommended amending the definition of a public body to include any board, committee, panel or similar entity created by or on behalf of a public body. That seems, in my view, Mr. Speaker, to be a perfectly reasonable recommendation that he made that would include a whole range of entities as public bodies. The government's response is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council – and whenever those words are used people can simply read: the government – has the existing authority under ATIPPA to add entities to the definition of public body by way of regulation under section 73(o).

Mr. Speaker, the effect of not acting on this recommendation means that public bodies need to be added piecemeal. The government ought to be more progressive and act on Mr. Cummings recommendation whereby a whole range of public bodies would be included as a definition of a public body and then provide an option for those entities to be able to claim an exemption. Let them push the act to say why they should not have to provide the information. Mr. Speaker, this is not something that would actually enable the legislation; this is something that will obstruct the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on recommendation 7, Mr. Cummings recommended limiting the records in section 5 to judicial records, records related to a prosecution, or records of a person acting in a judicial capacity. This would result in disputes relating to these categories of records being taken before the courts for resolution. Mr. Cummings further recommended all other categories of records in section 5 be reviewable by the OIPC. In the face of this recommendation, the response from the government is: Current law is maintained with section 5 records being referred directly to the court when in dispute. Mr. Speaker, even that sentence is an oxymoron. How can current law be maintained and then a part of it changed?

In addition, police informant information and RNC investigation files that have not been completed are added. I do not think anybody would object to that particular part. Mr. Cummings makes a recommendation on limiting certain records and then the government simply does not accept that recommendation.

In recommendation 18 he deals with personal information. This deals with salary ranges. One of the areas where, in my view, the Province is deficient is that we do not have what some provinces refer to as a sunshine law. Mr. Cummings recommended amending ATIPPA to provide that the salary range of a public body shall be disclosed. This was accepted; however, this recommendation would not even be needed if this Province had a law whereby executives or people performing services who are above a certain category of income are automatically published. In other provinces this takes place and then anybody below that range clearly would not be published. This replaces or removes some of the speculation of how much people are being paid when they are performing public services for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the amendment of a six-month hoist will provide the government with an opportunity to properly reflect on the legislation and to do the right thing. Then people will not be tempted to call it the official secrets and denial of democracy act or all the information the party in power allows. It would properly be called the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other speakers to the amendment?

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am delighted that I can stand and speak to the hoist motion today that is on the floor as we are doing the second reading of Bill 29. It is a very disturbing bill, a bill that shocked me when I finally got to see it. That is one of the points I want to start off with, Mr. Speaker, is why we need the hoist motion. Why we have to look at time to really deal with this piece of legislation.

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. I will just name a couple. One in particular is where the bill talks about enlarging the definition of public bodies and including entities that are formed by a public body. In other words, if a public body creates another entity and that entity is accountable to the public body, then that should also be covered under the legislation when it comes to access to information with regard to that entity.

That was actually a recommendation that was made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner to Commissioner Cummings when he was reviewing the act. That recommendation made its way into the report from Mr. Cummings and has made its way into the bill we are discussing today that is here on the table. I am quite happy to say yes, I think it is right that those bodies should also be part of the definition of a public body. There is no doubt about that.

There are things that needed to be amended. When I heard from the Government House Leader that one of the pieces of legislation we were going to be dealing with were changes to the act itself, I could not have imagined that the changes were going to be as comprehensive as they are. I could not imagine we were going to be dealing with changes that would move us backwards instead of forwards.

Mr. Speaker, with the act we had, we had an act that was good. It had weaknesses. There are things like the one I just mentioned that needed to be strengthened. It was an act that operated well. It was an act that was done according to the standards out there in our country in most of the provinces. Now some provinces are not as forward looking as others.

It is very disturbing to think that the province the government has decided to model itself on when it comes to the legislation is Alberta, because Alberta has one of the more regressive pieces of legislation when it comes to access to information and privacy. This is what our government is choosing to model itself on. Instead of modelling itself on the more progressive pieces of legislation, it is modelling itself on one of the more regressive pieces. That is very disturbing.

I cannot make a total determination yet to say that ours is even more regressive, because we certainly have not had enough time to make that definitive statement. We only got this bill on Thursday. That is when we had a briefing of the two Opposition parties, was Thursday. We had not seen the bill up to that point. The bill was put in our hands and we were briefed by people from the Department of Justice. We had the opportunity to ask questions, but the fact that we were seeing it for the first time, it was quite overwhelming. The amount of change that was there, the amount of detail that was there, to even be able to ask many questions could not even be expected of us because we had not even had time to study it.

What we have been doing – and I know the Official Opposition has been doing the same. What we have been doing since Thursday with the limited resources that we have, has been going over – more than one person, a team of people going over every detail in the bill itself. Going over the details that are in Mr. Cummings review, because though one saw that when it came out, it now had to be revisited totally differently because now we had a piece of legislation that it was referring to.

We also have to have a look at - because I thought it was extremely important to look at some of the submissions that were made to Mr. Cummings. The really important one that we looked at was a submission by Mr. Ring. Mr. Ring, of course, is the Information and Privacy Commissioner. He made a very detailed submission to Mr. Cummings; the Commissioner reviewing the act. So, the time to try to read all of those documents, analyze all of those documents, look at the new bill in the light of what exists in other provinces, it is an amazing piece of work; work that the government, of course, does through its department, and can do over a long period of time and can do it in detail, which it should do. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that all of us here in this House of Assembly are responsible for the legislation that we pass. The government is not the only body in the House of Assembly that votes on legislation. The Opposition also votes, and that means that we have to be completely knowledgeable about what is before us.

I heard the Minister of Justice giving us the reality of what it would mean to vote for the hoist motion that is on the floor. I heard you, Mr. Speaker, read the definition from O'Brien and Bosc, and I read that with you as you read it. It is a bit confusing because you have two different things written in the section on hoist amendments. I think what the bottom line is, that in practice the hoist amendment is meant for an indefinite period of time, no matter what you put in it; therefore, in practice it has come to mean it never ever gets dealt with, and in effect is off the Order Paper.

At this point in time I am saying that is not a bad thing. If government wants amendments, let us do a real study of all of the recommendations that have come forward, a full analysis, everybody who has the responsibility for voting, and let government reintroduce a new bill. That is all it means, that can be done. That is why it is important that we have the hoist motion on the floor, the hoist amendment, because we have to give time to this.

We have a tremendous weakness in our system here in this Province. The weakness in our system is that we do not have all-party parliamentary committees or legislative committees. This whole process has been shrouded in secrecy, and that is the weakness of our system here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The secrecy around our legislation is unacceptable. Legislation is not something that is just the purview of the governing party. Legislation belongs to the people; it belongs to the whole House.

What do we find? We had a briefing last Thursday morning but it had to be in secret. We were not allowed to talk about anything that we were told in the briefing. What happened this morning with the media? The media had a briefing. They were not even given a copy of the act. At least we had a copy of the act when we were briefed last Thursday morning, although we had to ask could we all please have a copy each, as has been pointed out already by my colleague from the Official Opposition. The media did not even get a copy this morning. This notion of secrecy is really bothersome.

I just read about ten minutes ago a press release that was put out by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. In his press release, he talks about the fact that he does not think that he can speak to the bill that is here on our floor because it is in a context which is in the hands of the parliamentarians, and that it is only us who have the freedom to speak to it. He also says that he is looking forward to being briefed; now, that is really telling, because I asked a question today in Question Period of the Minister of Justice and I wanted to know: had the Information and Privacy Commissioner been consulted on the act. The Minister of Justice indirectly gave a no, I think.

Now I learn from this press release from the Commissioner that he has not even been briefed on it, and he is the Information and Privacy Commissioner who made a detailed presentation to the Commissioner reviewing the act. Even the Information and Privacy Commissioner believes that in this system, he does not have the right to speak out. Well, you see, Mr. Speaker, if we had parliamentary committees, that piece of legislation would be wide open. Even before it would come into the House, a draft would go to the all-party committee, to the legislative committee, as happens in Ottawa, as happens in Nova Scotia, as happens in Quebec, as happens in Ontario, in Manitoba, in PEI, in New Brunswick, all the way across the country, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Deputy Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, not to interrupt the speaker, but we are into a discussion on the ATIPP Act, and the member opposite is now talking about all-party committees across the country. I would ask for a ruling on the relevance of that debate to the amendment that is before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the Third Party to keep her comments relevant to the bill which we are debating.

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: I am speaking to the hoist amendment, and the hoist amendment is asking for time to study. I am talking about what I think would be a way in which to study. I would ask you to see that as relevant, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hoist amendment is an amendment that, of course, we are debating right now. We are giving some latitude here in terms of debate today, in that we are talking about the old ATIPP Act. Again, I would agree that your comments about all-party committees are not relevant to the debate that we are having right now and I would ask you to bring your discussion around to the context of the bill.

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

MS MICHAEL: I would like to speak again to the point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker, unless you have given a ruling.

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

MS MICHAEL: You have given a ruling? I accept the ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to continue with her debate.

MS MICHAEL: Unbelievable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a piece of legislation that if we had open discussion in Committee, the Information and Privacy Commissioner would be able to speak to openly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I am talking to the ATIPPA, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Deputy Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is making some fairly blanket statements and, in my view, challenging the ruling of the Chair with her initial remark. I would ask you to make a ruling. This House is here to debate this bill; there is no one shutting down debate. We have said we are prepared to sit around the clock, as long as it takes.

The member has a lot of time to debate the bill. I say that she ought to keep her remarks relevant and not challenge the ruling of the Chair, as has already been ruled upon in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear any disparaging comments when I made my ruling. I did hear a reaction in the House, but I did not hear anything that led to it.

I will go back to the Leader of the Third Party to continue with her debate, please.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I did say that I did accept your ruling.

If I could continue, my point that I am making is that the Information and Privacy Commissioner does not feel that he can speak now to the very act or the bill that amends the act that governs him and governs his office. He does not feel he can do it, because he is in a process where only elected members – he believes only elected members of this House can speak to it.

I respect his respect of our Legislature because he is an Officer of the House of Assembly. In that position when a bill is treated with the secrecy that this bill has been treated with, he is left in that position.

Mr. Speaker, I –

MR. F. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice, on a point of order.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is going to quote the statements of the Privacy Commissioner, then she should put it in the proper context. The Privacy Commissioner earlier today said this amendment is part of the process of law-making, which is the responsibility of the elected members of the House of Assembly, and not his role or responsibility to interfere or to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: He is not part of the process. The process, Mr. Speaker, is the process of lawmakers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

When I get into the bill itself – because I am still speaking to the hoist amendment - when I get into the bill itself, then, Mr. Speaker, I will deal with some of the things that right now do not seem to be what I should respond to. I will do that when I get into the bill, because the whole issue of being able to speak to a bill, the whole issue of being able to speak to the issues that are here in the House, everybody in this Province should be free now that this bill is on-line and now that this bill is out there. Nobody in this Province should feel they do not have the right to speak to this bill – nobody should. Because ATIPPA is so important and because the Information and Privacy Commissioner is so important to that act, and his office is so important to that act, I really hope he is going to get all of the support he needs to study the act. That is what he is talking about in his release. He does talk about needing the time to analyze and needing the time to really figure out what is in the bill. There is a lot in that bill, Mr. Speaker.

The bill covers everything from one of the biggest issues, which is the one which everyone is really upset about, the confidentiality of Cabinet documents, through to how public bodies are governed by the confidentiality of Cabinet documents and through to how labour relations in public bodies are affected by the confidentiality of Cabinet documents. There are so many facets that are in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that I hope it just will not be sitting here all night in the way we debate it. We need time to have reasoned debate. We need time to be able to be lucid, to be rational, and to talk about what really is in this act.

I just want to look at my notes for a minute. We have a responsibility to know what we are dealing with. That is why when I look at the act, as I said, one of the things that I most wanted to study in connection with the act was the recommendations of the Commissioner. Obviously the government recognizes the importance of the recommendations of the Commissioner; I mean Commissioner Cummings who did the review. I also studied carefully the submission that was made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner to Mr. Cummings.

I find it very interesting, and we really have not had an in-depth explanation of this, that when I look at the recommendations that Mr. Cummings submitted after doing the review, twenty-one of his thirty-three recommendations have been accepted by government; some exactly as he wrote them and some changed somewhat; three, which are sort of partial acceptance; another seven that were recommendations that were not accepted and four that were absolutely rejected.

It seems very interesting to me that in some of the ones that were rejected, which we were told they were not put in as recommendations because they were non-legislative, said to me – and they would be reviewed and they would be looked at, but no timelines for those reviews, and some of those are very, very important, Mr. Speaker, and the next time I speak I will name some of them. The ones that were put down for review, they were not going to be dealt with because they were non-legislative, but did that make them less important? That is what the message is to me: Government had an agenda for the legislation, and any recommendation that fit what they wanted in the legislation they would deal with, but they have left things on the paper that are just as important as the recommendations that have not been put in legislation without any commitment, just saying more review is needed, without any commitment to how those recommendations are going to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker.

I see that my time is up. When I speak again, Mr. Speaker, I will go into more detail on that point.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like a few minutes to speak in this debate about the changes or the amendments that we are bringing into the access to information.

I know we were discussing right now the hoist amendment, which would take this off the Order Paper, and we would not have to have further debate and kind of push it away. Mr. Speaker, whether the Opposition likes it or not, this is a debate that is necessary at this time, and it is not one that we brought in because we were looking for something to do in the Legislature. We brought it in because the legislation indicates that every five years there has to be a review of the legislation. We have had the review from a public perspective, in the consultations, and the report came into government and then was certainly analyzed to bring about the amendments and what we have before us today. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want the public to understand that this is not something we did for the sake of doing it; it is something that had to be done within the time frames. If you look at the legislation, another review will have to happen in five years. So, this is not the last we will see of the legislation or the changes that we will be looking at.

The access to information came in to ensure that there is openness, there is transparency, and there is accountability within government. Mr. Speaker, it is new legislation, although it has been around for years – and you can say, well, it is not new if it has been around for years. It is new in the sense that within history there was secrecy around government and government documents, and being able to access information. Changes in access of information have only been around probably in the last ten to fifteen years.

I want to speak a little bit about my own experience before coming in as an elected official in government but what used to happen with privacy to information. My experience relates back a lot to working with the Correctional Service of Canada, and even back before that working with the Department of Justice as an adult probation officer in 1987. In 1987, Mr. Speaker, we were never informed about being able to provide any access to information, even clients with regard to access to their own files was relatively unheard of at that time. I remember when you wrote up your casework notes you could write what you genuinely felt. As opposed to sticking to the facts, you could give opinions. It was felt that you would never be held accountable for those comments.

Then, Mr. Speaker, in 1990 I started working with the Correctional Service of Canada. I cannot recall what year in particular, but obviously access to information became more and more important because people would ask for access to their files, and legislation advanced at that time as well. I remember there was certainly a shift in the culture as to, what you write in your files is something that is accessible, that the clients will read. I can relate to that shift in a culture within the field of corrections for sure, Mr. Speaker. In saying that, it became more and more important but it also became very obvious as to why. No one even questioned why would we do it, it became natural. If you are writing something and you are keeping records about somebody, they should have access to that information.

The culture in which we work today is something that people who probably came into public service in the last ten years for sure have worked with this. It is the way they work, the way they operate, and the way they do business. For people who are probably retired from the public service, this remains new ground and something that they never had to experience.

Mr. Speaker, it is in for good reason and it should be. It is legislation that will for always be here. It is legislation that will be reviewed every five years. Anytime that we need to make amendments to update it or to change the processes, that will be something that we will have to do.

The review every five years, I also feel is necessary because information and the flow of information has been changing so rapidly in the last few years. Communication is very different than what it was even ten years ago. Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of when I was at the convocation on Thursday, May 31, at Memorial University and Glen Blackwood, who is the VP of the Marine Institute, spoke at convocation. He spoke about when he was in university, and I could relate to what he said. He said research was difficult because at that time you had to find the research and the articles and the information you were looking for. You physically had to find them, primarily in the library, to do your work. He said the challenge today is not that research is difficult to do; the difficulty right now is trying to restrict your research to find what is relevant and what is pertinent, because through electronic means so much information is available from so many different sources.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk a little bit about some of the amendments that are being brought forward and some of the commentary that we are hearing here in the House today and one is about the cost. The cost that we are implementing is not meant to be prohibitive. It is not meant to be a deterrent either, Mr. Speaker. I would imagine at the time the legislation was brought in a cost was put to what it was felt was appropriate at that time. There has been significant time now to review and see where we need to go with this.

There is a $5 application fee which has not changed, Mr. Speaker, but what has changed is the fact that to gather the information now will be from a cost of $15 to $25. I would like to make a comment on what I heard from the Member for St. Barbe who said that people would be paying $25 an hour for people to determine whether or not the information is accessible. Well, that is not exactly the way it is, Mr. Speaker. What that means is the time that it will take to prepare the information is what will be charged as hours. Once there is a determination made that the information is accessible and an estimate about how much information, then the charge is attached to that. The charge is not attached to whether or not the information is available or is successful. I just want to clarify that.

The payments are in two instalments. It would be a calculation, an estimate done up of what it would cost. You pay 50 per cent up front. When that information is gathered, then you are contacted and it will be laid out that if you want the remainder of the information that you make your payment upfront and it is done. That is because there is a true cost to government for getting this information and that it is not fair, I guess, for people to be gathering the information, doing the photocopying, doing the redacting and then for somebody to say they do not want the information. That is a safeguard, Mr. Speaker, but something I think is current and something that is necessary at this time.

The other thing I want to comment on, Mr. Speaker, is the Cabinet process. There are many processes to Cabinet for documents to actually end up on the Cabinet table for discussion. We have processes that surround Cabinet, and that could be Social Policy Committee, Economic Policy Committee, or Treasury Board – they are the committees that feed into Cabinet. So, before a Cabinet paper is actually debated at the Cabinet table, there is a process that it is vetted through, a process of ministers. I guess at a committee level, it actually determines what goes and with what recommendations, but at any level, there needs to be a process that there can be very frank, open debate on the issues, and different sides, different views can be stated, can be discussed, and can be debated. When you come out at the end of that process, there is a decision, there is a consensus building and when you come forward, whether with a policy or with a certain piece of legislation, that there is an agreement of how to proceed, Mr. Speaker. The Cabinet process certainly allows for that level of debate and that type of debate. I do not think you would have any Legislature in the Commonwealth that would not agree that that process is helpful and meaningful and needs to take place, Mr. Speaker. It is acceptable; it is standard among Cabinets and Parliaments and Legislatures, like I said, throughout the Commonwealth.

This government, in particular, wants to ensure that we provide access to information, yet have the necessary safeguards available. One example of where we felt that we should provide more information was by allowing the Auditor General into the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. In my time being elected since 2003, when I came in it was at a time when the Auditor General was not allowed in the House of Assembly or to review those records, and we certainly made that change, Mr. Speaker. That was an act to be accountable and to be more open, more transparent. Seeing that process unfold, you can certainly see the benefits of why we took that action, Mr. Speaker. So to hear the criticism that we are secretive and we are not open to transparency is not necessarily appropriate, and I think that is one example of what we have done to ensure that there is openness and transparency in what we do.

Mr. Speaker, there is also some discussion around briefing notes, briefing notes that are prepared for ministers as they enter new portfolios, or briefing notes or notes that are prepared for ministers as they come into the House of Assembly, and whether or not there is access to that information. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to know that when you become a new minister, there is significant information that you need to be aware of. It is not all public information, you can go to the Web sites, you can see the public information, but sometimes there is information that is leading to legislation, is leading to the Cabinet process, and the minister needs to be informed of that information, Mr. Speaker. I will go so far as to say as well that some ministers are very comfortable with those notes when they move to a new department. Other ministers are not so comfortable. Mr. Speaker, I would be one of those ministers who does not prefer to have the written notes when I go to a new portfolio. I like to meet with the staff. I like to go over the issues, challenge, and learn through that process, Mr. Speaker. It is a different style, but that is something I am quite comfortable with and that is the way I would prefer. You will see with these changes, Mr. Speaker, it will not change the way I do business that way.

Some ministers come in with notes in the House of Assembly and some do not. Mr. Speaker, it is almost akin to say if you want the notes for the minister coming into the House of Assembly, it is like saying: Well, give us your questions as well for the session you are going to ask. It is the same kind of give and take. There is a process there where you need to be briefed and you need to know your department, but you also need to understand that some of the processes lead to legislation or Cabinet's deliberations that fall into that category. If you are going to protect it one end, you need to make sure you protect it on the other end as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is also amendments in this legislation to prevent what is known as phishing expeditions where you get an access to information and there is no particular information someone is looking for. It is a broad, open request. It is not looking at a certain policy, certain reports, or certain information that has been generated. An example of that, Mr. Speaker, would be a request that would say: I would like to see all of the Premier's or all of the minister's e-mails from January to June. Well, what is it you are looking for here? Are you looking for things on finances, on background, or on salary details? What is it you are looking for? This should be able to make the requests that come in more specific about the particular information you are looking for, as opposed to just throwing it way open, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a whole shift in culture about how we look at information and how we access information. It is far more open in the way it should like that, Mr. Speaker. As we brought in and you look at this type of legislation, it will continuously need to be reviewed. The five-year review will allow us to do that. At one point, Mr. Speaker, we did not know what the Internet was. We did not know how information was going to be posted. That moved along. We did not have the BlackBerry even in 2003. That has changed, Mr. Speaker. Now we communicate through social media like Facebook and Twitter. Mr. Speaker, access to information and the distribution of information is very different. That is why a review of every five years is absolutely necessary as we do that.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, I just want to give an example, though, of how the culture is changing and what it means. This is all about providing access to information legitimately, when somebody is looking for that particular information. It was not long ago within my own department that somebody had requested information, not under freedom of information, but looking for certain information; the information, in my view, was completely accessible – let us send it out. A senior official said: we cannot send it out, because the quality of the work is not where it needs to be.

I said that there is a culture here; freedom of information and accessing information is not about the quality, it is about a right to that information. Legally, you have a right to that information. If quality is an issue, that is a supervisory issue between the staff and the officials. The right to information is something that this government feels is very important, but all of government, all of our workers, and all of our officials need to realize that this information is accessible. We need to be open and we need to be transparent. So it is not just a culture at the elected level; it needs to go right through government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do have some other comments, but I am sure I will have another opportunity during this debate to make some further comments.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given the hour, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that we take a break for supper and reconvene at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the concurrence of the House that we take a short recess until 7:00 p.m.?

The House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising now to speak to the amendment that we have put forward on Bill 29. Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in the Province. I think that everyone out there is familiar with this act, and a little bit about the history of it. It is not a new bill, of course, it has been around since the 1980s in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the bill has been amended and strengthened several times over the course of our history. It has been done so for very good reasons, Mr. Speaker, and that is to ensure that there is access to information when people need it, that people have disclosure about how government decisions are made, and information pertaining to those particular decisions, not only within government directly but through other agencies as well.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, the amendments that we are looking at today, and I think many speakers have already said it in the time that they have been speaking already, is that many of these amendments are not necessarily in the interests of the public, but more so in the interests of the government. It is about protecting their own secrecy in the work that they do in governing the Province, as opposed to allowing the public to be informed and allowing them to have the information that they require.

Mr. Speaker, there is probably no one in the Province any more familiar about the Freedom of Information than the Opposition offices would be, because we use this particular act quite extensively in order to obtain information about how governments operate, how they come about certain decisions that they make. Quite often, Mr. Speaker, we do not always get the information we look for. In many cases, a lot of information is redacted from documents before we actually get them. In other cases, the price tag associated with obtaining information is usually too high that an office that is so poorly funded, as the Opposition office in this Province, can rarely afford to access many of those documents. So I guess what I am saying is that in the past, although the legislation has been more open, it has still been very difficult to get information. What we are seeing today is government basically shrouding itself in complete secrecy. That is what these amendments will do.

I said today, Mr. Speaker, that it is like the cone of silence that is going to be dropped on the governance level in this Province, and that is exactly what it is going to be. It will be very, very difficult to get any information, if at all you will be able to obtain information. Mr. Speaker, what really we are looking at now is a government decision-making process that will be very much confined to complete secrecy within this Province.

I listened today, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice speak to this bill. I found it almost laughable to a certain degree when he talked about the fact that this particular bill is going to be more revealing; it is actually going to be broader. Mr. Speaker, there could be nothing further from reality in dealing with this bill. Even though there is going to be a small amendment here which is going to allow schools to release information that tells you which students are getting scholarships and that level of information, it is the only disclosure that we are seeing in this. Everything else in this bill is regressive. Everything else in this bill is talking about hiding information, not providing it.

Mr. Speaker, the main points of the bill that we have looked at and take some exception to has to do with first of all the definition of Cabinet and how Cabinet is now being defined as a result of this particular bill. We certainly have some issues with the new timelines that are being imposed, simply because it is going to take even longer to access information, if at all that we will be able to get it, Mr. Speaker. We have some serious concerns with the amendments regarding the Commissioner and the responsibilities of the Commissioner.

We have issues with regard to the solicitor-client privileges because we see this as an attempt of government to just be able to hide information under other auspices of the act; and, of course, we have issue with increased cost here but, more importantly, with the termination of frivolous and vexatious requests. Because these particular components speak directly to blocking information that would have been accessed by the Opposition or by the media, which are two of probably the most common users of the act, although many people out there in the public use this act. Individuals use this act to obtain information about themselves, and we are all too familiar with those cases. One of them actually ended up going through appeals and through the court to get information.

I have to say, it is a comprehensive bill. There are a lot of clauses to it, there are a number of recommendations, and there are major changes. I know this past weekend, our caucus spent most of their time reviewing the legislation, looking at the changes, and having an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to look at how this is going to implement and how it is going to affect how we do our work into the future. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we worked very hard over the weekend going through all of this legislation and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So did our staff. We will certainly be debating a number of sections of this particular bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, to sum it all up – and I think the media had a good grasp on this; I watched some of the reports over supper time when we were having a short recess from the House, and I think they were summing it up pretty accurately in terms of their understanding of it, and certainly our understanding of it as well.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what the bill does is that in defining Cabinet, it is actually restricting us to information; what it is actually doing is putting Cabinet into a different context of what can be released and what cannot. Basically, what the bill is doing is protecting any information that is used by the Cabinet in making any decisions whatsoever.

It is also, Mr. Speaker, protecting ministers, because many ministers use briefing books. We obtain, through FOI, on many accounts, copies of some of those briefing notes, whether they would be around issues in health, issues in the environment, issues in justice, whatever the case may be. We have quite often found those notes very helpful in better understanding where government was going and the direction they were taking.

All of those notes now are not going to be permitted, because they are protecting their own Cabinet ministers. They do not want us or the media or the public to know what kind of information they are being given in making their decisions, in governing the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They do not want us to know where they are getting this information. That is being done to protect themselves. I do not buy into the argument that it sends chills through the public service. I think the only ones it sends chills through, Mr. Speaker, are the ministers themselves, because they are really afraid of what the political outfall could be if some of this information is released and it is up for discussion.

Mr. Speaker, also, it protects corporations, it protects Nalcor, it protects Eastern Health, it protects the college system, all of those groups and entities. For example, under the recent decisions by Eastern Health, we have not been able to obtain any kind of documentation which helped them to arrive at a decision that hundreds of jobs should be eliminated at Eastern Health. We would normally go through the Freedom of Information process to access that information. We had filed an FOI back some time ago, long before the announcement was made, looking for that information and looking for a number of other things, associated documentation with regard to that decision. We received correspondence back from Eastern Health with regard to those FOIs in terms of what could be provided, what could not be, all of those kinds of things.

What this legislation is going to now do is it is basically going to stop us; it is going to gate the information inside of government and government's entities whenever they do no want to release it. That is what it is going to do. It is going to shroud everything they do in secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to get that kind of documentation in the future. I do not think that is right. I think that is absolutely wrong and it is not the right process that the government should be taking.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, government's decision to look at things that are frivolous or vexatious is solely left to the discretion of government. It removes the independence from it altogether. For example, Mr. Speaker, every time someone out there makes a request to the government to say how much renovation work was done in the Premier's office last year, if no one wants to give that information to us, they can say: oh, they just want to use that for political reasons so we are not going to release that.

They have the discretion now to be able to do that. They have taken it out of the hands of the Commissioner. They have reduced the scope of what the Commissioner can do, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case. If we want to look for information around ministers' travel claims, for example, maybe the minister will say we are not going to give that to them because that could be political. We are not going to release that information, Mr. Speaker. There are things they can hide if they want to hide the information. That is just a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker, and there are a lot of examples that I have, pages of them actually. I am going to get into more of them as we move on.

Mr. Speaker, anything they think is frivolous or vexatious, anything they think is in bad taste, anything they think that could be just for political gain, any of those kinds of things they can refuse to give us that information. I would have to ask the minister, who are the people here who are getting the chills? I would say, Minister, I do not think it is the civil servants.

Mr. Speaker, one of the points I want to make here is that this is the same government that when they were elected in 2003 – and they often forget in their Blue Book, and it was very blue and everything was in big print. There were at least a dozen press releases sent out on this by the government opposite. Many of them who are over there today wanting to amend this, this is the very legislation they got elected on and walked into the House of Assembly with.

This is what they said, Mr. Speaker. "The Transparency And Accountability Act will greatly enhance openness and accountability in government, but a comprehensive and effective Freedom Of Information Act…" – Mr. Speaker, Freedom Of Information Act – "…is the best safeguard against the tendency of governments to descend into official secrecy and elitism." This is what former Premier Danny Williams said when he came in the office. Many of them came in on his coattails, Mr. Speaker, many of them over there were hung on by the tips of their fingernails when he got elected in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, they were hanging on by the tips of their nails. He was out there, Mr. Speaker, and he was saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the popular Premier got elected, he got elected because he said, I am going to have openness and accountability. I am not going to preside over a government that is secret. A Progressive Conservative government will be open. They will be transparent, Mr. Speaker, because to not be will mean we will be elitist and we will be secret if we do not do this.

Mr. Speaker, they hung on. They hung on with every single thing they had in them. They said: Yes, Premier, that is what we are going to be. Look at them today, Mr. Speaker, look at them today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: The former Premier, Mr. Speaker, hardly had his desk cleaned out in the last year when all of a sudden the same ones who came in on his coattails are throwing the legislation out the door. That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker. The former Premier left and behind him, Mr. Speaker, is going the openness and accountability that they came in on as well. What is going to be left is a black hole in the Cabinet room. That is what is going to be left. Absolutely nothing will ever be disclosed ever again. It will all be secret, Mr. Speaker. There will be nothing left to disclose.

Mr. Speaker, it is really, really ironic; it is. I have to say, it has to only be in Newfoundland and Labrador politics that you could actually have a government, Mr. Speaker, with the face to go out there and say that we will be the most open and most transparent government ever, and within a few years they throw it all out the window. They throw everything out the window. All of a sudden now, they are going to protect themselves. We are not going to give you anything. We are going to protect every scrap of paper that anything is ever written on if it is affiliated with a government decision.

We are going to have solicitor-client protection, Mr. Speaker. Every time we want to do something, we will bring a lawyer into the room and that will protect us. We will never have to give the information out ever again, Mr. Speaker. We know they have lots of lawyers. They have a full department of lawyers up in Justice. Nalcor has lawyers, Eastern Health has lawyers, and the school boards have lawyers. Everybody has a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and I might need one myself before I get finished this evening. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we know how that works. We know what that policy means. We also know that is all just legislation to protect them as a government.

Mr. Speaker, let me just show you how hard they have worked. I am going to give you one incident. This is an incident in which the current government overruled its own Information Commissioner. They had a six-month battle, Mr. Speaker, because there was a request from a newspaper in the Province, The Telegram, to release polling information. All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, there was a six-month battle that went on. The government overruled its own Commissioner and not allowed the information to go out there.

At the time, Mr. Speaker, one of the members of the Cabinet went out and said: If we release this information it would reveal the secret deliberations of Cabinet. Now imagine, you would think the world was going to fall apart. If they gave out this polling information that The Telegram asked for the world was going to fall apart. So, what did they do, Mr. Speaker? They delayed it for six months. They went against their own Commissioner in the Province.

Then, Mr. Speaker, they went out and said, in order for this information to ever get released to the public, it is going to have to be a court order. The only way we are ever going to give this out, it is going to have to be a court order. Well, guess what? They went to court. They went to court, Mr. Speaker. Guess what happened after they went to court? All kinds of stuff happened then, of course.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that happened is that after a nine month battle, after refusing to give the information, after forcing it into the court, after saying the world would fall apart if we give this out, guess what they did? They released the information. They released the information, Mr. Speaker, right before they had to show their face on the benches of the courtroom and look the judge in the face. Right before, Mr. Speaker, and it was three days, four days before Christmas. In 2006, I think it was. There it is. There is openness and accountability for you. There it is, Mr Speaker, the cheap tab to get information from the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for the opportunity to get up this evening and to participate in the debate on this amendment that was brought forward by the Opposition member, and a good opportunity to speak to this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is important to us in the House. It is a good piece of legislation, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to address some of the issues in the short time that I have tonight. Especially, I would like to address some of the issues that were recently brought up just a few moments ago by the Opposition House Leader. I would like to remind her about something about ATIPP. ATIPP is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is a really good piece of legislation and it works really well. It is about providing information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what it is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about being able to provide information while balancing or protecting the privacy of individuals and people's personal information.

Just a few moments go the Opposition House Leader referred to a stack of papers she has on her desk. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important point. She referred a few minutes ago to a stack of papers she has on her desk. The Opposition, both parties, can, on any time you like, on any day they like, submit a request to government through ATIPP. Any time they like they can submit a request to government through ATIPP, the request for information. I can tell you, in my department we deal with ATIPP requests on a regular basis. I am going to tell you, it is more frequently than it ever was before. I will get to that shortly.

The Opposition House Leader can sit in the House here tonight and refer to a stack of paper on her desk, and guess what? There is no authority in government, or there is no authority in law for us to access that information, none at all. Because it is protected, Mr. Speaker, that is why, because it is protected. It is protected under the legislation. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, we have heard Opposition members get up and say things like: I spoke to someone today, and someone told me this. We can ask them here in the House: Well, who did you speak to? Guess what? It is protected. It is protected by the act. It is protected by the act, Mr. Speaker, to protect those individuals.

We heard the members opposite get up and say, I have had calls from dozens of constituents. We look around over on this side and we say: Well, that is funny, one MHA in the House has received calls from dozens of constituents about a matter and not one of us over here has received a single call. We would say to the person opposite: Who was it? Who did you get the call from? They do not have to disclose it, Mr. Speaker, because it is protected. It is protected.

They can submit requests to government departments, government funded bodies, municipalities, education boards, health care corporations, any time they like asking for information. Mr. Speaker, the interesting part about this is they can submit requests through ATIPP and we cannot even disclose that they submitted them, because it is protected. We cannot even disclose if they have done that, because it is protected; yet, they can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to members opposite, I invite them here tonight. They are here tonight and we are discussing a piece of legislation. I am going to get into a little bit more about the frivolous and vexatious requests and the repeat requests and the fishing expeditions that are sometimes contained within ATIPP requests that government receives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: I am going to get into that shortly, Mr. Speaker. I will even give you an example of a fishing expedition – that is the way I look at it – that I received in my department, and staff spent a considerable amount of time trying to deal with; taxpayers' dollars being utilized to deal with a fishing expedition, an ATIPP request, and I will get to it.

I ask the members opposite, on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I ask the members opposite to table in the House here tonight – their offices are close by, they are not far away. Go up and table every ATIPP request that you have laid out in the last twelve months. Go ahead, lay it on the table, and show the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador judge what ATIPP requests they are making.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: Now, I just heard the Opposition House Leader – I do not know if she is talking to me or not, in response to what I am saying – but she is saying there are thousands of them, thousands of requests that they put in. What I say to them – she just said there are thousands. I heard her, I heard her. She said there are thousands of them, Mr. Speaker. Now that is what speaks to – what the Opposition parties, how they utilize the legislation. They make countless and countless requests for information. Mr. Speaker, do you know who pays for the cost of processing those? The taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, quite often; the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, my department received sixteen requests under ATIPP for information. It is not a bad number, I would expect that. When I went into the department last year and I started to learn about the department, and how it operates and what takes place and the work that is done there. I found out there were sixteen requests for ATIPP. Now, there is information I am not entitled to know about what those requests – where they originate from and how they happen and so on. There is a lot of information like that, and that is fine. We have professional people in our department who work very hard to process those requests.

In 2011, there were nineteen requests. So far this year in 2012, there have been twenty requests, and we are not halfway through the year; twenty requests. Now I will tell you –

MS JONES: Tell us how much you are charging us.

MR. DAVIS: A good question, I say to the hon. Opposition House Leader, a good question. The hon. Opposition House Leader said, how much do we charge for those requests? Well, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, under this bill, in other jurisdictions in Canada right now – well, I will talk about us first. If someone wants to file a request for ATIPP in Newfoundland and Labrador there is a fee; $5 to file an application for information under ATIPP. Well, that is a big fee, Mr. Speaker, and there is no intention to change it here.

We were charging $15 an hour for processing fees, and we are increasing that to $25. What we are doing, if you compare to other jurisdictions in Canada, because other jurisdictions – privacy legislation is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are other provinces and other jurisdictions that have privacy legislation. In other jurisdictions, the fee runs from $6.75 for a quarter of an hour, that is $27 an hour, up to $7.50 for a quarter of an hour, or $15 for a half hour, which is $30 for an hour. What we are doing is we are moving it all the way up to $25, which would be on the low end of all the jurisdictions. That is what we are going. The first four hours of processing is how much?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Free.

MR. DAVIS: The first four hours are free, unless, Mr. Speaker, it is a huge request, unless it is a big request; then you get into a higher fee. What we have decided to do – and I have seen this happen previously, I have seen this occur before. What we are going to do under the new legislation is, once the staff compiles an estimate – and it is just simply that, they estimate how much work is involved.

When I have an ATIPP coordinator in my office who does – I would think now that half of her time or more than half of her time is working on ATIPP requests, a considerable amount of taxpayers' dollars, and that is just for one department; that is only for one branch in government. That does not include other departments: health care, education, education boards, and municipalities. Every municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador comes under ATIPP legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is just not about the Cabinet or government; this affects many entities, many government-funded bodies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask all members for their co-operation, please.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not just government this affects; this affects communities, this affects towns who receive requests as well. What we are doing now in the fees, we are moving towards a plan where we will say, look, here is an estimate of what we think what you are asking for is going to cost. We will do half the work, but before we do half the work, you want to pay half the fee. Before we do the second half of work, you want to pay the other half of the fee.

Sometimes what we see happening is that a request will come in, the request was made, the applicant will receive so much, and they will say: there is nothing there, I am not going back to get the rest of it when the work is already done. That is not a good use of our staff. That is not a good use of public servants, Mr. Speaker – it is not a good use. We need to make sure that our public servants work as efficiently as we can, because we have thousands of hard-working public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador and they need to focus on the work that they need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give you an example of one that I faced in my department. I understand the sensitivities of talking about ATIPP requests, but I am going to refer to an article that was written by the organization that actually made the request; they have written an article on it. They have made it public, so I am not going outside the bounds of what would be appropriate or inappropriate.

On April 5, the CBC wrote a report about ATIPP requests for restaurant inspections. Now, Mr. Speaker, restaurant inspections are carried out by our environmental health officers. There are thirty-eight throughout the Province who, among other things that they do, inspect restaurants; they would ensure they are safe. They work out of about twelve or fourteen offices throughout the Province, places like Port aux Basques, places like Stephenville, St. Anthony, Springdale, Grand Falls-Winsor, Gander, Clarenville, Harbour Grace, St. John's, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador West –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: – and some other communities where they are located. They do the work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure that restaurants are safe. They go out and do inspections. We realize that when they do an inspection, we all know that is a snapshot in time of that day, and they file their findings.

Now I have said publicly, and I say here again tonight, if somebody wants a restaurant inspection, go to your local government service centre, go in and tell them: I would like to go to such and such a restaurant; I would like to see the last inspection. Our staff will work to provide it for you. We will get it for you. Take a couple of days – could take two, three, or four days, and we will get it for you.

Since this happened, Mr. Speaker, I should point out, when this first came to light back in December and questions started to be asked about it, I can tell you how many times – the last time I checked was a couple of weeks ago – a citizen went into a government service centre and asked for a restaurant inspection. Do you know how many times? None. Not once since this came up last December has a citizen walked in. Now, they are welcome to. They are welcome to, and we will get the information for them; we will provide it to them, Mr. Speaker.

In this article back in April – and I go back to the hon. Opposition House Leader, who should probably listen to what am I am trying to say, because she brought it up. If she would listen to what I have to say, she will probably get more out of it, but she is choosing not to do that, Mr. Speaker. They reference here that under the Access to Information and Privacy Protection, CBC –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask again for members' co-operation as we debate this bill tonight.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CBC reported that they had asked, they had requested under the ATIPP regulations – under Access To Information And Privacy Protection legislation is the way they put it here – that they would ask for all restaurant inspections for the months of January and February, all restaurant inspections. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that in our Province there are over 6,000 establishments that have food establishment licences, over 6,000, and that our thirty-eight Environmental Health inspectors carry out between 5,500 and 6,000 inspections a year. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of work. They are out in the field on a daily basis, all year long, doing the work for the public to ensure the safety of these restaurants. Some are inspected several times a year under certain circumstances. Some which are considered low risk – corner stores that sell ham or bologna; they have to have a food establishment licence – are only inspected every couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, what has to happen then, when someone asks for all inspection reports for two months, our Environmental Health Officers – do not go out in the field now, today; you sit at your desk and go through your files and find every inspection report you did over two months. Mr. Speaker, that is a huge amount of work. That is a significant amount of work to do, and for what reason – for what reason? If they wanted –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: I hear someone saying fishing, fishing. If they wanted a particular restaurant or had a concern about it we would provide it. It is not a problem. We have provided those types of reports and we will do so.

For someone to come in and just ask for a blanket, 459 requests – because they talk about that in their article here; they said the cost was almost $500. Actually, the cost is $457, and for $457 they were going to get 459 reports because, Mr. Speaker, it is taxpayers' dollars. If they are looking for research to do a story, someone has to pay for that. I can tell you, I for one will not apologize for us sending a bill to an applicant in a case like that, and make them pay for it instead of taxpayers paying for it, because I do not think taxpayers should have to pay for such requests. They should not have to pay for such requests, Mr. Speaker.

That is what this legislation is about. It is to manage those types of requests and those types of affairs. We are not trying to put a lid or hide anything. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to hide in my department. I think that I am very open. I have been very open and very transparent. As an elected politician, I can tell you I have been very transparent in sharing private information, and personal information at times, when people have asked for it or looked for it. I realize that. When we all get elected, we realize that we are opening ourselves up to criticisms and we are opening ourselves up to being seen by the public, and there is lots of information that people want to know about us. It has to be managed, Mr. Speaker. It has to be managed and it has to be done in a guided way. It has to be done in a very controlled manner. That is what this is about.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you, this is not a bad piece of legislation. Is this tightening up some of the processes that occur? Yes, it is, but it is for the right reasons, Mr. Speaker. It is for the right reasons.

I say to the hon. members opposite again, I will say to them again –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DAVIS: I am not pointing; I am just waving my hand. You can decide yourselves what you want to do with it, but if you happen to file a request for ATIPP, lay it on the table and let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador see what it is that you expect the government officials to do when you are asking for a request. Do not pick and choose. Lay them all on the table, Mr .Speaker, and let the people decide, that is what I say.

Thank you very much, Mr .Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Prior to recessing for the supper break, the Deputy House Leader raised a point of order with regard to relevance as the Leader of the Third Party was speaking. The Speaker ruled on that and said that the comments were irrelevant. I had a chance to review Hansard and the video over the supper break and had a look at what they entailed. What happened was there was a comment that was made, and the Speaker did not hear it, and the Deputy Government House Leader again raised another point of order. At that time I indicated that I did not hear any disparaging comments.

I have had a chance to review Hansard and the video. I am picking up a section in Hansard here where the Leader of the Third Party, after I had ruled on the point of order, said, "I would like to speak again to the point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker…", and I should, and there was something inaudible – ruling. There was something said which was inaudible. Then the Leader of the Third Party said, "You have given a ruling? I accept the ruling." The Speaker then said, "The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, to continue with her debate." At that time the Leader of the Third Party, as recorded in Hansard and the video as well, said: this is, "Unbelievable."

After reviewing the video and again looking at Hansard, I do believe that what was said was casting a reflection on the Chair. I would ask the Leader of the Third Party to apologize and to withdraw the comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: I withdraw the comment.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Speaker has asked for an apology.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, to offer her apology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, to offer her apology.

MS MICHAEL: I apologize and I withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we will continue with the debate.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to read from Hansard from December 3, 2001, from Mr. Williams: "What I would like to do, first of all, is share with some of the hon. members opposite. Now I do not know if any of them were in the room at the time, but last December 5, when I announced my intention for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party – I am not sure if any hon. members opposite were there on that day when I announced it. In case you were not, I am going to tell you what I said. The reason it is important is because the Minister of Justice indicated that on December 12, 2000, a review committee was set up to look at the Freedom of Information Act. Well, a week before that I made a statement; and you must have reacted to it, because I quoted Abraham Lincoln. He said: ‘Let the people know the truth and the country is safe. We will keep the people of this Province fully informed; there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden agenda. If you and I know the facts, then we will collectively decide the best course for our future…' of this Province.

That is what I said at that time, and a week later the committee was struck to review the Freedom of Information Act. I am glad you took that initiative."

This government has branded itself as dedicated to accountability and transparency. We are in a crucial time in our history, in our Province. We stand at the cusp of making some of the most important decisions that we will ever make in our Province's history, decisions that will affect generations to come: Muskrat Falls, the development of our resources, mining. So why now, why now would this government propose legislation to limit our right to know how these decisions are being made, why they are being made, on what basis they are being made – information that tells us who was making the recommendations, what are those recommendations, what advice has government accepted, what advice has government rejected or ignored. Does government have something to hide? If not, then why do what is tantamount to closing the doors on access to information? This government does not want people to know what they are doing, how they are making decisions, who they are listening to, who they refuse to listen to. They say: trust us.

"We will keep the people of this Province fully informed", said former Premier Williams; "there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden agenda. If you and I know the facts, then we will collectively decide the best course for our future." Mr. Speaker, we can all only make good decisions if we have the right information.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner, in his report to Commissioner Cummings, said: we must maintain a fine balance between the right of people to have information, and the obligation that government has to protect people's privacy. He says both elements are necessary for a healthy, functioning democracy. I would say, at this point, our democracy is not very healthy right now, and it is failing fast.

This government consistently chooses to ignore their independent experts, their own independent experts, be it the Joint Panel Review or their own PUB on Muskrat Falls, their own Privacy Commissioner on ATIPPA legislative matters. They have basically disempowered and taken the authority and jurisdiction away from their own Privacy Commissioner and relegated all appeals to the courts, therefore making any appeal to a much more lengthy and costly process. They have basically priced democracy and access to information out of the reach of the majority of applicants.

The government is thinking that really, this is of no real concern to the average person, and I believe that the government is counting on the fact that they believe that this is of real no concern to the average person. However, the decisions that are affected about the issues, do affect the daily lives of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Government has told us that this is not a matter that greatly concerns the people of this Province. I say it does. Government makes decisions on all kinds of issues that affect our daily lives: where a hospital will be built; who gets a job or who gets JCPs; who gets a new school and which one will be closed; where will roads be built; and more. Anything that government does, the people have a right – this is all public information, absolutely – and the people have a right to know how these decisions are made and what influences the making of these decisions.

We will have opportunity to speak to very detailed questions and issues in this bill, and I look forward to that. However, today I would like to speak to three major issues that I believe reflect a major shift in the spirit and the intent of the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act; three issues that has the government shutting the doors and windows on this House and every department and agency belonging to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, shutting the doors and windows on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

First, the Cabinet, the expansion of the definition of Cabinet documents and secrecy; the second issue, the reduction of the authority and jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner; and the act of reducing the jurisdiction and authority of the Chief Information Officer actually results in the virtual appointment of many, many Privacy Commissioners in that ministers and heads of public bodies have now the authority to determine what can be released or what can be held back.

They are playing the role of the Privacy Commissioner. The short-sighted reliance on the court system to what the Privacy Commissioner was mandated to do. These are unprecedented moves with far-reaching ramifications.

The expansion of the Cabinet documents, no one would dispute that the principle of Cabinet secrecy is a well-established parliamentary tradition. This government is abusing this process and they are abusing this process by making such a broad sweeping interpretation as to almost make a mockery of it. Virtually any document prepared for or in Cabinet –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – can therefore fall under the umbrella of Cabinet secrecy. It is Cabinet and its officers who decide whether or not this is so.

The reduction of the authority and jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner – this is once again the government choosing to ignore independent expertise. Independent expertise of an official they have established for the safety and protection and the administration of our Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It is an officer whose mandate it is to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have full access to information as permitted by our act. Not only has this government curtailed this access, this prevents the Commissioner –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only has this government curtailed the access to the Commissioner, but it also prevents him from carrying out his role, from carrying out his mandated role, by preventing him from reviewing documents that are withheld under reasons of Cabinet or solicitor privilege, but they have denied the Commissioner the ability to fulfill his mandate as an independent opinion on appeals. The consequence –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I would ask all members for their co-operation. Member cannot continue to disrupt the Chamber when the Speaker asks for order.

I go back to the Member for St. John's Centre, to continue.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, they have denied the Commissioner the ability to fulfill his mandate as an independent opinion on appeals. The consequence of this is denying the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, groups, organizations, and the media, the right to accessible, affordable, and timely appeal, by relegating all appeals to the court system. This is one more example of the democratic deficit we experience in Newfoundland and Labrador due to the siege mentality of this government. What in God's name is this government afraid of – its own secrets, the people of the Province, the democratic process?

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in their submission to Cummings, recommended that the term of the Commissioner be six years, in keeping with the best practices across this country. That would ensure that the tenure of the Commissioner would overlap government's terms. Cummings Report recommended that the term be five years. This government is sticking to a two-year term. Why, when best practices across the country are five to six years? Why is this government sticking to two when it is clear the reason for having the tenure longer than a four-year period, longer than the period of serving government?

The third issue that I wanted to raise was the stripping of our Commissioner of his ability to intervene on appeals to assess, and relegating all appeals to the already beleaguered court system will cause undue hardship to those legitimately – because this about those legitimately seeking information. The accusations of fishing, of vexatious or frivolous, all these issues are already covered under the existing act. There is no reason to be heavy handed in this area. The act should not be built on prevention of abuse; the act should be built on the principles and the mandate of protecting privacy and information to further the democratic process.

So, why is the government doing this at this point? This, too, is contrary to every practice in the country. We have a well-functioning Office of the Information and Privacy Commission that serves the act and serves the people of this Province well. I cannot for the life of me imagine why this particular amendment is being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot accurately predict how this legislation will affect the future. None of us can, but we can imagine. However, we can look to the past and we can look at how might this legislation have affected past events that we are aware of; for instance, the Cameron Inquiry.

We all are very well aware of how difficult those few years were in our Province and how difficult it was for many. Imagine today trying to get information about the ER-PR problems when everything can be hidden under the category of Cabinet secrecy or when everything could be hidden under the guise of solicitor-client information. Mr. Speaker, before we had a public inquiry, there were many of us, the media included, who had to push, and push, and push for information before –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember personally, Mr. Speaker, how difficult that time was when it was next to impossible to get information about what was going on with the problems of the ER-PR mistakes during the time of the Cameron Inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Many of us know how doggedly the media went after information. If this particular legislation, the amendments to this act, were in place at that time, it would have been virtually impossible to get a lot of the information that was obtained before the Cameron Inquiry was set up.

Mr. Speaker, with the whole issue of client-solicitor privilege, and also with the issue of Cabinet secrecy, because there were several meetings between Eastern Health –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – and ministers responsible for health; it would have been basically impossible to get this information.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a single thing in this new bill that makes it easier for people to get information about what government or Cabinet is doing. Today, the Minister of Justice has said this is an extensive, significant, far-reaching piece of legislation; yes, it is. They have had a year to do this.

I have not even touched on this act, and particularly how this act relates to overturning the court decision on solicitor-client privilege, solicitor-client privilege which we know is a very important aspect of our law.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for us. This draconian bill reveals again the seige mentally of this government – or is it arrogance? Our government is not a business, nor should its information be treated like privileged or private information, like a business or corporation. Our government serves a public function, making decisions on how we live our lives collectively. The ATIPPA was in line with most jurisdictions in this country. We had a solid ATIPPA; however –

MS SULLIVAN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot just sit idly by when I hear reference to the Cameron Inquiry and the suggestion that information would not have been forthcoming because it would have been protected by Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister, to state her point of order please.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Cameron Inquiry had to do with information that they would have required from Eastern Health, all of which was provided.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day. This draconian bill reveals the siege mentality once more of this government – or is it arrogance, or is it fear? I cannot name what it is. Our government is not a business nor should its information be treated privileged and private; its information is about moving us forward.

I invite this government to come out into the light, address the disgraceful democratic deficit they continue to create, and let us modernize our Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – instead of dragging it into darkness. "If you and I know the facts then we will collectively decide the best course of our future…" That is from former Premier, Danny Williams. Mr. Speaker, I encourage this government to not take us backwards, to not throw us into darkness, but actually to modernize our ATIPPA for the future of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening.

I can tell you up front that this will not be a filibuster speech. Despite the level of noise coming from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, there are some important points that I want to share that I feel are important to get out as part of this debate that we are having.

This is a serious debate, Mr. Speaker. There obviously are a lot of issues that have been raised here today. There will be more raised this evening. There have been many issues and concerns raised in the public today, particularly in some of the media coverage and by members of the Opposition. For that reason I think it is important to participate in the debate.

I have heard some hollers from across the floor here, and they continue, Mr. Speaker. They are suggesting that I have been tweeting about this important issue, and I have been. There is nothing I would say on Twitter that I am not prepared to stand in this House and discuss and debate, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, we are debating –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has been asking for order at many times during this debate. There is some disruption on both sides of the House, and I want to give fair warning that there are certain members that are refusing to co-operate. If you do not co-operate, then I will have to name you by your district and ask for your co-operation. I would once again ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate your protection.

As I was saying, we are debating a hoist amendment that has been put forth by the Official Opposition that will certainly in some ways allow for more discussion on this important bill, which I think is a great opportunity for all of us, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to thank the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador for his comments as part of the debate this evening. I think it was good to hear some really practical examples of the implications, both positive and negative, of access to information legislation.

One of the questions posed to me by a member of the public, as well as by a journalist on Twitter earlier today, was whether I have ever filed a request for information. I have, Mr. Speaker. Several years ago, prior to sitting in this hon. House, I did file several requests for information. Was it a challenging process? Yes, it was a challenging process. Did it take time? Yes, it did take time. Looking back on it now, Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize that the government of the day had an obligation to not only ensure that I had access to the information that I was looking for, but also to respect the privacy of other individuals who may have been affected by that very information.

Another question that has been raised today is: what do these changes have to do with openness and transparency? Well, Mr. Speaker, these changes that are being proposed through Bill 29 have a lot to do with openness and transparency. Under the current legislation as it presently exists – legislation that was introduced by this government; previous governments never had the courage to do so, Mr. Speaker. Under the current legislation, it is very difficult to release personal information. 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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: A delayed response, but I appreciate that. Thank you.

We are also enabling the Province's privacy officer to have more time to conduct investigations, Mr. Speaker. This is not about prolonging responses to requests; it is about allowing an officer of this House and his staff to have more opportunity to do a more thorough review. He or she will now have sixty days versus thirty days to respond to informal requests for information and he or she will have 120 days to respond to formal requests, Mr. Speaker. This is, in fact, an improvement to the legislation, and it is not something that I am hearing about in the debate. It is certainly not something I am hearing about in the coverage that has ensued today or in the commentary that is taking place on social media and elsewhere.

I think it is also important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are also streamlining a number of processes through this legislation. Our effort is actually being made to make access to information and the protection of privacy more efficient and more effective through some of these changes that we are debating today and tonight in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure some of my colleagues on this side of the House will agree that the Opposition has an awful short memory. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Speaker, was a long time coming. We have heard from three members of the Official Opposition already during this debate. I suspect we will hear from the others as the evening goes on. It is important to note that the Liberals never, ever enacted this legislation. It is typical of what we have seen from them. It is the do as I say, not as I do mentality, Mr. Speaker, and it is shameful.

I ask members of this House: Which party was it that enacted ATIPPA? Does anybody remember? It was this party, Mr. Speaker. Which party was it that allowed the Auditor General back into this House? Which party was that? It was this party. Which party brought in legislation to ensure accountability and transparency in the House of Assembly? Does anybody remember which party that was, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: It was this party, it was this party.

I also found it interesting that the Opposition House Leader made reference to ministers' travel and the availability of that information. Under previous governments you could not have access to information about expensive dinners, trips with spouses around the world, and helicopter tours, Mr. Speaker. None of that information was readily available. Every bit of travel and expense information pertaining to ministers of this government is completely available online, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to openness and we are committed to transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I am not naive. I recognize there are people concerned about the issues we are debating this evening. There are people who are concerned about the ramifications and implications of Bill 29. I do think, in fairness, Mr. Speaker, that there are a few key facts pertaining to this legislation that are not being heard in the debate so far, and not in the coverage we have seen through traditional and social media.

There have been several concerns raised today through the course of this debate and on the public airwaves around the process for ATIPP requests becoming more expensive. Well, it is important to note that as a result of Bill 29, as a result of the amendments we are actually making to this legislation, the first two hours of search time is actually being increased to four free hours of search time. We are actually doubling the amount of free search time that is funded by taxpayers of this Province that will be available in response to Access to Information requests, Mr. Speaker. That demonstrates a real commitment to making this process more accessible, more efficient, and more effective from the point of view of those making the requests.

There has also been reference in the debate, Mr. Speaker, to access the Cabinet documents. Certainly, that has been a focus of media coverage today as well. The fact is that the Auditor General was prevented from certain Cabinet documents long before talk of these amendments today, Mr. Speaker. So, despite what some people seem to be suggesting, this is not in fact new. There are good reasons for it. Certain information has to be protected for very good reason.

There has also been some commentary about the Auditor General's access to financial data and the fact that Bill 29 could somehow impede the work of the Auditor General. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador has access to every single bit of financial data. Every single cent that is spent the Auditor General has access to that data, Mr. Speaker, and that will not change with or without Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, those are just some of the points I wanted to respond to in terms of some of the issues that have been raised today. In some of the time I have left, I would like to make a few more comments on this bill in particular. The primary goal and the primary focus of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is openness, transparency, and accountability. Our government is committed to this, Mr. Speaker.

The minister himself has indicated that this is the first statutory review of Newfoundland and Labrador's legislation. It has been completed and the report was delivered by Commissioner Cummings just last year. The act was actually proclaimed in 2005, and what we are debating this evening and throughout today are amendments to that act. That act actually mandates a review of the legislation every five years. The completion of this first review actually fulfills a key piece of the act that this government brought in.

One of the things I learned while researching this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that the act actually applies to more than 460 public bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador: government departments, boards, agencies, health care boards, educational bodies such as school boards, as well as to the many municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have studied Commissioner Cummings' report and we are moving forward on legislative changes right now that are based on many of the recommendations that are contained in that report. The recommendations that are outlined in the report reflect some of the changes that residents brought forward through extensive public consultation that was done and other interested parties submitted to us during the consultation process that took place. 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.

The majority of recommendations from Commissioner Cummings have been accepted or have been modified as a result of this work we are doing through Bill 29. Other recommendations do require further review and we will take time to do that, Mr. Speaker. We need to consult with the public bodies that are affected by this legislation and that will obviously take time. We are going to work with the public bodies and we are going to work with government entities to ensure that people are comfortable with the proposed recommendations and that we uphold our responsibility to the protection of privacy for individual citizens, the protection of privacy for government workers, and anyone involved in confidential matters, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has already said twice during debate today that the majority of legislative amendments that we are talking about are based largely on similar legislation that has been put in place by other provinces, territories, and the federal government. Precedence has been set, Mr. Speaker. We are following the lead of many others who have laid the foundation when it comes to access to information and privacy legislation, those who have attempted policies – policies that in some cases have worked, in other cases have not worked – and we are learning from those experiences; we are benefiting from the fruits of their labour, learning from mistakes that have been made. This is certainly not something that this government takes lightly.

These legislative changes, these changes to the act that are proposed through this bill really do uphold our continued commitment to this important piece of legislation. At the same time we are also providing clarity on the right to information and the right to the use and disclosure of personal information, which is an emerging issue in society today.

There are a number of policy recommendations that do require further review. They relate to things like training for staff, improved information management. All of those issues are still under consideration, Mr. Speaker. We are going to work with other public bodies, we are going to discuss implementation with them, and that will take some time. What we are doing through Bill 29 is moving forward as quickly as possible on the changes that need to be made in response to the Commissioner's recommendations, the ones that we are able to make at this time.

We are committed to openness and transparency. The act is a clear demonstration of this belief. This legislation is important, and I encourage everybody to participate in the debate. I encourage people to review the actual changes that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker, through this legislation.

I am really sick and tired of hearing from Opposition Parties that this is somehow secretive or overly protective of information that they feel should be released to the public. The truth of the matter is that everybody in this Province, Mr. Speaker, has a right to privacy, and we, as a government, have an obligation to protect that right to privacy and those rights of the individual. This is part of the reason why the ATIPP legislation was established, to ensure that information requested was required to be released in an appropriate way. This government was the first to recognize that need for openness and transparency, but, Mr. Speaker, it is a balancing act, and we are evolving the legislation here. We still have to respect the right to privacy of residents in this Province, and I think that is really important.

There has been some discussion of the fees associated with the legislation. They are not meant to be prohibitive in any way, Mr. Speaker. They are not meant to be a deterrent, but they have to also reflect reality; this was alluded to by my colleague, the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, earlier this evening. A great deal of work goes into compiling all that information that is requested, and when a significant request is made, we should recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are practical implications. Compiling this information takes many members of the public service away from other duties that are also important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Cummings also recommended that public bodies have the ability to disregard requests that are frivolous, or vexatious, or trivial, words that we have heard a lot through the course of today's discussions about this bill. While we have modified this recommendation to not require prior approval of the Privacy Commissioner, there is still plenty of material, including reports, policy manuals, and case law, that will be a benefit to ATIPP offices and coordinators. It is important that these staff and these professionals are able to focus on legitimate requests and respond to those in a timely, efficient, and effective manner, Mr. Speaker. Due consideration is going to be given to each and every request that is received.

It is also important to understand that there is a process surrounding decision-making in government, and there is a process surrounding Cabinet decision-making, Mr. Speaker. I do not claim to be a Cabinet minister, although I would very happy to be one, one of these days, some time in the future maybe. There is a Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, there is an Economic Policy Committee of Cabinet, and there is Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker.

I knew the Opposition would like that. That was for you guys.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few parts of the Cabinet decision-making process: Social Policy, Economic Policy, Treasury Board. There is much information and there are documents to support those processes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: It is very hard to hear, Mr. Speaker. I ask for you protection.

It would be wonderful if we could make all of that public, Mr. Speaker, and that may certainly seem like the obvious thing to do politically, but this is not a government that makes easy, cheap, political decisions, despite the lobbying and the noise from the Opposition parties. You can probably hear it in the background here this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is support for your speaking.

MR. KENT: That could be it; maybe it is enthusiastic support for what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure.

Simply responding to that call to just simply make everything public would not be responsible. It is not practical; it would not serve the best interests of the people of the Province, nor the people who we, as a government, and as a Province, do business with. Modifying or rejecting some recommendations is hardly about keeping secrets, Mr. Speaker. We brought legislation for accountability and transparency into the House of Assembly, as I said earlier. We brought the Auditor General into the House of Assembly, as I said earlier. These were actions of this government.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: A long road ahead – the Opposition House Leader is so enthusiastic about what I have to say this evening, and I appreciate that. I know you are competing with the Member for Bay of Islands, but he is certainly better behaved than you are this evening.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing the right thing here. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is a work in progress. It is evolving here. We recognize that there are areas of privacy legislation that need revision, and we are open and we are willing to do so because we want to offer the best privacy protection to our residents while also maintaining our commitment as a government to openness and to transparency. We have accepted many of the recommendations of Mr. Cummings and we continue to make changes and positive improvements to ATIPPA. We work closely with our Privacy Commissioner –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

I know this is an evening sitting and people are somewhat tired and possibly excited about the debate, but I would ask members to appreciate and recognize when the Speaker recognizes the speaker who has the floor that we provide the attention to that speaker; or, if we want to have a private conversation, we do that outside the Chamber.

Thank you very much.

MR. KENT: For a second time, thank you once again for your protection, Mr. Speaker; I really appreciate it.

As I was saying, we work closely with our Privacy Commissioner and the staff in his office to ensure that they have all the support they need to do their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that not too long ago the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not exist. It was enacted by this government. Previously, there were no rules and regulations surrounding privacy and the right to information. It was this government that decided that we needed to set the stage for openness and for transparency.

Regardless of what the members opposite may believe or try to portray to the public, we are the first government who has implemented a policy that assists our residents in that regard. We are making information accessible to them without negatively affecting their right to privacy and that balance is important, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the work of our professionals in this area. They are doing great work. They are the bridge between government departments and the requests for information. They are mediators and they have a role to play in deciding what can be released and what cannot be released.

It is our obligation to ensure that the legislation dictates the procedures we must follow regarding the investigation and the release of information to ensure that it is fair and just for everybody concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this debate will continue for some time. I hope I will have an opportunity to speak again, to address many of the changes that we are trying to make through Bill 29. I thank you for the opportunity and I thank members on this side of the House, and perhaps even down in the corner, for listening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. KENT: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my privilege to stand tonight and speak to Bill 29, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the proposed amendment that was put forth by my colleagues.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address and respond to some of the comments that have been made by the minister opposite when addressing the whole idea of cost and the time, how long this took for members of his staff as he mentioned there, and how time consuming it was for members of the department to actually respond to some of the requests that were put in for the access for information.

Mr. Speaker, as an Opposition member we all realize the importance of receiving information that was not readily available to us at some time. It is important for us as we put in those requests for information that we get it in a timely fashion, because in many cases what it does is actually help us prepare and respond to some of the requests that we would get, for instance, as we represent our constituents or indeed make decisions on where we would be as we prepare for the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about price and this, of course, varies. Even in my few weeks as Leader of the Opposition, I have seen invoices or bills that would come in for various requests and some of them have been in excess of $700. I speak to one in particular, which was one that we had used to Nalcor. That particular request was in excess of $700, as we were requesting some reports based on the EnerSea reports, which there were two done in 2009 and 2007. To date, for instance, we still do not have that information available to us. These are the kinds of things you normally see that the Opposition would use on a day-to-day basis to go about doing its work and in preparation for Question Period, as I said.

These are all important things, and it is very difficult to put a price tag on what this should be. Indeed, the price does vary, and to just simply say that there is a price tag for the application of $5, it really does not end there. You see that the prices for a lot of this information, Mr. Speaker, it can get to be a price tag of many hundreds of dollars, as it was in the example that I just mentioned here, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that is important to recognize as I respond to the minister and his comments that were made, is the fact that putting a price tag on some of this information is really a slippery slope and a dangerous place to be. What it is, a request is about information. We are not out here just looking for – on a fishing trip let's say, has been mentioned here many times tonight, just to find out some piece of information. It is not about gossip. It is not about just being curious. What it is, it is about information, about meaningful information that we could use in preparation for the House of Assembly.

In a lot of cases the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the number of requests that goes through – and as I speak a little bit later I want to go through, just give an overview of the process and how we got to where we are today in terms of the information. I will also mention about a couple of key areas we are concerned about, in particular part 3, or in this case section 18, as we reference the Cabinet documents and the secrecy that surrounds that and the changes that have been made which we now realize are contained in this bill. Of course, then we will talk a little bit later about the changes in the actual Office of the Privacy Commissioner itself, and what this bill would mean to the Commissioner as he goes about his day-to-day duties.

We will also talk about, and we have heard a lot about this today, is the word balance. Mr. Speaker, people would have to say that finding the correct balance in how people access the information and how much information, is it fair to restrict? In doing so, when we look at Mr. Cummings – and I will just go back for a few minutes here now, just to give an overview of where we are before I move on to, in the correct approach to finding that balance in how we access information and the disclosure of information, and how much of it should be withheld from the public in this particular case.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the timelines when it comes to the freedom of information and access to information, we have to go back as far as 1981. These were the days of Premier Brian Peckford when he first brought in the Freedom of Information Act, and that was back in 1981. That is now some thirty years ago, when you think about how this legislation has evolved to where we are today. It was almost twenty years later, in 2001, that we really see the first, what I would consider to be significant changes in this legislation, Mr. Speaker. That was back with the current Minister of Justice at the time in a Liberal government when the first change to the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1981 by Premier Peckford.

That takes us to 2001. I went through some of the debate that occurred in the fall of 2001, late November and early December. There was considerable debate in this House. At that point in time, it was when you had the Progressive Conservatives who were in Opposition of the day. There was considerable debate and a lot of questions were asked about the implementation. As a matter of fact, I have looked at some press releases of the day that actually called the piece of legislation at the time a denial of information. We seen words used that the legislation had no teeth. These were the comments that were being made back in 2001, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as time moved on, it was back in 2005 that we saw the first changes that were the enacting of the legislation. Yes, in 2005. This dealt with mostly the access piece of the legislation. We were not long into that period of time when we first started noticing some of the cracks that were being seen in how this piece of legislation was being accepted by the government of the day. My colleague made reference to one request that was withheld. That was about the whole idea of the poll results.

Mr. Speaker, you could actually see there were some significant changes that were starting to take place from 2001, the debate that happened in this House and the types of questions that were being asked. Then in 2003 with the government change, and then in 2005 with the access piece of this legislation finally coming to be, we did some serious and significant changes in terms of the mindset on how this legislation would unfold.

Indeed, it was then that we first started hearing words about: If it is completely wide open, then the court will have to tell us to do so. This was the Premier of the day as he told reporters that if it is not the case, maybe Cabinet meetings would be held no differently than, for instance, city hall meetings, and that they should be fully televised.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are suggesting with all of this today. We do realize that there is certain sensitive information that obviously, when it comes to Cabinet deliberations, is not meant to be available to the public, but with that, what we have to do, as I mentioned earlier, is find the balance. That balance must be one where we as Opposition, and indeed the public – because they are huge players in all of this, and hugely affected and impacted by all of this; all those stakeholders need to know that they could have fair access to information that could affect some of the decisions and suggest some of the changes that need to be made. Finding this balance on how much information should be withheld as opposed to what should be accessible is where we need to be, Mr. Speaker, and that is where we will try and lead this debate. What we have really seen, as Part III or section 18, as I have mentioned, are some serious and significant changes, at least in my opinion.

If we look back to 2008 when the privacy part or the privacy piece of this legislation came into being, we then finally had the full implementation of what the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was all about. The 2005 timeline is a very important one, and one that we must not forget, because essentially that then triggered the five-year mandatory review, which is one of the reasons why we are here today – this, of course, being the overview and the comprehensive review that was completed by Mr. John Cummings. His appointment was on March 17, 2010. What he was tasked to do was to actually – his mandate, which was required to examine, but not limit Mr. Cummings to a series of issues that he had to review.

An example of that, Mr. Speaker, was the public and the public body experience, in using and administering the ATIPPA through the access to information in the custody or control of the public bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador, and opportunities for improvement. Where were the improvements that he would actually recommend to those over-460 public bodies that exist in our Province, Mr. Speaker? This was one of the things that Mr. Cummings was tasked to do.

There were many other things; one other one that I will speak to right now is whether there are any types of information that should be made more readily available by public bodies. Well, Mr. Speaker, what he was suggesting there, or what was being asked of him to do there, is: were there any areas where he could see improvement in this legislation, where more information could be available, and that could actually help us all. At that point, when that issue was raised there, it was actually speaking to making this piece of legislation even more – expanding it and making it broader would be my interpretation there, Mr. Speaker.

Also, he was asked to find out if there were any types of information, being personal information or otherwise, that would require greater protection than the ATIPPA currently provides. So, there he would be asked to answer about the sensitivities of the information that he would ask to review, just to see if indeed it had a negative, or in this case, a positive impact on the residents of the Province, and indeed, government as they make their decisions.

Also, about the public body response times for access requests, and whether ATIPPA requirements for response times are appropriate, there was a recommendation made about this, and the member opposite made reference to this. This was about timelines; being responsive, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, is sometimes very important for people as they go seeking information that they often would use to make a decision. I know for us, in the Opposition, when we seek out FOIs or we put in requests for information, they are indeed timely for us, because we would actually use that information in our role as keeping government at task, or accountable and transparent.

So, Mr. Speaker, he was also asked to do an examination of both the mandatory and discretionary exceptions to access as set out in Part III, and I will speak more to that later, because Part III speaks to section 18 of the legislation and is where much of the concern lies today, because this has to deal primarily with Cabinet papers and the supporting documents that often form the basis of decisions that are made by Cabinet.

Of course, when we first see this, we are reminded of even the AG's report in 2011, as he made reference to an infrastructure plan that was an evolving plan, we found out later, but there was really nothing that was hard-and-fast, or nothing that was actually written, any complete document or indeed a plan or strategy itself. Indeed, the 2011 AG's report outlined that indeed the infrastructure money that was being spent was not part of a plan, but was indeed an evolving process, as we found out later.

There was an expectation, based on some of the press releases that we had heard over the months preceding this and, of course, over the last five years, there was an expectation that there would be a plan or a strategy that would be in place and that would be written, but in this particular case this was not the case; and I will speak more about Part III and section 18 as we move along, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Cummings as part of his mandatory review, as part of the 2005, as I said, legislation, is whether there were any additional uses or disclosures of personal information that should be permitted under this act. The question here was about whether his role should be expanded to make more information available. Mr. Speaker, this part did not really come into as one of the recommendations of the sixteen of the thirty-three recommendations that were completed. There were thirty-three recommendations as outlined by Mr. Cummings, and today we find out that there were thirteen and some of those will still be under review.

An examination of the complaints process to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner – so this was indeed how the actual process works; you would expect a review done here about costing, about timelines, about response and how the whole process from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner would work. Mr. Speaker, these were all important things and gave the Review Commissioner, in this case Mr. Cummings, a lot of latitude as he conducted his review.

The other thing that has been mentioned and I did mention it earlier is that whether the ATIPPA fee schedule is appropriate. This was under recommendation 8. In this particular case, Mr. Cummings suggested that there would not be any changes in the fees because in some cases they can be prohibitive. His advice was not taken on recommendation 8 and there were changes made in the fees. We have done an overview of some of the fees that we have seen across the country and we will get into the fee structure and how we compare to other provinces and we will do that at a later date.

The other thing was whether the ATIPPA should contain provisions for dealing with the frivolous and vexatious nuisance requests. What that refers to there is if any of those requests were just coming in and they were not really serious in nature.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the recommendations and the changes that would be suggested, as the Opposition Leader, this is a great time, and the opportune time, I would say, Mr. Speaker, to actually make some of the changes. We do not want to be seen, or I do not think it is fair that we would actually waste the time of the Privacy Commissioner; but, indeed, who makes that decision is an important one. We will speak to that a little bit later again. You just simply cannot dismiss that the person who actually makes that decision is something that we have concern with. There needs to be some way that you can actually appeal some of those decisions and just simply dismissing those requests, Mr. Speaker, is something that we are concerned about. Whether there are any bodies which would not appear to meet the definition of the public body which would be subject to ATIPPA – so what we are asking here is who would fall under the ATIPPA legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the final thing that Mr. Cummings was asked to review was whether the provisions of the ATIPPA are appropriate for local public bodies, such as municipalities, school boards, and regional health boards.

We all know that the privacy legislation, Mr. Speaker, is just not about government departments. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of public bodies, 460 public bodies in the Province, fall under this legislation. Having access to information that some of those bodies would have is certainly important to people in the Province. I need to look no further than the Web site of the Privacy Commissioner themselves. When you look at this, you will actually see that since the access request first came in, in 2008, in the first year of 2007-2008 there were 131 active files in total. Mr. Speaker, as people became a little more familiar with the office, we now know that in 2008-2009 there were 164 active files; in 2009-2010, 164; in 2010-2011, 175. What this meant was there were a lot of people and the complexity of these requests seemed to be increasing, but then again I think it has a lot to do with the availability and people becoming more familiar with the process in terms of these access requests.

This is an important opportunity and an avenue for people to have when they have questions, so they feel that they can comfortably go to the office of the Privacy Commissioner to get this information. Mr. Speaker, when you look back in 2008, when we actually transitioned and the privacy requests then became available – so the privacy breach complaints and according to the office, since 2007 and 2008, in that year there was only six active files; in 2008-2009, twenty-three; in 2009-2010, there was twenty-six; in 2010-2011, there were thirty-eight active files that the Privacy Commissioner, that his office reported.

So, it goes to show that people see this office as extremely important, as he put in many requests for these reports. We have copies of those, and, of course, they are on the Web site. You can actually get some idea of the type of people, or the public bodies in this particular case, and the departments within government that people are putting in requests for, and there are many of those. They could range from any municipality, for instance, in a town. I will not go down through the complete list in 2011 and 2012, but I can assure you they range anywhere from small communities to large departments, to schools, for instance, Mr. Speaker. There are many, many public bodies that people would be interested enough in that they would actually file for reports, especially around access.

We have used it too, Mr. Speaker, I would say, from our own Opposition Office, as I mentioned earlier. As an example, I gave you the request for the EnerSea reports in 2007 and 2009, and the cost. We have often, as we have asked questions about – it could be any public body, for instance, the MMSB. We have often put in requests for a public body like MMSB. Just a question that the Opposition party would have, simply as we use that to form the basis of a certain briefing note that we would be doing or preparing us for Question Period, or our activities in the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Service NL mentioned about the amount of requests and the time that it takes, and sometimes the cost. When we did our review the numbers that we were just given, there were twenty requests that went in. That would essentially be twenty in a year. In my opinion at least, that is not a lot of activity or not a lot of requests that we would put in for freedom of information. Twenty in a year, Mr. Speaker, would not seem like a lot of requests, even though we do understand that it does take staff time to prepare for those. Those requests and this information is important to any Opposition party or people in the public as they would seek out information in an area of concern they would have that affects them either personally or affects the group or a group that they would be associated with.

Mr. Speaker, it is about balance. It is always about finding the correct balance between access to the information and about the disclosure of the information from a government point of view. Is it fair that government should be able to keep back, and how much of that should be made public through the access to information? Mr. Speaker, in answering that question what the review commissioner did at this point was what I would consider to be an environmental scan of privacy commissioner offices across the country. There was some varying degree, some differences in what you would find across the country, Mr. Speaker.

Just taking or cherry-picking from one particular Province and trying to implement that into what would be a fragmented plan or a fragmented piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is probably not the best approach, in my opinion, to be. That is what we have made – there have been quite a few comments made about other jurisdictions and where we fit into all of this. I know back a few years ago, I think we had ranked third. Today what we see here is that this information, at least what we feel and what we believe in most reports that we are seeing so far, is that this would be regressive and it would set us back in terms of access to information.

Mr. Speaker, as we move from province to province, taking what people would see or what we have seen, as I said, cherry-picking from one province and trying to implement that into our Province is probably not the best approach, because it is very difficult to keep this piece of legislation in balance when you do that.

Mr. Speaker, we have noticed throughout the document and throughout the recommendations there is a lot of reference to other jurisdictions and where we fit. Why that forms, I guess, the suggestion that our legislation needs to be changed is beyond me, because indeed what would happen in BC, even though it is a great benchmark and it is good information, it really should not be part of the informed decision, indeed what happens right here in our Province. Indeed, in this particular case, as we have had governments who have built platforms and political platforms and run elections on being open and transparent, I believe it is important that if we could be the most transparent and the most open government in Canada, that is indeed where we would try to be, and what we would do is that any amendments to legislation would indeed put us into a situation where we would actually lead the country, not bring us back to where other jurisdictions are. In many cases I think, Mr. Speaker, that is what we see in this piece of legislation today.

Just to make reference to some of the earlier comments, I want to just highlight the difference between what is access to information and, indeed, distribution of information. There was one speaker today that mentioned the distribution piece, as we live in a society today where social media – that being either Facebook, or Twitter, or all the social media opportunities that we have for us; there is a distinct difference between how the information is being distributed to the public and how you access it. Right now, this is not about the distribution, this piece of legislation or the amendments that we are talking about here today; it is about access. You must have the information if, indeed, you are going to talk about distribution. Mr. Speaker, today, this piece, as I said, is about the access to information, not about the distribution at all.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of comments that have been made. As we move into further amendments and the debate on this legislation right now, Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of opportunity, as I would say, to speak to this. One of the areas that I think that we have asked a lot of questions about and we will continue to ask questions about is the role of the Commissioner. Indeed, this piece of legislation, through its amendment, will actually diminish the role and will take certainly a lot of the authority away from the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Speaker.

You look back at, for instance, what will we do as an Opposition, what will we do as a member of the public; when you want to get this information, what avenue do you take? One of the things that has been talked about here today is that when it has been denied, the opportunity that you would have then is to go to court and simply say, okay, well, the Privacy Commissioner can indeed make a recommendation, but if you really want this, well, you have to go court.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I have not spent many days in court, and I certainly hope it stays that way. I will say that most people in our society right now, when you look at it and you say: well, if you really want to explore this, if you really want to get your question answered, what you have to do is appeal this in some court, that for most people would seem to be as a way to lengthen the process. There is no question, it takes time. It will take up court time, too, and it certainly adds costs to the whole process. I think that most people would find that to be extremely intimidating.

Mr. Speaker, the role of the Commissioner in this particular case that we see, his role before the amendment in the current legislation back in 2005, was a role that at least should be making it easier for people to access information, and indeed, not just finding a way that would be making it much harder for people.

When I started, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I would talk a little bit more about Part III, section 18, that being around the availability of Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, when you look at this in terms of Bill 29 and when you look at the differences that first went in place in what is referred to as Part III and section 18, there have been some significant changes outlined for this piece of legislation as we move through the amendments. What it does, at least through the original bill, Mr. Speaker, is make reference to: "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet, including advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation, or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Cabinet."

Then it goes on to say that "Subsection (1) does not apply to (a) information in a record that has been in existence for 20 years…" – that is the Cabinet documents which are twenty years or more – and "(b) information in a record of a decision made by the Cabinet on an appeal under the Act." There are some significant changes through this particular section, section 18, in this amendment. It goes on to suggest that many of the documents that would be used to prepare for a Cabinet briefing or a Cabinet decision now would be no longer available and, Mr. Speaker, would indeed be withheld. This is information that, in this particular case, the Clerk would have certified as official Cabinet documents.

Mr. Speaker, where we see this going is that less and less information that is used to form the basis for Cabinet decisions would no longer be available and no longer be accessible. I find it difficult to understand how this would make any particular government be more open and more transparent, Mr. Speaker. In these particular cases, we are seeing where not only Cabinet, but indeed public bodies, would be able to refuse access to more information than they would in the past. Mr. Speaker, these are pieces of information and documents that had been available in the past, but we will see now are no longer available to us. When I mentioned public bodies, of course, that would mean something like a school board, it would mean a health authority, it would mean municipalities.

This piece of legislation here under part (iii), section 18, does become very restrictive in this particular case. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, as we go on and look at the amendments that have been made here: draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to Cabinet; a memorandum, the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to Cabinet. It goes on to about another seven points used to describe the types of documents that would no longer be available to the public, Mr. Speaker. The public body also falls under this category as well.

Mr. Speaker, what happens then, of course, there is kind of, who determines what would be a privileged document or not? This, indeed, is certified by the Clerk in this particular case. Then this document becomes the basis as something that we use, it would be defined as something that was used by Cabinet and not available. In this particular case, the recommendation could come from the Privacy Commissioner, but if you wanted access to that a court challenge is your only option. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, most people see this to be somewhat very limiting, very restrictive, and intimidating.

When you look at the amendments that are outlined here, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask about the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. What are the changes, for instance, that this particular office would see? Where it is now to where, if these changes were implemented, it would be then.

One thing that has already happened is within the power of the Commissioner to provide information to government on access and privacy legislation. The Privacy Commissioner was consulted in the Cummings Report – just as an overview of what actually happened here – is that as Mr. Cummings was asked to do public consultations across the Province, he did so with the Opposition, he did so with the Third Party, and he did so with a number of associations and a number of public bodies, for instance, communities or municipalities across the Province. That was all part of the public consultation. He also met with the Privacy Commissioner himself and asked for input into the legislation as part of his meetings and as part of his consultations across the Province. Indeed, when all these amendments were crafted, Mr. Speaker, the very person who would probably be impacted the most, except for, I guess, the members of the public, that the Privacy Commissioner was not contacted about how these amendments would actually affect his office.

There are two major ways that his office, in our opinion, would be negatively impacted by the amendments in this particular act. Number one, the Privacy Commissioner would be excluded from examining Cabinet records, where they are certified by the Clerk of Cabinet to be Cabinet records. Any record that has been certified by the Clerk, then they would not be available to the Privacy Commissioner and there would be no appeal in this particular case. The only appeal, as I mentioned earlier, would be through court or through the Trial Division. Again, I would repeat, Mr. Speaker, that most people would see this to be regressive and would see this certainly as a step back when you look at the access and the availability of information, not only to Opposition parties but indeed to the public as a whole.

The goal of the original act, when you go back to 2001 and the implementation in 2005 and then in 2009, was to lower the barriers for access to the information. It was noteworthy at the time that the original bill allowed the Privacy Commissioner to appeal government decisions on behalf of the applicant. In this particular case, if an applicant went looking for information and was denied, on behalf of the applicant the Privacy Commissioner could then go and appeal that decision, and then behalf of the applicant could make the argument why that information should be released. We have seen that. As a matter of fact, we have even seen it to the point where the Privacy Commissioner even took the government to court. I think it has been on three occasions that we have seen that happen.

The one that has been mentioned many times today in this House is the one of last fall. The court of the day then pretty much said that information should be released; however, these amendments now require applicants, as I said, to go to Trial Division for appeals, under more conditions than ever before. So, this is the reason why we were saying, and we will repeat to say today, that this piece of legislation is regressive, in our opinion, and it is indeed a step back to when you look at the accountability and the transparency that you would expect for governments in 2012.

So, these amendments now require applicants to go through Trial Division for appeals under more conditions than ever before. So as we now take authority back, or we take the ability for the Privacy Commissioner to work on behalf of the applicant, with that ability now gone, the applicant is left with no other choice but indeed to use the Trial Division for appeals, as I said, and I am sure I can speak for just about anybody who would actually go through that process, that indeed they would see that to be very time consuming, costly, Mr. Speaker, and very intimidating.

So, by cutting out the Privacy Commissioner from this process, this raises the barrier to appeal – as I said, it makes the process much longer, far too expensive for individuals to pursue. It pits the resources – and in this particular case – of the private individual against the resources of a government, and the Department of Justice. So, Mr. Speaker, I think most people would be of the opinion that in this particular case, this would not be something that we would see in balance, that indeed the balance would be gone, because for any applicant, and in some cases, the individual, to have to go to court to access information, given the resources that a government would have versus that of an individual would certainly seem to be very unfair, and in most cases, the individuals would not have the time, nor the financial resources to go through this process.

So, previously, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner had the right to examine any documents that were claimed by government to be that of solicitor-client privilege. The distributed document would be made available to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, who could confirm or deny that it was indeed solicitor-client privilege. Then, of course, there was the case that we mentioned of the person within the Department of Justice that was let go, and of course then the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, on behalf of that applicant, took, in this particular case, government to court to clarify the position of solicitor-client privilege.

We are not here today to say that that is not extremely important – it is very important, and it is paramount in our society today that the solicitor-client privilege be maintained – but, Mr. Speaker, it is very important also to recognize that simply just speaking to a solicitor, and the types of things that would go in that file sometimes would not be considered to be privileged. In this particular case, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner now really does not have the authority to be able to go in and access the types of information that is in that file right now just to determine if this is solicitor-client privilege or not.

Mr. Speaker, these are questions and these are changes and the amendments to this piece of legislation that we would see that takes the teeth away from the legislation. Ironically, in that discussion back in 2003 I believe it was in Opposition, those were some of the words that were being used, is that this piece of legislation that was discussed in 2001 rather had no teeth. In this particular case right now, Mr. Speaker, we would be saying something of course very much the same, indeed it is now exaggerated. This particular piece of legislation is not as strong as we what we saw back in 2001, Mr. Speaker.

Now government has simply amended the legislation to ensure that any documents deemed by government to be solicitor-client privilege will not ever be disclosed to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Any future applicant will have, as I said, to go to the court of appeal in this particular case on their own. With the limited resources that most people would have, in our opinion, would be nearly impossible to do.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the powers of the Privacy Commissioner, when you go back to the original piece of legislation, and indeed this is covered under I think it is section 51 in the act. He was given, in this particular case, the ability to make recommendations to ensure compliance with this act and the regulations. So, in this particular case, the Privacy Commissioner would have the opportunity to go in and just determine if the parties were in compliance with the legislation and the intent and the spirit of the legislation to determine if indeed everybody was given the fair opportunity; and if access was denied, if indeed it was the right decision to make.

The powers of the Commissioner and the duties of the Commissioner were also about informing the public of this act. So, when I mentioned a few minutes ago about the number of active files that we would have, you would expect that to happen, even though the numbers have not grown, or we have not seen large increases year over year with the numbers, indeed we have seen increases because it is the role of the Privacy Commissioner to inform the public about this particular act.

One of the other things the Commissioner, or one of the duties and responsibilities that he had was to receive comments from the public about the administration of this act. This gave the public the opportunity to comfortably speak to the Commissioner in this particular case and to give feedback about the administration of the act, and also to comment on the implication for access to information or for public protection and privacy, proposed legislative schemes by programs, public bodies. Some of the other duties and responsibilities were to comment on the implications of the protection of privacy using or disclosing personal information for record linkage, or using the information technology in collection, storage use, or transfer of personal information. These are things that are currently in Section 51 of this act.

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner, in our opinion, had a very broad range of power. Now we see this as being very much watered down under these amendments, and his ability to do the job that he has been known to do over the last six or seven years; there is no question that his authority will be diminished.

Then you say, well, where does this go? Who makes this decision right now? In many cases, Mr. Speaker, the ability to make that decision or the authority rests with that of the minister, who of course is the elected person, for the purposes of this discussion, as opposed to having the independency of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner; now this authority would be transferred to the office of the minister, in this particular case the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, I gave the overview of where this has all happened, right back to 1981, as when I started, about the Freedom of Information Act, back under Premier Peckford's days, into 2001, twenty years later, when we actually saw the first semblance of a document or a piece of legislation that would actually form the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, where we are today.

Now, of course, as part of the mandatory review that has just been completed, we have been led into some thirty-three recommendations, Mr. Speaker. Those thirty-three recommendations will form the basis of the debate over the next few days. As had been already mentioned, sixteen of those thirty-three recommendations indeed have been accepted.

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 that will improve legislation. There are a number, as I have mentioned already, that we will have some concerns about. When it comes to increasing fees, which is recommendation 8, also about the availability of Cabinet papers, what would be included, what would be held back, and what it is now that will no longer be available to us, Mr. Speaker, is something that we have concerns about. The fact that we have actually stripped away much of the authority of the Privacy Commissioner and it will now go into the hands of the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, is really not in the true spirit of the overall accountability and transparency that you would expect, as I said earlier, in 2012.

These, in our opinion, are seen to be as a step backwards, Mr. Speaker, and would actually raise concerns for many of the people, as we have seen various election documents right back, actually, to 1999, based on the premise that we will actually be promoting, and that people could expect, a more open and a transparent form of government.

Mr. Speaker, there is some time left, but I will have a few more opportunities over the coming days to speak again to many of the concerns. We will get into various other sections of this particular piece of legislation and how it is that we actually will find and work towards finding the balance that people can expect. The balance would be that what an Opposition party or what it is members of the public would have a right to have – the types of information that we can expect and that people can rely on – they could expect that would be readily available, and then what is fair, for instance, for a government to withhold.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen today under those particular amendments and those particular changes that are being proposed is that we do see this as a step backwards; we do see less information available to the public. We do see less information and information much harder to get. As I said, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in this particular case is something that we have seen stripped of the authority, or being stripped of the authority and his capacity to access to information being very much watered down.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks right now. I look forward to participating in many more opportunities as I get to speak to this particular bill in the days ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the amendment to Bill 29, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or ATIPPA. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the amendment, for sure.

Mr. Speaker, before I make a few comments, I do want to thank the Minister of Justice and his staff for providing us with the briefing on this new legislation. I have to say that they had a very good presentation and outlined all of the issues, all the recommendations. They were very accommodating, Mr. Speaker, in answering any questions we had and so on. Thank you to the minister for that.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been said earlier, perhaps by you, that it was this Progressive Conservative government back in 2005 – January, 2005 to be specific – that this legislation was proclaimed originally. We know that under this legislation there is a provision or a mandate there that this legislation has to be reviewed every five years, and that is what we are doing here this evening, Mr. Speaker.

In compliance with this provision, Mr. Speaker, we did have a review that was done. It was done by a Commissioner. There were a number of public consultations; I believe there were eight public consultations. There were a couple here in the St. John's area, I believe, Labrador, the West Coast, Central, I believe, Gander, Grand Falls, and so on; we had eight consultations, and of those consultations – which were open to anybody in the public, special interest groups and so on – we only had ten people, Mr. Speaker, who actually made a presentation to the Commissioner, which almost makes you wonder, to some degree, if all the hype that we are hearing here this evening is really resonating with the people or just simply an attempt on behalf of the Official Opposition and the Third Party, another opportunity for them to grandstand.

I certainly see that the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair took that opportunity right from the onset, Mr. Speaker, to totally grandstand and, I believe, to continue with her federal campaign, Mr. Speaker. That is certainly what I witnessed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the Official Opposition that one of the things that this legislation is going to do is – and I think that is another reason why the Official Opposition is not too happy with it – it is actually going to force, to some degree, the Opposition staffers to actually do their job and do research instead of taking this responsibility, passing it on to departments, having the taxpayers pay for all this research, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If members are ready, I remind hon. members that the Member for Mount Pearl South has the floor.

Once again, I recognize the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I said, maybe that will force them to actually do their job, do some research, and perhaps get off Twitter, Mr. Speaker. Certainly all I have been seeing from a lot of the Liberal staffers and so on, Mr. Speaker, is all this activity on the Twitter box, particularly this evening, seeing all kinds of negative tweets about the legislation and so on. Maybe if they were doing some more research instead of engaging in those activities, the party would be certainly much better served, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make a comment as it relates to the Third Party, and the Third Party's commentary about democracy. They were talking about that in putting this legislation in place, somehow we were trying to thwart democracy.

I want to remind the people of Newfoundland and Labrador just how hypocritical that is for the Third Party to be talking about democracy when it was the Third Party that said to the people of Burin-Placentia West that your vote do not count, Mr. Speaker, after agreeing to a process as it relates to special ballots. The leader agreed to the change to the legislation until it was convenient not to; now all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, they are going to thwart democracy themselves and try to overturn the people-

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

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

I think we are speaking to a bill which is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I would like to know what the general election and the role of the Third Party, the New Democratic Party, had to do with the discussion that is on the table at the moment?

MR. SPEAKER: I remind hon. members that we are indeed debating Bill 29, and I ask all hon. members to relate their comments in this debate to the hoist amendment that we are presently debating, and the bill itself.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will, but I just want to say that they opened the door, Mr. Speaker, when they started talking about democracy, so I think I had to close that door, and let the people know what happened here.

So, Mr. Speaker, as was said here certainly by a couple of my colleagues, who ware also great representatives of the City of Mount Pearl, that it was this government that brought in the ATIPPA legislation. It was this government that brought in the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker, and it is this government that implemented the recommendations of the Green Report. When we talk about accountability and transparency, this government is definitely accountable, is definitely transparent, Mr. Speaker, and we are committed to doing the right thing.

It is very easy when it comes to some of these more, I will say, challenging issues, controversial issues, Mr. Speaker, very easy for somebody on the government side to say: do you know what, why go down that road? Why go down that road? Why go down the road of any kind of controversial legislation, or any controversial decisions, because of the politics of the situation?

Mr. Speaker, this government has a record of doing the right thing. Certainly, when I decided to become part of this government – and from discussions I have had with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, with this Premier, this government is committed to doing the right thing, to taking the principled approach. If that is not always the most popular thing, or the most politically correct thing at the time, well, so be it, because we are committed to doing the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador. I have no problem with standing up and defending anything that this government has done to date, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Now, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points that were raised, and certainly, a couple of things I just wanted to mention. A big one that was raised was the cost, and somehow it was going to be prohibited for people to actually access information.

When I look at the schedule that was here, Mr. Speaker – and I think it is important that we put this into context of the average citizen; not necessarily the Third Party, or the Official Opposition, or the media, although they have the right to information, absolutely, and they are still going to have the right to information, Mr. Speaker. Somehow it is being portrayed that if this legislation passes, all of a sudden there is going to be an iron curtain; we are going to build a Berlin Wall around the Confederation Building and nobody will ever get any information. That is the perception that is being put out there. That is what sells newspapers, those kinds of negative connotations, Mr. Speaker. That is certainly what the Opposition and the Third Party thrive on: trying to discredit a government that is trying to do that right thing, all in the name of politics.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the costs for the average person, the average Joe on the street, first of all you have to ask yourself: how many requests are actually coming in from the average person? I would suggest to you that they are far and few between. I know certainly when it comes to municipalities, having served on the Mount Pearl City Council for eight years – and I know that requests would come in from time to time, but they were fairly minimal. Quite often, that request would be a very simple request; a staff person could take ten or fifteen minutes, get the answer the person wanted and in many cases probably did not charge anything. Even if we did charge, you are talking $5 for a request.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, under this legislation now, it used to be that the first two hours were free. Now the first four hours are free. So we are allowing a $5 application fee for information, then up to four hours to compile that information at absolutely no charge. I would suggest that for the average citizen out there, that is going to be more than adequate in most cases. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, from speaking to the minister, I think he said last year that over 90 per cent of the requests, there were no issues with them, from the average person.

Mr. Speaker, we do have to recognize, though, that there is a cost to providing information. Yes, quite often it is the Opposition Party and the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, the media, that are requesting this information.

Mr. Speaker, we used to have a charge of $15 an hour. We are now going from $15 an hour to $25 an hour, but even at $25 an hour it is amongst the lowest in the country, Mr. Speaker, and it is certainly not cost prohibitive.

Mr. Speaker, another change is being made to try to put a cost, if you will, on these fishing expeditions that we see all the time from the Opposition. What would happen in the past is, sometimes somebody might request a whole pile of information, and that might take hours and hours, twenty, thirty, or forty hours, or whatever, to put together, Mr. Speaker. Then, all of a sudden they probably get half of the information and they say: yes, continue on with the rest of it. Then when they go back to the Opposition party, the media, or whoever, and say: that is all right; I got all of the information I needed. I do not want any more information now. They never paid a dime – they never paid a cent. Do you know who paid for it, Mr. Speaker? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador paid for it. The taxpayers paid for it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if there is a request that is going to be made, there will be an estimate done as to what it is estimated it will cost to compile that information, process it, and so on. Then the requester will have to pay half of the cost up front and then they would receive half of the information. Before they get the second half of the information, they would have to pay for that up front. If somebody is truly serious about the information they are requesting, they are not on a fishing expedition, and it is not a frivolous request, then they are not going to have any problem paying for it. That is the point, Mr. Speaker.

At the end of the day, we always have to keep going back to the fact that this is about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have to pay for all of this, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought, to some degree, that the Official Opposition – I think they do understand that concept. We know the Third Party really do not know anything about cost. That is irrelevant in their world. On their planet, Mr. Speaker, cost is irrelevant. I do believe the Official Opposition understand that.

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be things here, obviously, that are going to be somewhat contentious. Like everything that government does, it is about balance. It is about providing a balance. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to be open and accountable and to provide the necessary information to the public so that there is no Berlin Wall and that there is no shroud of secrecy.

By the same token, Mr. Speaker, we have to balance that with our ability to govern, with the ability of municipalities to govern, with the ability of school boards to do their work, hospital boards, and so on. There has to be balance. Any time that you strike a balance in any of these things, there is a bit of a judgment call, no doubt. There are some people who are going to agree with that judgment and some people who are not going to agree with that judgment.

Mr. Speaker, we had a number of recommendations come from Commissioner Cummings. Of the recommendations, we actually agreed with most of them. We made some modifications to a few. There were some we rejected or we will revisit at another time; because of the nature of the recommendation, it was not something we could do right away.

You have to remember: this was just a recommendation. We adopted most of it. We also did our due diligence, Mr. Speaker. We looked at other jurisdictions. We looked at other provinces in this country and we looked at the federal government as well, Mr. Speaker; we looked at that, we looked at the recommendations that were made, and we looked at the comments that had been made at the public consultations – and again, there were very few. There was a consultation done, Mr. Speaker, with the Official Opposition. There was a consultation done, or an opportunity at least, to the Third Party. I am not sure if they actually made a representation or not. We know that they never made any representation to the Public Utilities Board. They did not think that was very important to do, so I am not sure if they made a representation to this or not, but they certainly had the opportunity to make a representation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that there was adequate consultation. There was an independent Commissioner elected to make recommendations. We reviewed relevant legislation. We did all of our due diligence and at the end of the day we came up with what we believe to be the most fair, reasonable, open, and accountable legislation that we could. We know that everybody is not going to agree with it. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a bill that could be passed in this House of Assembly that everybody is going to agree with. There is not a decision that is going to be made by this government that everybody is going to agree with. It is just not going to happen. It does not work that way.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we were elected as the government. The people choose Premier Dunderdale and our government, our Cabinet. We were chosen to do what was in the best interests of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. We take that responsibility very, very seriously, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANE: We certainly do. We are going to do the responsible thing, Mr. Speaker, as we have done all along. I will repeat: in doing this, we are committed to doing the right thing for the right reasons for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If that is not the popular thing all the time, if that is not the most politically popular thing to do, Mr. Speaker, well, I am sorry. The people have the opportunity in four years time or three-and-a-half years time to show their displeasure if they are displeased with what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have confidence in this government to do the right thing. That is why they elected us and that is what we are here to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I have to quantify a couple of remarks from the Member of Mount Pearl South. This one kind of disturbs me; he gets up there and he was talking about the cost, talking about a $5 cost to some people. People in this country – people are buried over in Beaumont Hamel; people fought world wars in order to have the right for freedom of access to information. To hear the Member for Mount Pearl South get up and say that this is a cost that everybody should be paying, as far as I am concerned, it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, to have to hear that when people in this country have had the right, have fought and died for the right to preserve freedoms that we are talking about here today.

Freedom is being taken away from the people, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to a piece of legislation like this. I think that really, he needs to go back to 2003 and borrow the Liberal's slogan and take a second look at this piece of legislation that is coming down the pipeline, because this one is especially hurtful for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we really need to sit down and have a look at this.

There are several things about this that are really disturbing. I have to address one of the comments that was said by the hon. Minister of Service NL when he talked about sixteen inquiries. Boy, that is a heavy load of inquiries, isn't it? That is an awful lot to ask for from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker – sixteen inquiries his staff had to handle. Now, he said in one particular case – I think that the case that he probably referred to was the case of one media outlet that had to pay a $457 cost; again, a small part, a little, small, miniscule amount of money for a media outlet to pay in order to get –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is right, and the taxpayers' information that the CBC came up with in that report having to do with that restaurant probably saved lives in the long run. How much money would it have cost the health care system if the CBC did not have to spend the $457 at the time for that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: I am glad – I am glad that in this particular case that they were talking about, about this restaurant that was up on Kenmount Road, the CBC had the gumption enough to come out and make the numbers public with regard to what was happening up there. How much money should have been sunk into that store, and exactly what kind of conditions were underneath people's feet at the same time?

Let us talk about the cost of the health care system when it comes to something like that, when it comes to the freedom of access to information, when it comes to that. How much wrong was that, that we saw the taxpayers' money going to be spent on freedom of access to information when it came to something like that, when it came to ATIPPA for information? As far as I am concerned, for 514,000 people in this Province, we might have saved a few lives somewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this much about this piece of legislation, there was an awful lot here. I cannot escape the irony, for example, that while we visit this every five years and everything, when it comes to reviewing this legislation, this legislation right off the bat disables the Opposition in democracy.

It is one of these things that I was elected for, to represent the people as far and as the best that I could. If one of the tools for my Opposition is going to be taken away from me by a change, a simple stroke of a pen, then, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the question about the worth of my own person as Opposition. If they are going to make it hard for me to go ahead and oppose and to put in an ATIPPA for information for everything that I may be requesting – and every single one of the members over on the other side of the House can look at their own files now; they are not going to find a single request from this person with regard to access to information. This fellow here does his own research. I have not cost so far any one of these departments any money when it comes to finding out anything with regards to what is going on in the departments. I will e-mail them directly and I will ask them questions. That is the way I do it.

This is very sensitive legislation and there are a lot of procedural anomalies. One of the things that caught my eye was the simple fact of protecting trade secrets, secrets of a commercial nature, or secrets financial in nature, the protection of business information. There is also protection of individual royalty information. I am thinking to myself I have not seen anything here –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the co-operation.

I am looking at the piece of legislation; I look at it and I ask myself several questions on it. It protects individual royalty information; it sounds more like we are talking about the protection of companies. We are talking about information here, of course, that is going to be of a sensitive or commercial nature. It is protecting somebody else while at the same time it is costing the consumer, or the taxpayer, of the Province.

I do not know where they are going with this. This is an operation that almost seems like it is cloak and dagger. It is going on in the face of everybody and they are letting everybody blatantly know what is going to happen with this piece of legislation. At the same time, I can only think of two words that can be matched for it. I think of another form of leadership that is being talked about here. I do not why, but the name Stephen Harper keeps coming up every time I look at this piece of legislation. Where else have we seen something like this that is this regressive? We have to sit back and ask ourselves: what is going to be going on with the information that is going to be available to the people of the Province in the future?

How about Muskrat Falls? How about information in there that might be sensitive or commercial in nature that might be harmful to a third party? How about a fourth party? How about the taxpayers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Where is the protection for them in this whenever they go looking for the information? When the time comes around for the Muskrat Falls debate, how about opening up the books for full accountability? Not with information that the government is going to provide, but every other piece of information that is provided to government that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not going to see.

How about the real data when it comes to the Ramea project, for example, and when it comes to the effects of Nalcor on this? That might be timely and sensitive information of a commercial nature, wouldn't you think, Mr. Speaker? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have invested in Nalcor and we cannot see the proper numbers or the proper costs of that, for example, when it comes to the Muskrat Falls Project. How about wind projects? It is the same thing.

A couple of other things that bug me about this are workplace refusal records. How about the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission cases that need investigation? It is going to be hard enough now for some people to see what is in their own files, so they have to go ahead and file an ATIPP on information about themselves; because there was a solicitor in the room, chances are they will never see it. How do they review their own information? Why are we closing the door on people like that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is not what I see in the legislation. I see a pretty easy way to say that something is pretty sensitive to somebody and that they are not going to be able to get access to their own information.

How about your definition of frivolous or vexatious, pointing at political parties' access to information? What is your definition? Who sets the line of frivolous? Who sets the line of vexatious? Who determines that? It is absolutely nobody. It is going to be at the whim of the government, Mr. Speaker. It is going to be at the whim of the person who is going to have to dig up the information. It is going to have to be at the whim of the minister who is going to be responsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that heckling is not defined as continuous shouting across the House. I ask members to take their private conversations, or not-so-private conversations, outside of the Chamber.

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I wanted to hear what they were saying I would file an information request, an ATIPP, but I probably would not get it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They would say it was vexatious.

MR. MURPHY: It is a little bit vexatious, yes.

How about the Privacy Commission's time to investigate, if there is an Info and Privacy Commissioner who is going to be left by the time all this is over. I mean, this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is pretty strong. It is pretty forthright. Is it decisive? You are darn right it is. As far as I am concerned, this is almost going to be a knock-out blow to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I do not what is going to be left there untouched for him, what is going to be left at the end of the day for him. It is a wonder that he is going to have a job left, because I think government has taken it upon themselves to dictate what is right and what is wrong for them, what is going to be made available to us and what is not.

They are going to be the ones to determine that. How am I supposed to put up good opposition to that? If they say no, I just have to keep on researching; maybe two or three years down the road, I will get good enough to be able to dig out the information and bring it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go to Walmart (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Maybe I will go to Walmart, or maybe I will just listen to the Member for Mount Pearl South Twitter it. There are a whole lot of ways, I guess.

Government has closed the doors on access to information to everyone from interest groups, legislators, and media. Now I just got into the role of media when it came to that. I talked about the CBC report and how they managed to expose one company. Let me tell you something, when they exposed that company, there were probably 1,500 other companies behind them that certainly straightened up shop. They straightened up and flew right after that one. Have to thank them for it – best $457 of taxpayers' money that was ever spent by the Mother Corporation.

I do not know if they are going into this eyes wide shut. It takes away a person's right to know. It takes away governance. It takes away the Opposition's right to know and it takes away the Opposition's right to ask questions. If information is not going to be made available, it takes away the Opposition's right to have answers. It takes away the taxpayers' right to have answers. It takes away everybody's right to have answers, if they are not going make the information readily available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five bucks (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Five bucks (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Five dollars, that is right, when people died for the right. They died for the right. It takes away the right to know, Mr. Speaker.

Cabinet secrecy also could include submitted proposals from anyone, including people that potentially could be in a conflict of interest. What happens in a case like that, if we put in an ATIPPA? Do we get an answer for anybody that may be in a conflict of interest?

Refusal to disclose includes financial, commercial, scientific, or technological information that belongs to a public body, or to the government of the Province, that is likely to have monetary value. Anything in this Province, if we have a dollar attached to it, they do not have to release it. They do not have to tell us a word about it. So again, if we ask questions, for example, about one of the health boards that is dealing with money, if we have another question about Tim Hortons after this, forget it; there is no sense for us to ask about it, Mr. Speaker, because it is monetary in value.

If there is something going on with Western Health, if it has monetary value, there is no sense of us asking about it. There is no sense of us asking for a source of information or the information that we are going to be looking for so that we can draw our conclusions and put up a good Opposition – and I mean good Opposition. This is an integral tool, in some cases, for the Opposition parties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell they are pretty upset about this, but it is true, it is coming out. I just listen to it, and I am sitting down and I am flabbergasted. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador – it is not going to surprise me in the coming days of our people here tonight; I would say in the next couple of days, if we keep talking about this legislation, these galleries are going to be full. There is going to be a lot of concern about this one, and there should be.

The power of the Auditor General is probably going to be affected by this.

MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible) the Auditor General before we do.

MR. MURPHY: The Auditor General was looking for looking for $5 billion in taxpayers' money, I say to the hon. Member for Gander. I will say that the Auditor General was looking for $5 billion of the taxpayers' money and could not account for it. Why? Why could he not find $5 billion worth of taxpayers' money? He could not come up with any kind of accounting for it. Why is that? Did he ask? I bet you he did.

What a spending accountability; if it is stamped Cabinet, you get your answer: it is no, plain and simple, you cannot have it, don't ask. If there is a third party affected: no. If it concerns you money, though: no. It does not matter to you, Mr. Speaker. It is your money, we will tell you how we are going to spend it right for you. It is your money, we will tell you how we are going to invest it. When was the last time you put your money into a bank and you did not know exactly what was being done with your money without some sort of an agreement? When? It has not happened to me. I know where all of my money is going.

They championed all of this in the 2003 Blue Book: anything, anything at all, promise the voter; promise that you will deliver, and then do not.

MS SULLIVAN: Oh, come on now.

MR. MURPHY: This is not what the voter asked for, I say to the hon. Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. This is not what was offered. This is not what the voters wanted with regards to this. They wanted openness, they wanted transparency, and they wanted accountability. They are not getting it.

Page 17 of the review from Mr. Cummings: "Over the course of our consultations with public bodies, I observed widespread frustration and anxiety regarding the ATIPPA access to information requirements and, to a lesser extent, the…" "…privacy provisions." People are concerned. People are concerned, I say to the hon. members across the House, but who cares? We are the government. We do not have to account for anything that we are doing. We do not have to show you a darn thing.

The big thing right now that the people are being asked about, they are being asked to endorse a deal called Muskrat Falls, which is probably going to cost anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion. We still do not know the concrete cost, but guaranteed there is going to be more information out on Muskrat Falls. We are being told it is either going to be one way or it is going to be the number two way, but it is not going to be the third way. There is not going to be any kind of a consideration there.

I know that they are going to be coming to a decision gate, but they are still spending money now with no accountability. Why should they listen to an ATIPPA? If we put in an ATIPPA right now, where all of the money is going, why should they listen? They are not. There should not be any accountability while they are doing it. There should be if we were doing it. Again, there is a money tree there somewhere to come out with all of this.

We like to keep the doors open to democracy, I say to the hon. members across the House. I am going to ask them to reconsider this piece of legislation, especially when it comes to the cost. What of the cost? Like I said, when it comes to freedom of access, people of this Province and of this country died for the right to know. They died for the right to make things better for us. I think that the people of the government right now, the members of the government right now have to ask themselves: how is this piece of legislation making things better if it is going to be a denial of access?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to get up tonight and talk about the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Bill 29, I believe it is; I do not have the actual bill here in my hand, but I clearly remember, I am pretty sure I remember, that it is actually Bill 29.

I have listened carefully to a number of speakers here tonight with regard to this act. What this act actually tries to do is bring a balance to the right for information, as to balancing the information that is going out from government and protecting the people's rights that could be impacted by that particular flow of information. That is exactly what this does in regard to a balancing.

Some of the things that has been said tonight in regard to people who died on the fields of France and people who died on the fields of Europe regarding their right to the access of information – I had my great-uncle who died on those fields for the right to vote. That is what they had: the right to vote. As well, I heard a member say that we are closing the doors to democracy. I find that very appalling to be honest with you because each one of us in this House of Assembly walked the streets and the roads of our particular districts to offer ourselves for election, to get ourselves elected to the House of Assembly to try to do for the people as we have been elected to do. When we are going from door to door we converse with those particular people and then they vote, one way or the other, if they want us or not. Each and every one of us earned the right to be in this House of Assembly tonight, and that is called democracy. That is exactly what it is called; it is actually democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: True democracy.

MR. O'BRIEN: It is true democracy – absolutely, I say to the hon. member, a true democracy.

There is a balance that has to be achieved in running a government and achieving and providing the services that we provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes you have to protect the rights of the person who might be impacted, as I said before, by the release of information. If you listen to the hon. members across the House, they believe – and I have said it a couple of times in regard to sitting in my seat here tonight and this afternoon and listening to some of the comments of the hon. members across the House and I have said: Maybe what we should be doing is holding democracy, holding the sessions of this House of Assembly and also the meetings of Cabinet, on the parking lot of Walmart.

I have said that because when you listen to the hon. members across the House, there is no distinction between what is right and what is wrong and how much can you release and how much shouldn't you release, because there is valuable time with regard to the public service. As a matter of fact, I say to the hon. members in the House, and I am sure that each one of us does know, this is Public Service Week; it started today. As a matter of fact, I spoke to my employees over to Municipal Affairs this morning. We had a little coffee break for them and I spoke for probably about five or ten minutes. I spoke from my heart in regard to why I thought that they were valuable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes they go unnoticed; sometimes they do not get enough credit in regard to the work that they do.

Then, when the hon. member rises in this House tonight and questions the cost, and when another hon. member on this side of the House says, listen, we have to have a balance, we just cannot have all of our public employees working all the time, countless hours, in regard to providing information to whoever might request it - be it the members of the Official Opposition, members of the Third Party, members of the media, or any of the stakeholders out there, and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador - you just cannot have that going on. That is not the reason in regard to the cost.

You cannot confuse the cost, I say to the hon. member, with the absolute need, the balance, the requests and the flow of information outside of the House of Assembly going out to the stakeholders. You cannot do that. You have to distinguish between the two. You have to distinguish between the two because if not, you will have a lot of our public employees wasting countless hours in regard to frivolous types of requests and asking for broad information about anything and everything that might come before government, as a matter of fact, in some ways, in regard to the flow.

I say to the hon. member that he mentioned the Auditor General. I, again, shouted across this House: Where was the Auditor General prior to 2003? They were not allowed in this House. This government – which I was a part of at the time in 2003-2004 – allowed access to the House of Assembly to the Auditor General of Newfoundland and Labrador. I take great pride in that. We went through a period of time that it was somewhat darkness in regard to political life in Newfoundland and Labrador and we had members on that side of the House, we had members on this side of the House, who were impacted in the entry of the Auditor General into this House of Assembly and reviewing the actions of such members – and all of us should be, absolutely, and we were the ones who brought him in. So to give the impression here tonight and putting out information that I have heard from various members to the point that we have something sinister on the go in Newfoundland and Labrador – sinister, I say, is the word that comes to mind to me, that it is sinister in regard to what we are doing behind the backs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we go through what is called Estimates in this House of Assembly, where I, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, sit in the row over here and sit across from the hon. members who are possibly my critics, which they all have a right to do and question me in regard to the way I spend the money, my budget in Municipal Affairs for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to leave an impression in this House of Assembly and tell the minds of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government, for whatever reason, is doing something sinister, that we are hiding things in regard to the people of this Province, I find really, really shameful and appalling. Because we were elected to run a government, we were elected to take care of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador under the conditions that we find ourselves, either in surplus or in deficit, to provide the best services that we possibly can to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we were elected to do.

This particular piece of legislation was – I will ask the hon. members across the House, where was this piece of legislation in 2003? This piece of legislation has been thought about, considered for a long time before 2003. This government enacted this piece of legislation in 2005.

Now, I will ask the hon. member, if you looked at that logically, if you looked at it from a logical sense, if you are able to do that in this House of Assembly: why would we enact a piece of legislation that gives access to information from government, which they did not have before, why would we bring it in if we were trying to do something sinister behind the backs of the people of this Province? I ask the hon. member. I just find it illogical to leave an impression that we as a government, we as MHAs, we as ministers, are doing something sinister to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when we were the ones who enacted the piece of legislation in 2005 in the first place, and we proclaimed it.

MR. MARSHALL: We proclaimed it.

MR. O'BRIEN: We proclaimed it is the right word. As the Minister of Finance just corrected me, we proclaimed it. We proclaimed it because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do for the Province in regard to the access to information and having that access.

Then, as well, like it or lump it, we do not live in a perfect world. We have groups and people and that kind of thing, who would love to stall government, totally stall it, just by overloading it with requests, whatever it may be. I say to the hon. members, and I ask either one of them to stand in their seats here tonight if they can, and correct me if I am wrong, that at any time, as long as I have been minister – and I speak for myself, and I know I can nearly speak for every minister here – that either one of them have ever phoned my department and asked me for information in regard to a file, approached me here in the House of Assembly or whatever, did they not get an answer to that particular question. If I did not have it, I went and found it and came back with that particular information and shared it.

I find it really concerning that when you stand in your place in the House of Assembly and leave the impression on people out there that – yes, they are our citizens, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and yes, they may vote and that kind of stuff, but when you leave that kind of impression, it leaves an impression that I really do not want to leave to my children or anybody belong to me that a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is playing something that is beyond what I would call a democracy.

This piece of legislation is one of the – it was not the foundation or the cornerstone of democracy but it certainly is today. That legislation is the cornerstone of democracy as we see it in this century. That is what it is, absolutely exactly what it is. It is access to information and having transparency within the legislation itself, within the House of Assembly. The hon. members might think it is wrong and maybe they might smile or laugh in regard to that particular comment, but I will tell you something, I firmly believe in it because we are and have been the most transparent government Newfoundland and Labrador has ever experienced since 1949.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I see some of the hon. members smile and laugh in regard to that statement. I challenge them. I challenge them to stand in their seat and give me examples of where I am wrong. Give me examples, now. If you are going to have freedom of information in this House of Assembly, let me see you stand on your feet here tonight and give me examples of where I am wrong, where this government has not been transparent, where this government has placed sinister deals in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador. Please, stand on your feet; I challenge each and every one of you to do exactly that tonight.

If you can prove me wrong, I would be the first one to admit it. I guarantee you, we have never, ever, ever, in the history of this government since 2003 – I will go back and I will say to the hon. Member for St. John's North or wherever he is from, but he will not be there too much longer, anyway; it will be only 2015. Listen to me, now. That is a side issue.

I will tell you something, and I will go back to my original statement: Where was the Auditor General in 2003? Where was he? I will ask the hon. member: Get up on a point of order and correct me if I am wrong, if he was not in or was not allowed in this House prior to 2003. Then I will ask the hon. member: Who took government in 2003? Can he answer that? We did. We allowed that honourable gentleman to enter this House and examine each and every one of us in this House. Everything about this House was under his purview in regard to what he did and what he wanted to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or her.

MR. O'BRIEN: Or her, when the time comes, absolutely, I say to the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, and that is the way it was.

Then we proclaimed this act, and under the legislation we have to review that act within five years. That review was completed in December 2011, or January, or whatever it was. We have adopted a number of the amendments in regard to the Commissioner's recommendations. We have amended and modified some to other people's legislation, other provinces', and whatnot.

So, what the hon. members across the House, though, are saying – there are similar pieces of legislation in all the provinces of Canada just about, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

MR. O'BRIEN: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, New Brunswick, or whatever. You are saying that each and every government that sits today in this country of Canada are doing something sinister because of the aspects of their particular piece of legislation covering information and protection of privacy. I hate to say it, but some of those particular governments are not Progressive Conservative governments. As a matter of fact, maybe two of them, for sure, are NDP. I am saying as well that there are maybe a couple of them that are Liberal.

What they are saying here tonight is in regards to their own party and the values of that particular party. Well, they are playing the same role as us, a sinister role of democracy, in hiding information. They have the same legislation. They have the same act.

What are you saying? Are you saying that it is not good for Newfoundland and Labrador, in regard to balancing off the right for information, protecting the impacts that may have in regard to individuals and companies and whatever it may be, on the release of that particular information? Or are you saying that all of the governments of Canada, regardless of what party they are at this particular time in history, are all acting or are all involved in sinister acts of secrecy?

Really, you have to think about it when you are talking about such things. We are in this House of Assembly, and it is not like it is all rocket science or anything, or this is all new and it is the first piece of legislation that was ever brought in front of a Legislature in Canada in regard to the access to information and protection of privacy. There are two pieces of this legislation, remember that. This is a two-part piece of legislation. It is the access to information, but also in this legislation is the protection of privacy. There are two pieces of this legislation, and you have to have the balance between the two, because there are two pieces to the legislation. That is what is lost here, I believe, in regard to the hon. member that spoke in front of me. He talked all about access to information, nothing about protecting somebody else's privacy.

Well, you have to be able to balance that when you release the information, and make sure that you are not infringing on the privacy of an individual or a person, or a business, or whatever it may be, when you release that information. That is incumbent on us, as legislative people, as well, because there are two pieces to the legislation. That is what is lost. All I heard so far, in regard to the comments from across the House, is access to information, nothing about protection of privacy, nothing at all – nothing.

So, the people that died – I will get back to my comments in regard to the fields of yore and the fields of France, in regard to people dying for the right to access of information. I did not hear anything about the right of privacy; they died for that as well. They died for the right of a person, is what they died for. They died, yes, first and foremost, for the right to vote and the right of democracy, but as well, they fought and died to protect a person's privacy and also to give access to information. That is what this act is about. It is twofold; it is an act in regard to the access to information and an act in regard to protecting one's privacy; be it a person, or be it a company, or be it whatever it is that does business with government at any given time, and that is what this is all about – and that, I believe, in regard to the amendments that are being tabled in this House and we will review it again and again and again every five years to make sure that we are doing exactly what we set out to do in this piece of legislation. When we proclaimed it in 2005, we had to review it every five years by a commissioner who will review it and give recommendations to it. The government of the day will either adopt those recommendations or they will modify them in some way to meet legislation or whatever it may be, or they will not.

I commend the Minister of Justice for bringing this forward in this session of the House of Assembly because yes, the only thing that I will agree on with the hon. member is that this is all about democracy, the right to democracy, and a great democracy that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the proposed amendment here this evening. The amendment to Bill 29, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs alluded to, it comes in two parts, access to information and protection of privacy.

Having gone through the bill, Mr. Speaker, there are some good things in it but when I get to section 18, I see some issues there, and it will support my reasoning for supporting the hoist amendment, Mr. Speaker. Access to information, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most democratic rights that the people of this Province have. It is fundamental, it is crucial, it is needed. Looking at section 18, Mr. Speaker, I question how these changes can be positive for this Province when it is intent to close doors on getting information.

We have all heard the terminology that has come forward today from the media, from different groups around this Province, Mr. Speaker, iron curtain law, suppression, regressive denial of the people's rights, and the list goes on and on. This government has brought this into effect in 1981. It was the start up of the freedom of information and proclamation. Since then, this government has stated time and time again that it allows for openness and transparency, Mr. Speaker.

To go back to the 1999 Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, where they talk about reducing wait times and assure that the minister was actually providing information where it belongs, the public domain. In 2003, the government platform talked about transparency and accountability. The information act is best safeguarded against the tendency of governments to descend into secrecy and elitism. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious this government has begun its decent into secrecy, the very concern that they had hoped to avoid.

Mr. Speaker, when you close the doors on clear and timely access to information with respect to governments, the very core of democracy is threatened. What this tells me, Mr. Speaker, is this government is looking to bring forward its agenda without being accountable though, to those who would be affected; Opposition groups in and out of government, concerned citizens groups, and most importantly, the people of this Province.

When decisions are made by the government that states on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, shouldn't the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to know how these decisions are made? This is relevant to section 18, Mr. Speaker, in support of the amendment proposed.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, goes above and beyond the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I wonder if this position will now become redundant because of this new proposed legislation, Mr. Speaker. Having access to information through an already strained court process, Mr. Speaker, will cause further delays in our lagging judicial system. Furthermore, how will those who are trying to access the information afford the high cost of procedures?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of major questions that I see rising from proposed amendments. What would cause this government to feel so threatened that they quickly want to make it so difficult for the people of this Province to see what they are doing? Another question, Mr. Speaker, is when a government that prides itself on openness and transparency, such as this government has, where in the proposed amendments is the accountability? It is getting farther away for the people of this Province. When you take away that right, Mr. Speaker, you take away the people's ability to question, and that is not good governance.

Mr. Speaker, where does this leave government services? It is bad enough now that some corporations have their hands in the public purse and they do not and will not have to provide any disclosure, no accountability whatsoever. What about the health care, education, and our fishery? Mr. Speaker, this is what is most needed and this legislation closes that door.

Access to Information is good legislation and it is there for the protection of government representatives and for the people of the Province, as the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador alluded to earlier, Mr. Speaker. There are some good points in it, but what it is not there for is to allow government the luxury of hiding information from the people who elected them, Mr. Speaker. That is not good governance either.

I have heard several of the speakers opposite talk about the good changes, Mr. Speaker: no charge for the first two hours, no charge now for the next four hours. I think what this boils down to is that it will take longer at no cost to be denied what they were looking for in the first place. This kind of defeats the purpose, I think, Mr. Speaker, doesn't it? .

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hoist amendment because of the importance of accountability and the responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Justice today talk about the low numbers of attendance when they went out and did consultations. I can understand to a certain degree, because people are not always able to attend these consultations, in many cases, and the government-proposed legislation is not given a critical side during presentation. A lot of the people, through their representatives in government, have and will present a negative side to these amendments.

Now the people of this Province are and will be aware of the impacts, Mr. Speaker, as we are seeking fair discussion on Bill 29. I propose that if the minister goes forward with this legislation now, he will get considerably more than ten people to attend consultations. Furthermore, it would be a fair and healthy feedback from the residents of our Province. If this government is to have open and fair debate, then go back to the people and see what they say about it. See what they have to say about restricting the rights to information. Go back and see what they have to say, Mr .Speaker.

Going back to democracy, it is a fundamental right, I think, for the people of this Province to have the right to information. 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 think there is an issue with that part of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, restricting the access of the people, of groups and of different organizations in this Province and their right to access that information, does not speak anything about transparency and accountability. As a matter of fact, it speaks the direct opposite. Legislation is for the protection of the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. It is not designed for the protection of the government of the day.

Information and information technology is a wonderful thing. It is improving and it is constantly evolving. It is becoming easier and easier for everybody in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to access information. The minister's statement today talking about putting old information in digital form, Mr. Speaker, is a wonderful idea. This gives the people knowledge, it gives the people education, and it gives the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, the background to make informed decisions.

I question: Why would we compromise this ability by making it harder for the people of this Province to access this information? Why spend their money to evolve and bring it up to modern standards only to be denied at some point in time?

Access to Information was brought in between 2005 and 2008. It warrants a mandated review every five years. This is a good plan when it was brought in. The Access to Information act is for the benefit of the people of this Province. It is not to be redesigned in five years for the protection of the government of the day, Mr. Speaker. When I look at section 18, I cannot help but assume this. The day that the design reflects the needs of the government as opposed to the needs of the people of our Province, Mr. Speaker, a new process begins. It is a word that I heard several times today and I went so far as to check the definition of it, Mr. Speaker, and that word is suppression. It is not a good word to hear in democracy, but there are a lot of people out there saying it. When you are review sections of this bill, you are half warranted.

Having said that, this government is tasked with making decisions on behalf of the people of this Province. To those of them who are tuned in out there today, Mr. Speaker, they all have a right to know, as taxpayers, how they are governed. I would just like to see the number of requests since, say, 1981 through the Freedom of Information Act that have been made to governments that were formed between 1981 and present day. I think if you tabled all of this information in this House, you would have considerably more than the eight boxes there that the Minister of Natural Resources tabled on Muskrat Falls earlier this year.

If you talk about all of the information that people have come forward for – and I have seen a lot of toner on some these requests, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. colleague for Burgeo – La Poile stated earlier today, the only saving here you see is on black ink or toners or markers. This is definitely not a help to the people of this Province. This is because the information will be not available unless it is through the court process; even then, there are no guarantees.

Mr. Speaker, I heard reference to fishing. I can understand government's concern about demands on bulk information, and I am sure that there are safeguards that are in place. I cannot see it being too difficult for the public servants of this Province, Mr. Speaker, to verify what is an actual relative, valid request and what is determined as fishing. The Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador had, I believe, twenty or less requests for freedom of information. That is not an overwhelming number, I do not think. I am sure some of them were valid requests and the information that was released, that may not be released if this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, is a help to someone. It certainly gives information to the people of the Province and it holds the government accountable. When the government is held accountable, Mr. Speaker, they are on their toes, government works the way it is designed the work.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Member for Mount Pearl North talk at length about how the government brought forward access to information. Time and time again he mentioned it to this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker. I agree that it is good to see this legislation come forward because it allows for transparency and it allows for accountability. What this new legislation does, Mr. Speaker, is it destroys all of which the government opposite has worked for in the past. What it destroys is the people's right to information; it destroys the people's right to access that information.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am here to debate the amendment put forward for the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The amendment put forward by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile is to delay further debate of this Bill 29 for six months. I want to speak to certainly support that amendment because this is very important legislation. It needs plenty of time. Time for more public scrutiny, certainly not just Cabinet scrutiny because if this legislation passes, well then the public will never know what was really said on that matter.

I just want to take a step back to December 2001, when this original bill was referred to the standing committee. This original bill actually went to a Standing Committee on Social Services. It went on December of 2001, and did not come back to the House until March, 2002, so it had several months where it was able to be in debate. This government across the floor does not like to hear us talk about the standing committees, but it is so important to this piece of legislation that changes should be scrutinized. The people have a clear right to getting access to information but also having their privacy protected. Therefore, the public consultation is vital when the stakes are so high, like this piece of legislation.

As it has been noted here today in debate, there were eight public hearings. They said they were advertised, but in total, in the large urban centres where these were held, in all eight, it was said that only ten people had come out to voice their opinions. When you put that out there, you have to ask a lot more questions. I do not believe that people in this Province, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are so disengaged in the political process that they would not want to make more contributions to matters of such public importance as their own privacy and available access to information, such as how government is spending money.

Maybe we need to go back and look at how these expenditures were actually advertised and if there could be other means, other mechanisms used when we are looking at doing a public consultation, to reach out to a broader audience and not say that this is something that is absolutely critical.

These are our public tax dollars. There should be an appropriate time to allow for a full discussion and a full debate on this; is this something that government is failing to commit to people, to really look at connecting to the people of the Province? I have held town halls, I have had road shows across the Province, and we have had more – yes, I have even started a tent tour, and we have been able to connect to more in those settings than ten people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to talk about the Information and Privacy Commission –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The IPC submission that they had put in for review had stated: we feel that there should be a fine balance, not only between access but also to privacy, because there is so much information going out there, with the social media and the ability to put information out there really quickly. It is also about the right balance, that access, and about sharing that information with government and a public body to withhold and protect the public interest from disclosure for valid and necessary reasons.

There are times where there is information that should not be shared with the public. With both elements, you need to have that fine balance. They are crucial to a healthy, functioning democracy, and that summarizes the submission of what the IPC had put in. Unlike the statement by the Member for Gander earlier, I think this legislation that is put forward, this proposed legislation, really destroys that fine balance.

I mean, ATIPPA has served the Province quite well over the last five years – the past five-plus years that it has been in place – and it has achieved, for the most part, Mr. Speaker, that fine balance between those competing interests. If there were no changes, it would still be far preferable to the old Freedom of Information Act, because it really limited the scope, Mr. Speaker. It contained no provision, absolutely no provision, for an oversight mechanism as the Commissioner's office, and now with the proposed changes we are seeing that the Commissioner really will not have as much discretion. It was stated that once you take that away, once you remove the OIPC from the part of the equation, then there is a real reduction there in accountability. We really do, as legislators, as parliamentarians, need to be accountable to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The act as it stands right now already permits government to refuse information to offices such as the Auditor General. If we just consider the case earlier this year, or last year, when the Acting Auditor General announced that he had abandoned plans to review the C-NLOPB because of the definition of Cabinet; the Acting Auditor General said at the time that department's interpretation of section 18 is a much broader interpretation of the act than has been seen in any recent memory. So, we are certainly seeing a greater level of secrecy being enforced.

If we look at the proposed act under 33, section 19 of the Auditor General Act there, it says that it is being repealed, and it permits a new classification for a seal for certified documents. It is possible now to certify any number of documents, and that can have an impact. It says, "Notwithstanding sections 17 and 18, the auditor general shall not be permitted to access records referred to in section 18 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act where the Clerk of the Executive Council or his or her delegate has certified that release of those records would involve the disclosure of…", and makes a couple of points. So, who is going to determine if some of this information has relevance, if it could not be disclosed?

We certainly know, Mr. Speaker, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen where we have had the Auditor General in Newfoundland and Labrador barred from being able to access documents and for public scrutiny. We certainly have to have lessons learned from the spending scandal that happened here in the Province. We see right now such a regressive form put to the access to information act. The Acting Auditor General, when they released his report in January of this past year, highlighted the discontent of being able to access information on a number of levels, whether it is with the C-NLOPB or with other information.

I know that a speaker previously had talked about the Auditor General has access to all information when it comes to every cent – every cent – that is being spent, Mr. Speaker. Well, this is true to a certain degree because the Auditor General can request to the Receiver General any of the cheques and any amount of money being spent, but it will just state that money was being spent. It will not give further details around that or any type of information as to how it came to the conclusion. It is about getting further information around the spending to show that it is done in an accountable and transparent manner. The Auditor General in his report voiced that and does not feel that he was given fair information.

The position taken by the departments is of significant concern, not only for this particular review but its precedent-setting nature of this refusal. We see that. The precedent has already been set by the Auditor General when he requested information and was denied it. This position taken on this request is inconsistent with previous decisions that government has made. This is something that the Auditor General's office had said because they had been provided with similar information for audits conducted in preceding years, but not being given information.

We are seeing a government that campaigned in 2003 saying: As Opposition, we want to open things up, we want to make things more accountable, and we want to even include Cabinet documents in this.

Then in 2011 we see a great shift backwards. Now we see this information here. We see the turning back of the clock of being more open and transparent when it comes to information and losing, maybe, that fine balance when it comes to looking at the access to information but also the protection of privacy; because the Information and Privacy Commissioner has found that the exemption claimed by government may not apply or may be too broad, and we have seen situations where it went to a court case on October 26, the decision, and that that information should have been made available.

That is being taken away here – this position of the Privacy Commissioner. Now it is saying, well, if somebody has a complaint when it comes to being able to get information, it has to go to the court process. That can be quite expensive.

I want to talk about the infrastructure strategy, because the Acting Auditor General had a very serious challenge trying to find information about the government's infrastructure strategy. The Acting Auditor General discovered only a draft report from a working group dated from November 2004, indicating non-centralized planning, which was an inconsistent planning process and lacked a multi-year funding commitments and an appropriate asset management system. That sets up a lot of flags as to looking at how you are accurately planning with billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. You can have a framework, but do you actually have a plan that is accountable and transparent as to how you are going to spend it?

The Auditor General contacted five departments with infrastructure responsibility after being found out that there was no actual strategy that was drafted. In a timeline of what is clearly outlined in the Auditor General's report that was presented in January, shows that months later the information that the Auditor General's office had requested could not be released as it would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet; therefore, the Auditor General's report concluded at this point it became clear that it is not worthwhile in proceeding with any further requests or departments.

We see that when we look at an infrastructure plan that is looking at spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, there is no clear defined plan as to how they come up with conclusions as to whether it is putting in roads, or whether it is putting in hospitals, or whether it is putting in new educational facilities. There is no actual strategy defined as an overall infrastructure strategy. We still do not know the actual state of this strategy and this proposed legislation means we certainly never will, Mr. Speaker. That is really not very open and transparent when it comes to a government that touts itself on being so.

In this report, too, the Auditor General noted that the IPC had found in several cases that the exemption claimed by government may not apply or may be too broad. It is good to have that second step, as the IPC there to look at being there because that is something that was missing, clearly, before. Now we are looking at restricting that piece, the role of that office.

If we look at cost, because cost has been brought up. Right now, if you look at the proposed changes, is it the recommendation of Commissioner Cummings who had listed something else in terms of cost? This government has said instead no, we will increase the free hours to four and then charge a rate of $25 for any different information, versus the $15 that was provided previously with two free hours. If you do the math, at seven hours you will break even at both as to what the cost would be, and that will be $75.

Any amount of work that is a little more tedious, that requires more information, is going to cost the people who are requesting this information, whether it is the media, whether it is Opposition offices, whether it is the individual person who is looking for this information, if it goes more than one working day people are going to be paying more. They are going to be paying more under these changes. This is a deterrent. This is an absolute deterrent by putting these costs in. It is completely unacceptable to look at charging more and more for work that is being requested. We should be plotting efforts to make information that can be made available there for the people of this Province.

Rather than addressing the concerns of highly-respected public servants when it comes to the IPC and the Auditor General here, which they do have a role to play when it comes to public spending, when it comes to privacy, we are seeing changes there. This government has decided to change the legislation that applies. It is going to impact. It is going to greatly impact their offices and the way in which they can do their work.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable and it is really shameful. This is before any of the proposed amendments that they have been putting forward. Right now, we need time to contemplate. We need time to further investigate all of the possible ramifications of these amendments that are being put forward by the government in this act. We really do need to look at that because there were thirty-three. We were hearing that for over a decade, even before they were in government, that we need to be more open and transparent. So we need more time to look at the bill that is put before us.

What this hoist amendment is doing is a means to allow for more openness and transparency, more talks. The open thing to do, the transparent thing to do, would be to refer this proposed legislation to a Standing Committee on Social Services and allow for a full review. This is what was done in 2001, when the act was put forward first. It was referred to the standing committee, it came back and it later was enacted and proclaimed as legislation. This is really something the government should do.

The government is on the verge of passing some very dangerous legislation here and the people of the Province really should have the ability to have more input. I would like to believe there are some good hon. members on the other side, who are willing, like myself, to look more closely at the legislation. I do not believe the legislation reflects what all government members really want to see when it comes to access to information. I believe we need to take time and consider the ramifications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I ask that all hon. members of this House look at voting to support the amendment put forward by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile to defer debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just thank the hon. members on both sides of the House for the opportunity to speak on this and their enthusiastic support. They know when I speak something, I speak it from the heart and I usually know what I am talking about and I usually speak the way it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the year, many times in debate in the House of Assembly there are a lot of things that I said, that I agree with government, some positive things that happened. I know there are a lot of members opposite and ministers opposite who can say that if there is something good going on I will be the first to give praise where praise is due. Sometimes if you need discussion to broaden their views, I also do that. I also said that when there is a time to stand up and make a difference of the government, I will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I am here to say this is one of the times, Mr. Speaker, that I am here right now to point out the difference between the government side and the Opposition. I am going to speak, Mr. Speaker, as I feel personally.

I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs earlier stand up and say, I challenge anybody to stand up. I would not disrupt you, I would not interrupt you. I have respect for you, I would not disrupt you. Mr. Speaker, he might stand up and say it, but I ask, when we asked for the deal to Hebron be laid on the table, guess what? We cannot do it. We cannot do it, confidentiality, we cannot do it.

Mr. Speaker, when the Auditor General stood up and looked for the $5 billion and said, what is the strategy plan? Guess what? It was the first time he was ever barred from that information; the first time ever, Mr. Speaker. When Nalcor was brought up, Mr. Speaker, when they formed Nalcor, guess what? Legislation came in this House, Mr. Speaker, guess what? We cannot get at Nalcor. When the minister wants to stand up and say point me some examples. That is three, right away, Mr. Speaker, where this government has been secretive, would not give information to the people out in this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is just three. So, when you want to challenge me about some information, Mr. Speaker, you had better be prepared; because I am giving back the information to the government, I can assure you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I will just go back with all of this here. We are all in this Legislature, and I agree with the minister, we are all honourable. We may have differences of opinions but we are all honourable. I will not take that away from anybody, but, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that we have to stand up for is the rights of the individuals in this Province that we represent. It is the rights that we have to represent, Mr. Speaker, the rights that we have to represent.

When this was brought in back in 2001, we had public hearings, Mr. Speaker. We had public hearings on this back in 2002. We went around the Province and said here is what we are going to do; here is what we are planning. We had public hearings for months upon months. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? I was part of it, Mr. Speaker. I said we should bring it all in. We hear all the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, stand up and say: Well, it wasn't proclaimed until 2005. Guess who was in, in 2003, 2004 and 2005? It was not me, it was the members opposite. It was the members opposite. So do not go standing up here and saying it was not proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost like the Animal Protection Act. It took over two and half, three years to get that proclaimed, too. Mr. Speaker, you have to be careful what you say because some of us do have a bit of information and we have a bit of history. So when you want to stand up and say it was not proclaimed, you have to know who never proclaimed it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was not going to do this, but I have to find it here somewhere. Mr. Speaker, I go back in the Blue Book when they were going to bring in, all Cabinet papers are going to be open to the public, 2003. Now, let me just go across there. The Minister of Finance, you were part of the government that brought in the Blue Book. The Premier, she was here then when she stood up with the Blue Book. The Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, the Blue Book, all Cabinet papers will be made public. Let me see who else. The Minister of Municipal Affairs over there, he was part of the government in 2003; the Minister of Education, 2003; the Minister of Environment, 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I will keep on going, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair, please.

MR. JOYCE: I am sorry.

Just in case, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, I said was here when he promised –

MS JONES: The Minister of Transportation.

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Transportation and Works was here. Who else was here? The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, Stephenville East, is it? She was here. She was the Child and Youth Advocate, over there now. What is it? Whatever the name of the department was – she is over there, Mr. Speaker. She is over there sliding back in her seat, but I seen her. I saw her sliding back to her seat. She was here, Mr. Speaker, going hands off with it, the Blue Book going around this Province.

Look at the member over there for St. John's North, is it? He was here.

AN HON. MEMBER: South.

MR. JOYCE: St. John's South, he was here. He was going around with the Premier and their Blue Book, open and accountable, Mr. Speaker. We promise you we will put every Cabinet document on the table. Now they are trying to say, we are doing it for the rights of the people. We are trying to do it for the rights of the people.

I just have to say, you are saying the rights of the people, Mr. Speaker, that is something you have to remember, because when you want to stand up here and you want to ask all this information and talk about what we said we were going to do, I was around – a bit of history, Mr. Speaker, when this was done. A lot of those members over there standing up now, remember your commitment. I will not even bring up the hospital in Corner Brook. I will not even bring that up, Mr. Speaker. I will not bring up any commitments for the hospital in Corner Brook; I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker. That is a bit touchy for me.

Mr. Speaker, here is the other thing. I heard some members opposite say, well, this province did it, that other province, but, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing different yet, one thing that they forgot, this government would have run through all of the provinces in Canada. For each one of the regulations that is needed in this legislation they said: Now, who has the most draconian one there? Alberta; we will take this piece of Alberta. Oh, we will take this piece of Saskatchewan. So they stand up: Oh, they do it in Saskatchewan. Mr. Speaker, every draconian aspect of each one, the worse one in each legislation in Canada, is what they took. They put it all together and they call it, here is our legislation for ATIPPA. That is what they did, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell all the general public, Mr. Speaker, when they stand up and say Alberta does it, you have to remember they only do one bit because they took the most worse, draconian part, put it in there, and they were all across Canada. That is what they did, all across Canada. When you all stand up there, remember that now, this here is the nice collection of the worse legislation of very aspect of ATIPP in Canada brought here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. That is my honest opinion of it, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind what all of the members say, I know what it is, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the Blue Book (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes, the Blue Book. I tell members that is the Blue Book – no, not in the Blue Book; in the Blue Book, they promised to lay out all of the Cabinet papers. What they are doing now is hiding it, hiding the Cabinet papers.

I remember the Member for Stephenville East – I have to tell this story, Mr. Speaker. There were a lot of sad times out in Stephenville when they had the big flood out in Stephenville. I was out meeting with the residents. I know the minister was out there too. They were looking for a report that was done on this area, where a lot of them were flooded. They did a report. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the member told the people after losing homes, after having to move, do you know what she said? Apply under freedom of information – now, do you know what she is going to have to tell them? If it happens again, do you know what she is going to say? Take it to court, go to court and try to get the report that was done, the town has it, the government and Municipal Affairs at the time had it. Now they are going to say: Take it to court. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I fought hard enough. I got the report for the residents. Do you know something? They did not have to apply under ATIPP, Mr. Speaker. I fought hard enough and I embarrassed them hard enough. Now do you know what is going to happen? I have to get a lawyer to go down to court to represent them. That is what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker. That is how draconian this is.

I always remember that, Mr. Speaker. Now, they are going to have to go down to court to represent these individuals that even the minister herself at the time said: Apply under freedom of information. That is what is going to happen now. To all the residents out there, Mr. Speaker, they got it –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Oh yes, I fought hard enough and they got it, don't you worry. I fought hard enough and I got it.

Mr. Speaker, we always look at it, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve the information that they need and what. They deserve it; we all do. Anybody in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – and I agree in some cases, if it is something that is really frivolous, I agree, but we have to establish what is frivolous. We just cannot say: Oh, it is maybe frivolous. We cannot do it, Mr. Speaker. We cannot do it. We have to set the guidelines to it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you put in the freedom of information, you have to go to court to get it. Can you imagine? Can you really imagine? I know the Minister of Justice feels bad about bringing this forth. I know that. There is no way in the world you can want to bring that – that some residents down there in your district now all of a sudden want a freedom of information because something happened to one of his friends, he has to go to court. You, as a lawyer – and I heard you say to the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, talking about solicitor-client privilege, and that is the greatest value of anything in court, I agree with you, it is. I am sure you agree. Everybody on this side agrees. Anybody on that side agrees. The difference is when you take it and push it and you abuse it, that is when this solicitor-client privilege is out – when you sit down now in a meeting with somebody, Mr. Speaker, some department, haul a lawyer in, let us get a lawyer from Justice to come in and sit down for a half hour. Oh, we cannot discuss that any more now because we have a solicitor-client privilege now. You apply for a freedom of information, oh, we cannot get that now because solicitor-client privilege, Mr. Speaker. That is how this can be abused.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give an example.

MR. JOYCE: This is a prime example on how this can be abused. Someone said over there: Give us an example. Do you want me to give you an example? Peter McBreairty. You want an example about how this whole system is abused? Here we go. Peter McBreairty is after spending $400,000 or $500,000 in legal fees trying to get information that is his own information. There you go. You want another example, I will keep going. That is one good example. I asked the members over there who used to be Ministers of Education to start it. Here we go; this is a prime example if you want to know. He is after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars getting information, his own information, from your government. So there you go. If you want to ask for another one, I will.

I say to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

I remind the member that he is to direct his comments to the Chair and not engage in the debate across the floor of the House with other members.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Justice, he said he had public consultations. He said only ten people showed up across the Province. He may be right, I am not denying that. Let me tell you one thing, I will make a bet with you, Mr. Speaker. If you take this legislation now, put it out in the public domain, have public consultations, and I will bet you would not get a hall big enough to hold them. I can guarantee you that. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? When you go out and you want to give public consultations, we are going to change ATIPP, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, no one in this Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, no one in this Province thought they were going to bring in such legislation as draconian as this here. Absolutely no one in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and I guarantee the minister. Go out and have public consultations now. Let's set up an all-party committee to go out and lay this on the table to see what people think. Let's go out and see what everybody says about this now, Mr. Speaker.

When you are always trying to talk about no one was involved, no one was involved because no one ever expected this type of legislation to take away our rights, Mr. Speaker, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. No one ever thought it whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other things that we can go out and talk about when it comes to this legislation. We can strengthen this legislation and take away a lot of this stuff. We can take away a lot of this that is infringing the rights of people. We can take away a lot of the rights, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in 2003 people in this House ran on the Blue Book and now they are going to deny access to Cabinet documents. I guarantee you they are going to deny access to Cabinet documents.

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Member for Humber East, he is over there saying something to me. I will make a deal with the Member for Humber East, I will table the document as soon as you get the first piece of steel in the hospital in Corner Brook. That will give me about five years to find it, I guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask for a bit of protection, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, all individuals in this Province should have access to public information. I agree, Mr. Speaker, I have put in some freedom of information over the years; I must say, one or two. At times I received good service, no doubt. At other times, Mr. Speaker, and I can name one or two but I will not, because the individuals who asked me to help them do it, they are still waiting to get some information. By the time they go through it then you cannot give it because it is public information. Do you know what I tell them now, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what I am going to tell them now? Do not waste your time with the $5, go to court. Take it to court. That is what is going to happen. That is what is going to happen to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Any time they want information now, they are going to have to go to court; yes they are. They are going to have to go to court, Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you that right now.

Mr. Speaker, on many occasions we look at the Department of Justice – and I mentioned this earlier, this is very serious. In the briefing that we received, now if anything is declared by the government or department that it is solicitor-client privilege, the information cannot be given out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. JOYCE: Yes, that is right. That is what we were told and that is our understanding. That is our understanding of it, Mr. Speaker. The problem you may run into, Mr. Speaker, and I think you will run into it, is that every group or organization right now that is involved with government, if they get a lawyer involved and sit down and discuss it, and they say: We can't release it because it is solicitor-client information. I am very serious about that. I feel it is an erosion of our rights as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. I really, truly feel that, because there is no way in the world anybody here can say now that if a lawyer is involved with any department, I ask the Minister of Justice to look at that, if some department – and I will use Eastern Health, for example. If we wanted information of Eastern Health and they had lawyers involved now, could we get the information? What we were told, no, we cannot get it. It is a major concern, Mr. Speaker, for me personally. It is a major concern for all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as people dig into this ATIPPA legislation, as we dig into it more, people are going to become more and more wary of this legislation. I have to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, in the five years that the legislation has been in, what information had to be given out in the public domain that you needed such draconian legislation? That is a question I would like answered. If anybody over there can answer it, Mr. Speaker - why do we need such draconian legislation? - I need to know that. There is no one can explain to me there is something so serious in government that you say you cannot get it somehow – and I know the Minister of Health mentioned about the Cameron inquiry - you can get the information, so my question, Mr. Speaker, is: Why do we need this legislation to lock down everything? Why? Can anybody explain to me? I hope someone can give me that opportunity and that courtesy to explain it.

Mr. Speaker, I just used some good examples; the mill in Grand Falls is a prime example. We have been trying to get information now, the cost, and we still cannot get it. Now, with a lawyer involved solicitor-client privilege, we will never get the information – never get it, will not be able to get it. That will be buried so far now, Mr. Speaker, you would not be able to get it with a backhoe. They will have that buried so deep with legislation. Then those are the kinds of things that personally I am a bit weary of – I am a bit nervous of, Mr. Speaker. As I go through the legislation – I am sure I am going to have another couple of opportunities to speak on it, Mr. Speaker. As I go through it clause by clause, I will be having –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as I get through the legislation and as I get through parts, clause by clause, I will have a lot more to say. I would just like for anybody in government to answer me: Do we need to bring this in? What terrible information did anybody in the general public ever ask for that we needed to bring this legislation in? It is draconian, that puts the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rights behind in the backseat and makes the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian who really wants information have to go down on Water Street somewhere, go to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador because they are looking for a bit of information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand and have a few words to say about Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I see that the government is now no longer putting up intervening speakers. I will be one of the last to speak. Some believe that the first will be last and the last will be first, so there is some reason for optimism for me, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he was on his feet he was talking about the importance of privacy. That certainly is an important part of this legislation. Members will remember over the years there have been a number of relatively highly publicized cases in the media where individuals who are performing various research projects have gotten into trouble, where personal and sensitive information has gotten into the hands of individuals who should not have had it. Of course, this is an important aspect of the legislation as well. There is a lot that can be said about this, there is no question.

As members have been standing and talking about this legislation today, both sides have been claiming responsibility, denying responsibility or whatever is the case. I am quite proud of the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador was one of the first provinces in Canada to enact legislation on access to information. That is a good thing we should all be proud of. We have been exemplary in showing leadership in this area in the past. The previous government, when the Official Opposition members' party was in power, established a review to provide changes to the legislation. That received Royal Assent in 2002, before the current Progressive Conservative government took power, with the exception of one key section around the protection of privacy. The minister is quite correct to point out that that stands out.

While we have talked around the act a lot, I do not think we have really talked about the purpose of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act a lot. It is about giving individuals the right of access to information. It is about giving access to information that is held about themselves. The legislation provides some limited exemptions to the right of access. This legislation, Bill 29, is really designed to increase those limits and to expand them significantly. It is also designed, in terms of privacy, to prevent the unauthorized collection, distribution, or disclosure of personal information by public bodies, by departments of governments, and so on. It is also intended to provide for an independent review of decisions made around access to information and protection of privacy in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is really integral to what we are discussing here.

In terms of those public bodies, there are about 5,460 public bodies across the Province and here we are talking about not just government departments, but other agencies of government, health care boards, and school districts, other educational bodies and municipalities. As we know, there are quite a number of different municipalities in the Province that this applies to.

All of this is administrated through the Department of Justice, which has established the Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Office which does a lot of adjudicating of this legislation. There is a key role, of course, with the Information and Privacy Commissioner who is an Officer of the Legislature, who is enterable to Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature, though he is independent in the work that he does. The commissioner is responsible for making recommendations around the act, ensuring that there is compliance for informing the public about the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for receiving public comments from the public about the act, and a variety of other responsibilities.

I do note in the review that was done by Mr. Cummings he said that he observed widespread frustration and anxiety regarding the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that was for a variety of different reasons. Now the minister has said that these proposed changes that we have in the form of the bill will strengthen access to information and protection of privacy, but I cannot see how that this bill is going to achieve the former, which is strengthening access to information. It may very well provide for stronger protections of privacy, but it does not ensure greater access to information. It does not strengthen access to information and it does not provide increased access to information. They will, rather, provide further restrictions on the access to information. They will deny access to information. They will make information less available than it currently is today without this piece of legislation.

I hear it was an interesting news conference today, Mr. Speaker, with the minister. He was talking about one aspect of this which has gotten some play around the frivolous and vexatious requests for information. I say to the minister: If you are trying to legislate away this or you are trying to control this but you are unsure what it is, then I think this is a poor basis for this change if you are unable to provide substantive examples of the current use, the past use, of the current legislation for the purposes of requests for a frivolous or vexatious nature. I think that is a very poor basis for advocating these changes because, in fact, this piece of legislation is more about denying access to information than it is about providing an ease of access to information.

For example, the legislation significantly expands the scope of documents that are protected by Cabinet secrecy. It expands on the definition of Cabinet documents and it exempts more information from public release. Simply stamp documents as Cabinet and then they would be no longer subject to the act. It is almost like in the movies when you see top secret stamped on the document and that is it. It will be further shielded from public disclosure. So it shields more information from public release.

It also gives ministers, with all due respect, sole discretion to deem whether or not an access to information request is indeed frivolous or vexatious and allows government to disregard requests that it wants to fill – it disregards requests, it can decide not to comply with requests if it does not want to fill them. It removes the current role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in this regard. In fact, if you read Mr. Cummings report he talks about the fact that in most provinces – I believe the only exception that he gave was Ontario. In most cases, there is an intervening role as an arbiter for an Information and Privacy Commissioner in that regard. In addition to government departments, other public agencies, and hundreds of those, as I mentioned, they will also be able to disregard access to information requests that deem to be frivolous and vexatious.

The bill eliminates the current role that we have for the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is, as I said, an arbiter or an empire, if you will, in information requests. It really runs counter to, or it is the opposite of what was recommended by Mr. Cummings in his report, his evaluation of the current legislation based on the feedback that he received. His review recommended that public bodies have the prior approval of the commissioner in the event that they want to disregard requests for information, in the event they believe them to be frivolous or vexatious, or in bad faith, trivial, or just intended to occupy the time of civil servants who would otherwise be performing a different function. He recommended that there be this intervening role.

The change here is not consistent with the direction that Mr. Cummings had put forward, that he had recommended in his review of existing legislation. Instead of allowing the Information and Privacy Commissioner to make such rulings – and this was upheld by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, as the government is well aware. These changes provide an unnecessary level of power to ministers and to public bodies to decide which requests are legitimate and which requests are illegitimate.

Where ministers are concerned – and with all due respect, it would be as if an umpire was potentially playing for the other team rather than leaving decisions in the hands of a truly impartial, independent body such as we have today with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Instead of having an independent officer of the House of Assembly making these decisions, this legislation gives that authority away if requests are felt to be frivolous by ministers or otherwise by the heads of public bodies and so on. If an applicant with an access to information request disagrees with that decision around the substance of their request, they have no other option but to go directly to trial in the courts. There is no other avenue of appeal provided here. This legislation will prohibit them now from appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner as they currently are able to do. Instead, the government wants the court to have a final say on these disputes regarding access to information. This has the effect of overturning a court decision, this government that the Attorney General had brought to court, that it lost with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner last October.

That was an important case, because in January 2009 the Department of Justice started to refuse access to information requests based on the claim of solicitor-client privilege. When the commissioner was asked to review the matter, to look into these decisions, to examine them, he was also refused, refuted by the Department of Justice. He was denied his right to review the documents in question on that same basis, which was that of solicitor-client privilege. At the time, the commissioner rightly pointed out that he had a responsibility to access and review the records under the current provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, after effectively barring the commissioner from doing his job under the current provisions of the legislation, this government's response was to ask the courts to decide who had the authority, to ask the courts to be the arbiter in this case, to rule whether or not the commissioner is entitled to review the information, despite the claims of solicitor-client privilege by the public body in question, because these were cases where a public body was involved. Back then, the commissioner stated the following; he said: Without that ability, the accountability and transparency promised by the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act must be considered inferior – inferior; he did not repeat himself, I did – to that which is enjoyed by Canadians in other jurisdictions. He went on to say he believed that solicitor-client privilege is a principle which can be balanced with the twin pillars of transparency and accountability, as all three are essential underpinnings of our democracy.

As members are aware, the authority of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was upheld in the Court of Appeal decision last October. In explaining its decision last year, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal pointed out the following, "It would be too easy to have documents declared to be subject to solicitor-client privilege to delay resolution of a matter and to deter a… citizen from pressing a claim for access to documents in court."

That is what the court said at the time of making the ruling last October. It is the case, Mr. Speaker, that under these proposed amendments to the act that it will now be easier to deter citizens – according to that interpretation – from pressing claims for access to information. That is in part what this legislation is intended to do, I believe.

In responding to the court case, the determination of the court last October, the commissioner pointed out the following. He said, "The Court of Appeal decision makes it clear that public bodies are required to produce any records to my Office which I consider relevant to an investigation, including records which a public body claims are protected by solicitor-client privilege". He characterized the decision of the court as upholding a key element of any modern, democratic society, which is an effective access to information law. Such a law can only be effective if the commissioner is appointed to oversee the law, that he can exercise all of the powers necessary to do that job. As the court stated in this decision, a right of access to records is meaningless without the means of enforcing this right.

Unfortunately, one of the implications of the proposed legislation is that enforcement of access to information by and large, by the commissioner, will substantially diminished in comparison to the provisions of the act as it exists today. I also note that in defence of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the commissioner has pointed out that in previous cases where public bodies have made the claim of solicitor-client privilege, in every one of those cases, the information in question was reviewed. After these reviews, the commissioner has either issued recommendations to the public body in question or the cases have been suitably resolved, informally, to the satisfaction of both parties, to the mutual satisfaction of the public body and the person seeking the access to information.

I will not go on much further, Mr. Speaker, but I do have a lot more to say about this in the coming days. I would like for members to think about this. What the court has decided and what the commissioner has said around the issue of solicitor-client privilege, they agree that the current provisions of the act are working. We should not legislate them out of existence, because it is a good piece of legislation that this government brought in and I would hate to see it go by the wayside for reasons I am unable to understand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There being no other speakers –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I am sorry. The Speaker did not see the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation. I ask the member to stand and be recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that when you cannot see me – I know I am a bit far away from you – I think you should go and check out your glasses probably. I am certainly not gone away to nothing yet – with all due respect, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly good tonight to stand up, have a few words on Bill 29, give a little explanation to what we do and what is happening, and maybe even give a little bit of the history. The Member for Bay of Islands likes to talk about history, and he has been around politics a long time, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we will share and agree to disagree on some of the history of how we got to where we are here today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, contains a number of things, and a number of things that Mr. Cummings brought forward. Basically we have accepted most of what he has brought forward and certainly modified some of it. We are not that off course. We had a number of consultation meetings across the Province, as the Minister of Justice alluded to earlier today. Mr. Speaker, we had ten people show up. Ten people showed up right across the Province. It was good to see ten people show, but, obviously, it was not on the minds and hearts of everybody in this Province. I think they believe we are doing a good job. We are trying to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker.

There is a lot of talk of frivolous and vexatious here a minute ago, Mr. Speaker. I am going to tell you a story about a department I was in, how foolish some of this stuff can get and the reasons why we have to tighten it up, Mr. Speaker. The cornerstones of this legislation are actually openness, transparency, and accountability. That is what we were doing in 2004 and that is exactly what we are doing here today.

If I could just explain for a minute what we have. We have three committees feeding into the Cabinet process. We have the Economic Policy Committee, we have the Social Policy Committee, and we have Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. I will give you an example. Take my friend, the Minister of IBRD. Very often if you sit on the Economic Policy Committee and Treasury Board, you will see something, a proposal, come through his department. Let's say a company out there that are on the verge of making it good and employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but they need some help with their equity, Mr. Speaker. We have a program to help them do that. Here we are with this company who is investing their own money. Government is now going to take them to the next level. They are going to create, hopefully, thousands of jobs someday in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I can think of one in particular. It was an established business in rural Newfoundland that needed that little bit of equity to get them to the next level, and we did it. Now, for that to happen that company had to disclose everything they owned. It was gone through with a fine-tooth comb. This is not something you can write on the back of a cigarette pack, Mr. Speaker, and expect to get millions of dollars. You have to come forward with financial plans, your business history, and who your partners are. Mr. Speaker, it is a very open process. Before we go through and sign off on giving anyone any of the public purse, Mr. Speaker, you are scrutinized like you would never believe. There are lots of questions asked of you, not only by elected officials but some of the talented bureaucracy that we have here as well. Mr. Speaker, you have to protect that. That is why it is important, that although we have an ATIPP Act, we certainly have to protect the rights of these businesses. It is very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, we talked earlier about when this was actually brought in and proclaimed. I believe the Member for Bay of Islands said it started back in the late 1990s, I thought that is what he –

AN HON. MEMBER: 2001.

MR. FRENCH: In 2000-2001. Mr. Speaker, here you see a government at the time that was on their way out the door. The polls were against them. They were in big trouble, but they really, really were grasping for breath, Mr. Speaker, and they had to come up with something. They came up with this because the people were crying for it. The Opposition, who were us at the time, were also crying for it. So they took their show on the road. They went all across the Island and met everywhere, got in every hole and nook and cranny that they could get in.

Mr. Speaker, they never did bring in the legislation. They never brought it, Mr. Speaker, because the crowd at the time were frightened to death. There were that many skeletons in their closets for the last fifteen or sixteen years, Mr. Speaker, they knew if they brought in something like that –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Now, the hon. Member for Cartwright was over there. She knows exactly what I am saying. They were frightened to death to proclaim it, frightened to death. Mr. Speaker, what we did when we came to power – you have to remember now, we came to power in 2004.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the act here and I would like to point out to the member that it was brought in and passed in the House of Assembly in 2002.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, it was not proclaimed, though. It was not proclaimed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker acknowledges the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. FRENCH: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what you call getting cute with words. This is what the hon. Member for Cartwright is all about. They brought it in, in 2002. Let's get the clock here now, 2002 they brought it in. The election was at the end of 2003. This still was not law, Mr. Speaker, still not law. They brought it in, in 2002, and late 2003 it is still not law. You are a new government, you come into power, and we claimed we are going to do it. Mr. Speaker, we did do it.

The first session of the House was a busy session. You can imagine the number of bills we had in front of us, with our first Budget to come through and our first couple of sessions of the House. Mr. Speaker, we came in, in October 2003, two months later we are into 2004. That first year was a full cycle, full growing period of budgets, of bills. In January, 2005, Mr. Speaker, twelve short months later, this becomes law. This becomes law, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Now, with all due respect to the hon. crowd opposite and the road show they put on, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the day, and they know it full well, were frightened to death to make it law because they knew they had too many skeletons for the sixteen years previous. This is what it was all about. This is what it was all about, Mr. Speaker.

This is the hon. crowd that had the guts and the fortitude to bring it in, Mr. Speaker. This is the crowd that had to do it, Mr. Speaker, not that crowd over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I want to make. I have them all worked up, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what it is. It must be that red fiery coat. I do not have my red fiery coat on, sorry. I do not know what it is, Mr. Speaker, but I managed to stoke them up a little bit. When you can remember a little bit of the history it really cuts them to the quick, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few more things I would like to say but I am going to end up now with this little story, this frivolous and vexatious story. This is one where we heard the Member for St. John's North talk about it. We heard the Opposition members talk about it, frivolous and vexatious. I am going to tell you a little story, Mr. Speaker, and it blew me away.

Over in our department, Mr. Speaker, we were getting the occasional freedom of information request, an ATIPP request. We got one on a piece of land in a community in Newfoundland and Labrador, which will remain nameless. Mr. Speaker, we get a second one. Then we get a third one. Then we get one about his neighbour's land. Then we get one about somebody else's land. Then we get pieces of land along a full road. Then we get pieces of land along Route 60 – Route 60 or Route 70. I am not quite sure what route number it is; Route 60, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, it was going on and going on and going on. I can't be quite sure; it was either forty ATIPP requests or seventy. If we had staff here now I would get the exact number. It was either forty or seventy; I am not quite sure. Let us say it is the lower number. Let us say there are forty ATIPP requests in. Mr. Speaker, a couple of months pass, we get another request. Guess what the ATIPP request was for this time? The ATIPP request: his own ATIPP requests, his forty ATIPP requests. He was ATIPPing how many requests he had in. Mr. Speaker. That is what you call, in my world, frivolous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: This is the kind of stuff that, although we have an ATIPP request and although we want to share the information of the Crown with as many people as we possibly can, it is the best thing you can do politically and it is the right thing to do, there are times when things like this happen, you have to stop it. Because it costs the taxpayers of this Province thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, thousands and thousands and thousands of hours of work to put this stuff together, Mr. Speaker, and it is foolishness – absolute foolishness. Hopefully, this legislation is going to help tidy up some of those things.

Mr. Speaker, having spoken for ten minutes there I have a colleague here who wishes to split the time with me. I am going to turn it over to him now. Thank you very much. It was certainly a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 29 and remind the hon. members of the Opposition how it really went down.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to get up and speak to Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I want to acknowledge the Member for St. John's North who noted when he was speaking to this bill that this is a good piece of legislation. He is right and I compliment him for having the vision to notice that. What we are doing now is taking a good piece of legislation and even making it better so that we protect the people in this Province, and we pair that with how we act as a government here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it upfront right now, I will be voting against the amendment because I think it takes away from the legitimacy of what we are doing here and how we are enhancing the privacy and access to information for the people in this Province.

I want to go back – and my learned colleague just opened up the realm of how we got to where we are. I am going to take it from where he left it based on the Member for Bay of Islands saying that this was legislation that they had brought in and they were the visionaries and so on. We compliment them for at least thinking about this process. What this Administration has done has taken what other people have brought to the forefront, taken what we have heard from people, what we have had in consultations. In this process, Mr. Speaker, in the amendments here we had consultations. Unfortunately, very little response, and I think that is a testament to the fact that we have had legislation in place.

I want to first clarify a situation here for those in the gallery watching and for those at home listening. I think there is a fear factor here and I think some members of the Opposition have sort of been very choosy on what they have let out there. There is a misconception that this is a new piece of legislation that this is something that has never existed before. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. This has existed since 2005. This has existed because we wanted to put something in place that protected the citizens here and also gave them access to information. We have done that, and obviously for the last number of years, with nearly 500 entities where information can be gathered from, and people from all over the Province from all different various backgrounds have accessed that information, this has been working very well. It has been a testament to what we do and it has been based on how some other jurisdictions do their job. We have been doing it very fruitfully and very efficiently.

What we have done here – and we have been criticized for taking away the accountability. Again, this is the Administration – and I know some of my colleagues have said it – that brought the Auditor General into the House of Assembly, that set up the accountability and transparency legislation, also the Privacy Commissioner, gave them an opening there, started to do that. Letting things be open to the civil service, to the general public, to the media, all part and parcel to those processes. I want to make it clear to the people at home, this is something we are adding to legislation that has been working very efficiently in occurrence with other provinces and jurisdictions what we do. I want to make it clear, because there has been some misconception and it is misconstrued how things are being presented. People are saying we are now not going to be able to have access, Nalcor now are going to be protected because of what we are doing with Muskrat Falls, and Cabinet documentation is going to be protected. No, Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that already existed. We are not in any way trying to hide something or take something away; these are things that were already in place for a reason. We govern; anything that we do financially is out there.

Mr. Speaker, we met as part of the Public Accounts Committee a few weeks ago with the Auditor General for three hours. We talked about some of the issues and access to information. He had no problem financially. There is not one issue there that he has relevant to access to being able to identify any money spent. He has a definition conflict with ours specifically. This piece of legislation does not change anything. This keeps in place what has already been enacted and it has been very effective and goes into line with how people do things in the rest of this country, Mr. Speaker.

I want to go back again to say that part of the 2005 legislation was that there would be a review process. The review processes are healthy because they give everybody - the Opposition, the general population, the users, the media - an opportunity to have input into if the legislation has out served its use, if there are gaps in services, or if there are ways we can improve it. We went through the consultation process. We hired a very capable and very competent individual in Mr. Cummings to go through the process. He went through that. It took him a little over a year to put together a very comprehensive report of which we took, as an Administration, as a government, and the minister took, and went through it with his officials, discussed it again in Cabinet and then looked at what was relevant to where we were and where we wanted to go. Mr. Speaker, this is not a document that we took lightly by no stretch of the imagination, and I know the minister very diligently went through it all. He did not throw this out the window.

Let's just look at it: Out of thirty-three recommendations, sixteen adopted automatically, no questions asked, fell right in line with what we were doing. Five other ones recommended, and slight modifications to be implemented. Only five rejected – and I will get to them after as to why. There were very minor reasons why they were rejected but very beneficial in the sense that they were not necessary with the legislation we had in place. Four other ones required for further consideration, that they are in the process now and they are being reviewed by the civil servants. They will be reviewed, in dialogue with the Privacy Commissioner, to see if they fit and if they do how they are going to be implemented.

Two other ones that are still under review because they felt that they should fit in there but how they fit under which setting. One that will be normally under the budget process is another one that would be accepted. Mr. Speaker, we took a report that went through the process that was legislated, as part of what we do – again, another component of our legislation where we have our transparency and accountability. I mean, after five years everybody has access to what we have done, particularly in this piece of legislation. So we wanted to go back and re-educate the general public that this legislation exists and it exists to protect them but also give them access to this information. We did that: open consultation. Obviously, people must have been very happy with what we were doing because only ten people came out. The recommendations that came back were fairly well in line with where the Department of Justice was and this organization and this Administration on how we wanted to move things forward. We will continue to do these types of things, Mr. Speaker.

We have also sat down to really look at how this fits in with everything else that we wanted to do in the process. It would be great, Mr. Speaker, if everything could be public and that we could just open up everything that we have and everybody would have access to it, but that does not protect citizens. That might be the best political thing to do, but that is not what we were governed to do. We were elected to govern in the best interests of the people here and in the best interests of the people here are all those citizens, those who have information, and those who want to access that information and the privacy and that proper balance you have to put in place to make that work. We have done that. We have to make sure that everybody is protected, every citizen here, and the work that we do as a government is protected so that we can move things forward without jeopardizing the process that we use.

Again, I go back to the process –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BRAZIL: Yes, I believe it because I lived it. I worked it as a civil servant. I saw it. I did briefing notes. I did Cabinet papers. They work for a reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: They are not fear mongering or speculation or political posturing. This is reality, this is what happens, this is what you do, and you do it in the best interests of the people you serve and because you get it to this point because it started from the grass roots and it builds from there. The information that gets passed up to through the ranks, particularly to Cabinet, may have some very fine lines as to who was involved and what the particulars were and what communities were engaged and these types of things. These are the pieces of information that people need to be protected, that people need to have their privacy as part of that process. Other information as part of the initial process is open to the general public. ATIPPA will give you that access. The other processes that we have within the civil service there are also all kinds of opportunities for people to access that, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we look at where we are and how we got to this process and what this would mean for people. We looked at some of the recommendations that we, at this point, said they were not necessary to implement. They were covered and protected in other areas. I will give one, Recommendation 6, the definition of public body. This is what Mr. Cummings came in – and he was not overly stringent about what this was. He had a definition that he thought should be implemented as part of the process. We came back and said fair enough, that makes sense, except we already have that covered. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council has existing authority under ATIPPA to add entities and definitions as he sees fit, so why recreate something – because this is a living entity; this goes on and on. As the processes go, if we have to go back and change this piece of legislation constantly, it serves no purpose. It is a waste of time and energy and money. What we have is an open ability there as new entities get formed or new angles come there, it is a balance where we can keep moving things forward. What this would have done was slow the process, Mr. Speaker. We passed that and we are saying thank you, Mr. Cummings, we understand where you are coming from, but we have that covered – one of the recommendations, down to four, Mr. Speaker.

Recommendation 7, we talk about record of files, record of judges and the whole process of what we go through, the whole recommendation there. Our rationale, what we are saying – and this is one of the ones the Opposition were sort of trying to pick holes in. Currently we provide, under section 5, records are referred directly to the courts when in dispute. In addition, police informant information and RNC investigation files that have not been completed will be added. Due to the sensitive nature of these records, stronger protection is required under our legislation. That is there to protect the people we serve. It is there to protect the people who serve us in various agencies. So that was covered off in that one, very much so – another one; down to three that we did not take into account.

Recommendation 8, the big debate over the $5, the $10, the $15, it exists or it does not. The initial $5 application fee still exists and it will exist as is, we have not changed any of that. What we have changed, because of the change in cost and we want to make sure that people are not doing this frivolously, that they are doing it because they need that information and it is pertinent to them, we have changed from $15 to $25 but, Mr. Speaker, in return we have given two free hours to four free hours. The average person who is looking for a piece of information just to clarify a situation they may have or a dispute can very easily get that free of charge. We are actually making it easier and cheaper for the average citizen to get the piece of information they need, Mr. Speaker. Again, three gone and not a cost to the people, better service for the people, better protection.

Recommendation 21; currently, the Chief Information Officer is appointed for a two-year term. Mr. Cummings came back and just arbitrarily looked at it, looked at some other jurisdictions and said we want to do it for five years. We looked at it; this has been enacted now for six, on to seven years. Our two-year terms have been working. Again, we have talked about this before, and it is not the only piece of legislation, it is not the only process we have. We do not fix things that are not broken. When it is working, why do we arbitrarily change something? Because other jurisdictions do it, it does not mean we have to. We have something that the Department of Justice, Cabinet and this Administration have found works very efficiently, so we want to continue to do it and that is why we moved that.

Recommendation 4; there are no issues. It does not take away from what we do. It does not take away from the access of information. It does not take away from the privacy of the individuals in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Recommendation 23; this talks about Mr. Cummings recommended appointing a person to review the decisions about disclosure of its own information. We rejected that, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what the base rationale was? That this would likely be a rare occurrence because we very rarely have any – that somebody questions the commissioner's decision and believe that the current provisions provide for an appeal in a court. We have a legal system in this Province that works very efficiently and is touted as one of the best in this country. Why would we go with another third part of administration and a bureaucracy that would be costly and, again, confuse individuals when they know where to go to access the information? What we have is a legal system people are very familiar with and they know the process, Mr. Speaker. So, here is the fifth recommendation we turned down that has no real credence anymore and we have managed to build it in so that we still protect the people.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about thirty-three recommendations, we are in the process of making sure all of them have relevance to this piece of legislation and do what they were set up to do. That is to protect the individuals, protect the privacy, but also give individuals and organizations an opportunity, which includes the Opposition parties, to have access to information in a timely fashion, in an affordable fashion, but in a very frugal fashion so that it is not frivolous information, wasting of time, and making sure it is relevant to what we do and we still protect the rights of the people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear again, I will be voting against the amendment, and I know all of my colleagues will be voting against it. This is a good piece of legislation that we must put in the way that we presented it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There being no further speakers, an amendment has been put forward by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, an amendment to Bill 29.

All those in favour of the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Summon the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment to Bill 29, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Ball, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Bennett, Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, Ms Burke, Mr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Verge, Mr. Kent, Ms Johnson, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Osborne, Ms Perry, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Lane, Mr. Russell.

Mr. Speakers, the ayes eleven, the nays thirty-one.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion defeated.

We are now back to debating Bill 29 at second reading. The last member speaking to the motion would have been the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time that I have left to speak to this motion. I have enjoyed sitting here tonight and hearing the different opinions and comments made by all the members here, whether it be members of the opposition or whether it be members of government. I took the time to jot down some notes here as we talk about this piece of legislation.

I have to reference my good friend, the Member for Mount Pearl South. I had a hard time containing myself when I heard him chastise members for using Twitter. I had a hard time, the pot calling the kettle black there. The minister of Twitter was chastising the rest of the Twitter-verse for making comments on Twitter. I can tell, you that was impressive. What I would say to you is, chastising anybody for using Twitter, Sir, that is rich; that is a great one. I had to bring that up here tonight. I had a hard time containing myself when I heard that.

Again, what I would say very quickly – and I have no time left.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there someone going to speak?

The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I will be with you in one minute. Things have happened more quickly than I expected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to speak again now under the second reading for the bill, the review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: As has been indicated by many people, this is a very, very important piece of legislation that we are dealing with here today, tonight. We have been at it now for awhile. We should not be taking it lightly because it is an extremely important piece. People have been speaking about it, both members of the government side of the House, both in terms of the freedom aspect of this bill and also the privacy aspect. We all recognize that there are two pieces here, but there is a balance that has to be found between the freedom to access and the privacy.

Earlier today, it seems like a long time ago, I did quote the Information and Privacy Commissioner who talked about the fulcrum of balance we are in, in trying to maintain both the freedom to access of information and also the protection of privacy because we have to do both things. I indicated earlier today that I think the bill we are dealing with has done a tremendous imbalance is what is going on. That is the part that has me quite disturbed.

I wish I could find my copy of the bill. I would be all set. I have lost my copy of the bill. Somebody must have one there for me. Thank you.

When I look at the bill, one area that I first want to deal with is section 22.1 on page 9, section 22.1 continuing on page 10, and section 26. These areas really cause me a problem. I had to try to figure out why they are in there.

When we look at section 22.1 we are talking about a public body. It says, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant personal information that is evaluative or opinion material, provided explicitly or implicitly in confidence, and compiled for the purpose of (a) determining suitability, eligibility or qualifications for employment or for the awarding of contracts or other benefits by a public body".

I will not go on and read the whole section, Mr. Speaker. What section 22.1 and 22.2 do, which I find to be really reprehensible, is that it just about makes it impossible for an individual who thinks, who feels, who has reason to believe that he or she has perhaps been mistreated by a public body. If they want to find information that will help them prove their case, they are not going to be able to apply for that information. We are talking about people inside of a public body being accused of mistreating an individual, and that individual not able to prove it. I really had to read these sections a couple of times to realize what the sections were about.

It is the same way with section 22.2. First of all, section 22.2 defines, ‘"harassment' means comments or conduct which are abusive, offensive, demeaning or vexatious that are known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome and which may be intended or unintended".

It talks about, ‘"workplace investigation' means an investigation related to (i) the conduct of an employee in the workplace, (ii) harassment, or (iii) events related to the interaction of an employee in the public body's workplace with another employee or a member of the public which may give rise to progressive discipline or corrective action by the public body employer." Then it goes on and talks more about what the purpose of the section is. It gives the definitions first, and then it gives the purpose of the section.

Again, what I find is if there is an individual who thinks that he or she has been mistreated by a public body and they want to have access to records that will help them show that they have been mistreated, they have been maybe accused wrongly or action has been taken against them and they believe it has not been justified, they are not going to be able to get what they want. This is really problematic.

It says, "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance of records collected or made during a workplace investigation." It does not even say they may refuse, they shall refuse to disclose. Then it goes on to say, "The head of a public body shall disclose to an applicant who is a party to a workplace investigation the information referred to in subsection (2)."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, and I ask members for their co-operation.

The Leader of the Third Party, please proceed.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. It was getting hard to speak over the noise.

What this is saying, number one, is that the head of the public body will definitely refuse to disclose information that would reveal the substance of records collected. This is absolutely unacceptable.

It also goes on to say, "…where a party referred to in that subsection is a witness in a workplace investigation, the head of a public body shall disclose only the information referred to in subsection (2) which relates to the witness' statements provided in the course of the investigation." That part, Mr. Speaker, is not bad. That part has some sense, but saying that the head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant any information which would reveal the substance of records collected or made during a workplace investigation is completely unacceptable.

When we go on to number 26 – and I am trying to make sense of these, Mr. Speaker. We go on to section 26, and it seems to be related to 22.1 and 22.2. We go on to 26.1, which is brand new. It is a new piece that is being inserted. The pieces I am reading, Mr. Speaker, the significance of them, is that they are additions to the act that exists. They are not even replacing something that has been repealed. They are absolutely new pieces. They are pushing things further than the current act, and I would suggest pushing things further into a regressive nature.

When we look at 26.1, Mr. Speaker, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal (a) labour relations information of the public body as an employer that is prepared or supplied, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence, and is treated consistently as confidential information by the public body as an employer". Then it goes on and gives a lot of details about the way in which an employer may have information about how an employee has been treated.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this section. I am going to be bringing it up again in committee because I do not have all the information yet on this. It bothers me that we actually, in this section, could be going against the human rights of a worker. If a worker is working in an area where they have been treated unreasonably, unfairly under labour relations, this is saying they do not have the right to get the documentation that will help them show what it is that has gone on.

As I have just said, we are talking to experts in this area. We are trying to get information in this area and we are going to try to determine whether or not we are taking away the rights of the employee, Mr. Speaker. When we come into committee, I certainly hope to have the information that I am looking for to get more determination about this section. These sections have been bothering me. As I said, we have been a number of days working on this but getting all of the analysis is not easy.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at number 27, we also have a similar problem. Here, some of things that have been put in are newer. They are additions to the old act. Some of them I fully understand, for example, the trade secrets of a third party. "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal (a) trade secrets of a third party". That I fully understand, Mr. Speaker, but then when I look at some of the other sections in this one, it is the same thing. I look at it and it goes further than anything that we have had before in an act, and this seems to be the whole message of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is pushing things beyond where they are, not in a positive way but in a more protective way. I really have concerns about what I see as protection of management that is going on when it comes to the public bodies, and I would like to suggest that this would also be protection that would be, I assume, there for departments of government as well.

The personal privacy is extremely important, but when privacy is being used by the body against an individual then we have a problem. Then we definitely have a problem when it comes to where that fits in terms of the rights of the worker, both under labour relations as well as under our Human Rights Code. That is something I want to speak to. There have been individuals, Mr. Speaker, who have spoken to some of the issues that I wanted to speak to but I am, myself, going to speak to them as well.

The main one is the way in which this bill has removed external oversight and people have used different ways of speaking about it, but it is the loss of external oversight that really bothers me. Because we have had a good system here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have had a really good office of information and privacy, we have had a commissioner in place that has had important responsibilities and rights, and we now have a bill that has basically taken away the power of that external oversight. We now have responsibilities that were in the hands of the commissioner being put in the hands of the Clerk of Executive Council, certainly not external. The Clerk of Executive Council is going to be able to make determinations about documentation which will be kept private. This used to be done by the commissioner. I am totally shocked by the loss of the external oversight. I cannot understand how this government can be putting this out here on this floor and expecting people to believe that this is a better piece of legislation than what we have.

When I read it – and I think some people have said it in different ways; I am going to say it my way – when I got to the end of the bill and I looked at the very end and then I looked at the act in the very end, I said there is a clause they should have put in here. The clause – if they believe what they have in here, then I do not know why they have not bothered to close the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner because, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be no work left for them to do. There is nothing for them to determine. All the determination of interpretation is now in the legislation. There is nothing for the commissioner to look at and decide whether or not he can get at it. We also, Mr. Speaker, have the bill denying something extremely important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also have the bill denying something extremely important, which really bothers me. That, Mr. Speaker, has to do with section 52 of the act. Section 52 of the act is repealed and what has been put in place, 52.(1) is the same as what is in the current act. "The commissioner has the powers, privileges and immunities that are or may be conferred on a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act, 2006." It is subsection (2) that really upsets me, "The commissioner may require any record in the custody or under the control of a public body that the commissioner considers relevant to an investigation to be produced to the commissioner except any record which contains information that is solicitor and client privileged or which is an official cabinet record under section 18."

Mr. Speaker, I know that others have spoken to this and my colleague from St. John's North has spoken to it, but I want to strengthen everything that has been said. I heard the Minister of Justice defend this being in the bill, the fact that the commissioner will not be allowed to deal with any record which contains information that is solicitor and client privileged. The commissioner will not be able to determine whether or not documents that are claimed by government to be solicitor and client privileged really are. We all know that the commissioner had to go to court to fight this government with regard to this issue. We all know that when the commissioner went to court, he lost his case in court but appealed. We all now know that a Court of Appeal judged, just this past fall in October, in favour of the commissioner, saying that he did have the right to look at documentation to determine whether or not they were solicitor-client privileged. We also know he found quite a number of documents which were determined had absolutely no protection under solicitor-client privilege.

Now, in spite of that ruling by the Court of Appeals, this government has ignored the Court of Appeals and has now said in this new bill that in actual fact the commissioner does not have that right anymore. The explanation of that by the Minister of Justice is just, in my mind, totally unacceptable. What he is saying is: Well, there was not enough clarity in the act and the Court of Appeal did not have adequate information to make their ruling. The thing is there is no ruling for them to make now, because now they are putting in the bill that, in actual fact, the commissioner has no right to look at these. Now they are taking away material that would have been used by the Court of Appeals to make the determination that they made.

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable to me. I continue using the word unbelievable because in actual fact it is. The commissioner will not be able to determine whether or not materials are actually solicitor-client privilege. After spending the time going to court and fighting for it, after going all the way to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in our Province and this government has the arrogance to say that the Court of Appeals does not know what it is doing, that the Court of Appeals judgement does not count anymore. The only reason it is not going to count is because of what they have put in here, Mr. Speaker. What are they doing, are they now telling the commissioner he is going to have to continue going to court to fight for this? He is not going to have a leg to stand on now with the legislation the way that they have it.

Mr. Speaker, what we see here is a piece of legislation that is taking away all powers from the commissioner. Like I said, they might as well have said that the office is going to be closed as soon as this is proclaimed. We have a piece of legislation which is telling the people of this Province that their ultimate appeal now is not to a commissioner, who is an external person with oversight outside of the system, working for us but doing it totally externally, impartially. They no longer can go to that commissioner for appeal. They are going to have to go to the court system, or the language that is used in the legislation is the Trial Division. Mr. Speaker, an awful lot of the people, and even the organizations that are seeking information, do not have the resources to go to court.

What this government is doing is reprehensible. I cannot believe they have the gall to think that people do not see through it. Today alone I had three different former politicians, some federal and some provincial from this Province, all well-respected people, who came to me and said: Keep fighting this one, point out how regressive this is. I would like to point out, neither one of those people who spoke to me were members of the New Democratic Party. They are very respected politicians in this Province, who said: Lorraine, keep fighting it because this is unbelievable, it is so regressive, it is so backward. They could not believe it.

Mr. Speaker, I will have a lot more to say about this bill as we continue in Committee of the Whole. Thank you very much for my time this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand to speak to the main motion of Bill 29. Mr. Speaker, there are lots of comments we can make with regard to this bill. I am going to start, first of all, with the commitments that were made by the government opposite. These particular commitments, Mr. Speaker, were stated in the Conservative Blue Book.

Mr. Speaker, this was the hallmark of their platform. When they ran for office in 2003, Mr. Speaker, they ran on the very premise that they were going to have openness, transparency, there would be full accountability. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they went as far as to say that even Cabinet documents would be available for people.

Now what we are seeing, Mr. Speaker, is just a few years later, the very same people, many of them who were in that 2003 government, are out there tonight trying to bring in amendments that are regressive, bring in amendments that will slow down everything that we have been able to access and actually looking at how they can shut down public information in this Province. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker, shutting down information that has been available to the public.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is not the first time we have seen this. In the last little while, in the last number of years we have actually seen the government bring in changes that have allowed for the protection of information inside of Nalcor to ensure that we were not allowed to access a lot of that information. They brought in other changes to allow for us to be blocked from accessing information. They actually went to the courts to try to stop the media from accessing information in this Province, so this is not the first time. I think the Member for Conception Bay South and the Minister of Environment hit on it tonight when he stood up in the House and he talked about the fact that the reason, Mr. Speaker, that legislation may not have been forthcoming before was because there were skeletons in closets and they did not want to have information disclosed. Well, I think that is exactly what we are dealing with tonight – that is exactly what we are dealing with tonight.

Let me tell you the story, because he did not tell you the full story. The full story is this, Mr. Speaker. It was in 2002, after extensive consultation by the former Administration, the former Liberal Administration, across the Province that this particular act came to the House of Assembly. It came and it was voted on in 2002. Mr. Speaker, when they came into power in 2003, it was with a commitment in their Blue Book that they would proclaim the new freedom of information legislation, which included amendments that will clearly indentify information that should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the information to the public. They said, Mr. Speaker, they would proclaim this immediately after they were elected, and that they would even go as far as to include Cabinet documents being disclosed to the public.

That was their commitment, Mr. Speaker. What happened after they came into power? They did not proclaim the act. In fact, they went in the media at the time and they said they had not taken any action because municipalities in this Province were not ready. They said municipalities were not in a position where they were going to be able to comply, and they were concerned about it. So, Mr. Speaker, the government indicated that this was going to be a problem. Guess what the Federation of Municipalities came right out behind them and said? They said that they did not think that the hang-up was them at all. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they said for a year now we have been operating under the understanding – and it was one that we agreed with – that this thing was coming fairly soon. Since then, we have just been waiting.

This is what really prompted the government to enact the legislation, because they were embarrassed. They were made to look silly because they were out there saying that the only reason we did not fulfill our 2003 commitment in the election was because the Federation of Municipalities were not ready to comply with the legislation. What happened? The federation ran right out behind them, Mr. Speaker, and said: Oh no, we are not the hang-up here. We actually agree with it. We are ready to comply and we have been waiting for a year now for this legislation. So, all of a sudden they had egg on their face.

What happened then, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Justice at the time, who is the Minister of Finance today, rushed out at the time and he said: Oh well, we will be ready to enact the legislation early in the new year – and they did, in January 2005. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the federation would have gone along with them if we would have seen it even then. I doubt it.

We do have it now and we have had it for a few years. Mr. Speaker, now the government wants to get rid of it. The reason they want to get rid of it is because of some embarrassing incidents that they have had. For one, Mr. Speaker, they have had cases where they have had to release all of their briefing notes to the Opposition and to the media. They did not like that, Mr. Speaker. There were cases in this House where ministers did not read their briefing notes and were not aware of events that were happening. That was an embarrassing situation to the government.

So we have had a number of these things. This particular legislation will now protect them. It will now protect them so that they will not have to give those briefing notes out any more, Mr. Speaker. They have had situations where they have done some internal work, where the media or members of the public and others have gotten wind of it. They went out, Mr. Speaker, and they tried to access the information. As a result of it, the government fought that in the courts. They were not compliant at all. I know that after they passed this legislation, they were up in the Cabinet room sitting around. I could picture the discussion now, Mr. Speaker, when they were saying we must have made the rod for our backside this time. I can hear the conversation now. They are at the Cabinet table and they are scratching their heads because they are saying: How are we going to do this without having to release all of this information to the media and to the Opposition and to the public?

Mr. Speaker, it must have been quite the dilemma that they put themselves in for a number of years. When they passed the legislation, it did not matter because anything they were going to release at that stage would have been from a previous government but now they are almost ten years in themselves. They have their own history now. They have their own documents. They have their own papers. They have their own advice. They have their own little shrine of information that they are hiding from the public, Mr. Speaker, and they want to protect that. All of a sudden the legislation does not ride with them any more. The only way they can do it is bite the bullet, take the abuse from the public, take the lectures from the Opposition, and take the coverage from the media, Mr. Speaker, because at the end of the day that is the only way they are going to be able to do it. That is the only way they are going to be able to protect themselves, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to the Member for Mount Pearl South up tonight. He did not make a bit of sense, Mr. Speaker, not one click of common sense keep out of the member – not one. In fact, he had absolutely not one argument to justify why they would need to protect all of this information in the government. The only thing he could say is condemn the staff in the Opposition offices in the House of Assembly. Now how small is that coming from a member of the government, Mr. Speaker. How small is that for an elected politician to stand in the House of Assembly and the only thing he can say to try to defend the fact that he is going to nail up the doors of government and bring down the cone of silence and protect and keep everything secret is to condemn a few people who work in the Opposition offices. There are only a few of them, Mr. Speaker. We do not have the big budgets that government departments have. We do not have the money to fling around like the government departments have, Mr. Speaker. We have a very small, frivolous budget in which we try to employ some people.

I will tell the member this: There are people in our office that are very, very bright and very, very intelligent and work hard, I say to the member. They work hard. They are in this office 7:30 in the morning and many of them are still out there right now. That is how hard our staff works. We do not have the money to access information by the big bills that we get from your government, I will let you know that.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely disgusting that a Member in the House of Assembly cannot stand on his own two feet and defend the legislation of his government, but rather stands on his feet and condemns a few individuals who work in the Opposition Office and work tirelessly. He should be too ashamed to hold his head up, but instead he is over there giving the thumbs up, Mr. Speaker. Now, if that is not the most disgusting commentary I have ever had to stand and make in my life, I do not know what it is.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the reason we are dealing with this legislation. One of those issues goes back to 2005 when there was a request made by The Telegram to the Department of Labrador Affairs. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it came back that Labrador Affairs was withholding records from The Telegram, even though the so-called secret information was posted on the government's Web site. Can you imagine? The media made a request to the Department of Labrador Affairs for information in 2005, Mr. Speaker, and the department came back and said: No, it was secretive, they could not release it, and it was a clear violation.

Mr. Speaker, we found out it was on the Web site. When that happened, there was a ruling it was a violation of the spirit and the intent of the legislation, but for some reason they did not want to give out that information. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the secret briefing papers actually got released after that.

Let me tell you, I actually filed a request under access to information for briefing notes, Mr. Speaker, of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I filed it in 2009, I believe it was. At the time, Mr. Speaker, I was given the briefing notes and this is what the briefing notes look like. Everything was redacted. This one here, Mr. Speaker, even had the title of the briefing note taken out of it. Why would you take out the title of a briefing note? Then it had all the other black. Then you get to this briefing note. The only thing left on this one was who wrote it, who approved it, and the date that it was. That was it, not one other thing on it, Mr. Speaker.

The point I am trying to make is this, under the current legislation, even though they were mandated to give it to us, they could take it all out. Look at this one, nothing on this one only two lines. That is it, two lines, not a thing. All you can see is black. They did keep the title on it; that was interesting.

Mr. Speaker, we got the note – look at this one. All that is on this one is who prepared it, who approved it and the date. That is it, completely black, Mr. Speaker, completely black –look, sheets. Do you know how much I had to pay to get them photocopied? Do you know how much it is a page to get them photocopied? Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, you apply for information under FOI, and all of a sudden you get the information. When you get it, you get a bill with it. On the bill it tells you how much you have to pay for each photocopy. Then you get the document and it looks like this, Mr. Speaker, nothing on it, not a thing, not one thing. I do not know how difficult it could have been, there were only about four or five files in the whole department. If they had given them all to me, Mr. Speaker, it would not have been – look, I will tell you what it was. They gave them all to me, I suppose they did. This is it, look. I would say if it is twenty pages, take it all, everything.

Can you imagine what we are going to get under the new bill? Can you imagine what we are going to get under this new legislation? Nothing, we will not even get the black pages because then if they give us the black pages – look at this one, Mr. Speaker. This one was on the Mealy Mountain National Park. We asked for what the current status of the discussions were on the Mealy Mountain National Park in Southern Labrador. Look at what we received. That is it; that is all we received. The only thing that is written on this paper is our request, what we asked for. Not one other thing on that paper, Mr. Speaker, not one other thing on that page.

This one here, Mr. Speaker, we asked about Lower Churchill development in Goose Bay. Again, this is what we got, nothing, absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, every page is like that. There are pages and pages and pages of all of this, just black marks, black notes, that is it. That is all they disclosed. I wonder what the difference is between that and the amendments we are bringing in. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of openness and accountability we have experienced under the previous act that we have been dealing with, so can you imagine what we are going to deal with under the current act? Can you imagine that?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other things that we want to look at as well. Not only did we get information that was redacted, there are many cases where we did not get information because we could not afford it. I am going to give you some of those examples, but before I do that, Mr. Speaker, I want to move an amendment, a motion.

I move that the words following the word ‘that' be deleted and the following substituted: Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Privacy Act be now read a second time, but that the order be discharged and the bill be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Government Services.

This is moved by me and seconded by the Member for Bay of Islands. Mr. Speaker, I have copies here that I will table for the House to review.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will take a brief recess to the review the amendment being proposed by the Opposition House Leader. We will take a short recess to review. We will provide some copies to the Table.

This House will recess for a few moments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to review the amendment and rules that it is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue my comments now with regard to Bill 29 and the legislation that the government is bringing forward to ensure that we will probably never access anything else from a government department, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Cabinet decisions, for sure.

Let's just say, Mr. Speaker, that this particular bill and the amendments in it have been capturing a lot of attention in the media, a tremendous amount of attention in the media. In fact, it is in the national media about the draconian legislation now that is being introduced in Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you know what is sad, Mr. Speaker? We were one of the provinces that were actually leading the way when it came to access to information. We were one of the provinces out there in the country that was actually leading the way, ensuring that the public had good access to the information that they required. Now, Mr. Speaker, the national media is out there Tweeting all evening that you need to watch what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador as they introduce draconian legislation that sets back freedom of information in this country. Can you imagine that – can you just imagine?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that are being said in the media – do you know something? I am going to take the opportunity actually to read a little bit of it for you. You might find it interesting. Tonight on CBC, there was a full report with regard to this, a nice big picture of the minister there talking about the chills, Mr. Speaker, in the legislation. In addition to that, there were a lot of comments being made by people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: I am being disrupted now, Mr. Speaker. They are truthful comments and they make me laugh sometimes.

Anyway, this person wrote: The right to know should now be renamed: the right to no. Because they feel that this bill will be no information, it will be no explanation and they feel, Mr. Speaker – this is Joe Blow in the public – that the information will be deemed frivolous and vexatious and, I guess, openness, transparency and accountability are vexing standards to uphold. Mr. Speaker, they went on to say a number of other things and one of them was with regard to banning the Auditor General from a wide array of government spending and keeps the Privacy Commissioner from doing his work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that is a big issue – it is a very, very big issue. The previous Auditor General who actually ran for the Conservatives after and lost – oh, my God, he lost. It was so sad, Mr. Speaker, how bad he lost. He was actually hammered in the election. After he lost the election, his prize from the Tory government was a nice appointment of $150,000 a year job from the government. That was his prize for running for them and falling flat on his face. When he was able to pick his face up off the ground down in Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi and get back up to Mount Pearl somewhere, wherever he lives, then he gets the call for his prize. He got the big job – $150,000. Mr. Speaker, when he was the Auditor General, he was always complaining because he never had enough access. He never had enough access to information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I know it is late in the evening and people may be tired. I would ask members if they would respect the fact that the Opposition House Leader has the floor, and we give her the attention she deserves.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My good friend, the hon. the Member for Gander, I thank him there for his support in my comments. I ask the rest of the members, Mr. Speaker, to give me some time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Auditor General – when the previous AG was in the office, he complained constantly that there was not enough access to information. Now, Mr. Speaker, he is on the payroll of the government, nobody is hearing from him, of course, because he is getting a big cheque, and all of a sudden the same government in which he fought and did not bring in the money, did not bring in the information that he wanted, is actually closing the door and disallowing that kind of access. The current AG, Mr. Speaker, or the one who has been there up until a few weeks ago, outlined in reports that there was not enough information forthcoming from the government and now we are going to see a lot less. How can we actually have a process, Mr. Speaker, where we are going to be able to have full disclosure of what is happening inside of government, if people like the Auditor General are not going to have access to this information? Mr. Speaker, this was a government who continued to tout themselves as open and accountable, but they are not open and accountable. In fact, they are the complete opposite. They are as closed as any government you will ever find. In fact, Mr. Speaker, probably the most closed government, after this, anywhere in the country.

Mr. Speaker, any time a government promises to be open and accountable yet tries to shroud itself in secrecy, what happens? It causes the public to be very, very suspicious. The public says: What are they hiding? What are they trying to hide? In fact, if you look at the feedback comments tonight on CBC, that is exactly what they are saying. For example, this one says: If there is nothing to hid, then why come out with this new legislation? I see red flags everywhere. I guess they really do not want us taxpayers to know exactly how much of our money is being handed over to Nalcor. I am sure Muskrat Falls, and what the government does not want us to know about, is the main reason for the legislative change. That is one of the things that are right here, Mr. Speaker, on the feedback. People think you are trying to hide something because you are trying to shut out any request from the Opposition, any request from the media, and any request from the public. They think you are trying to hide information.

That was not the only one either, Mr. Speaker. There were others as well. Mr. Speaker, here is another one. This person said: I cannot believe they would try to go backwards on a decision they made before. The irony of it all: The more they try to hide stuff, the more people will suspect they are up to something.

This is what is happening. People's suspicions are raised. This person says: It would make no wonder – what are they hiding? Are they doing things in an underhanded manner? Are they afraid they will be caught doing something that is not beneficial? If they have done nothing wrong, all information should be available to the public. Then again, if you walk like a duck and sound like a duck – you know the rest.

That is what this person is writing. That is the public perspective on what is happening out there right now.

Mr. Speaker, they also drew a very strong connection between what the government is doing here and what the Conservative government, nationally, is doing. There were a number of comments around that. One of those, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that in making reference to publications, if you want to take a short clip from it, fine, make some commentary and paraphrase but the continuous reading of pieces of articles is inappropriate. I ask the member to use it as a reference potentially, but highlight a headline, then paraphrase it and make comments to the House.

MS JONES: All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the people who made a comment in this with regard to drawing the connection between the Conservative government in Newfoundland and Ottawa said the Premier's name – I cannot use it in the House – and Harper are birds of a feather, Mr. Speaker. That was the conclusion they drew. They were birds of a feather. If I were reading it I would read it word for word, but where I am summarizing I am not able to do that.

They also, Mr. Speaker, made another comment that the government here is taking a chapter – not a page, but a full chapter right from the Harper Conservative book. That is the analogy that people are putting out there. That is the conclusion that they are drawing from what you are doing here, from the fact that you are hiding information, you are being secretive, you are acting in the same way that the Harper government is acting, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the public is seeing right now.

Mr. Speaker, I think most of the comments that I saw here were with regard to the statement that the minister made today because when the Minister of Justice had his press conference today he said the cornerstone of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is openness, transparency and accountability, and our government is committed to this important piece of legislation. The feedback, Mr. Speaker, one person said they do not know how the minister could have actually said that with a straight face. They said it was absolutely appalling and it sounded like the only thing the government was actually committed to was keeping the constituency totally in the dark – totally in the dark. They said it smacked of dictatorial behaviour, and like I said today, Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Cabinet room will be nothing only a black hole from here on in, in which you will never be able to get another piece of information out of that place.

This next comment was absolutely written by a true Newfoundlander. I can say that for sure, Mr. Speaker. It was in response to what the minister had to say on openness and accountability. This is what they said: some nerve, boy. That sounded like a real Newfoundlander. They were referring to the minister's comments with regard to the cornerstone to the access of information and privacy. They could not understand how he could have said it with a straight face and what was worse, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has convinced itself that this is so, with this kind of secrecy. That is what it is, complete secrecy, Mr. Speaker – complete secrecy. There were others there, others which the people were just encouraging all people in the Province of every political stripe to certainly speak out against this and to make their views known that it was not good legislation. That is was draconian and that it was going to have an impact in the future on what we can access under information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the legislation we had, although it was more open and it was more transparent than what we would have seen ten or fifteen years ago in this Province, even under that legislation it was not perfect. It was still very difficult to get information, so difficult that people still had to go to the courts and people still had to file appeals with the commissioner. People still had to pay exorbitant amounts of money to access it, and I am going to give you some examples.

For example, this one here, Mr. Speaker, in which we filed to access information from Nalcor and the Department of Natural Resources with regard to the NRC transport report – that was the study on natural gas. Mr. Speaker, we asked for that because the minister referenced it in the House of Assembly. We asked for it in Question Periods several times. We had not received the information. We did not get the report. Therefore, on May 18 we filed a request with Nalcor to get a copy of this study. Well, then we get a letter back – and I want to point this out because the minister of government services NL, or whatever it is called, stood up today and talked about all the work and all the headaches and the bureaucrats tied up and everybody is just overworked and the capacity of information and how much it is costing us to give out all this information to the people in the public. Well, I do not know if everybody else is getting it free, Mr. Speaker, but as an Opposition we do not get it free. In order to obtain this report they were going to charge us $707.50 to get –

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MS JONES: Over $700 to get the NRC report to see what the natural gas study had to say in relation to Muskrat Falls; over $700, Mr. Speaker, to find out if that option would have been more feasible than Muskrat Falls. All we wanted to do was read the report. All we wanted to do was be informed, that is all, Mr. Speaker.

Guess what? Do you remember those photocopies I talked to you about earlier? They are twenty-five cents a copy. It does not matter if there is anything on them when you get them; they are twenty-five cents a copy. This report was 730 pages, so it was $182.50 to get the photocopying done. Mr. Speaker, there was thirty-five hours of work to put it together, so all together it was over $700 to get the report. The little budgets we have in the Opposition office, Mr. Speaker, there is no way we could ever afford to get that.

That is the one thing I found interesting in the Cummings report. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I found interesting in the Cummings report is he recommended that the Opposition budget should be increased, in the Cummings report. They recommended it should be increased so we can access information. Now I know why, because we are going to have to get lawyers. We are going to have to be in the courts if we want the information. The $700 that we have to pay to get one study, Mr. Speaker, will be nothing in comparison to the court charges that we are going to have to pay. I say we are going to need the money, no doubt.

Mr. Speaker, there are some requests that are a little more reasonable, but nevertheless we have to pay for them. This one here we asked for any contracts with regard to videos or commercials that might have been done for Muskrat Falls between Nalcor and m5 advertising. That one was not too bad, Mr. Speaker, it only cost us $53 to get that one. We had to get 168 photocopies and it was three-and-a-half hours of work, therefore we ended up paying – it was estimated at $95 and I think at the end of the day we ended up, yes, paying $95 is what we paid. That was the cost of that, almost $100 to find that out, Mr. Speaker.

So don't talk about what it is costing the government, what about what it is costing others who are looking for the information? It is not like we are getting it for free, we are paying for it. We write cheque after cheque after cheque for information, Mr. Speaker, and it is good information. In fact, if the government was really open and transparent we would not have to file for half of this, it would be given to us. It all would be given to us, Mr. Speaker.

For example, look at this one, Mr. Speaker. What is wrong with the Opposition making a request for access under the freedom of information on the Lower Churchill project to find out if there was project splitting under that project? There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we should not have to file for it. The government should be giving it to us. That is the same with a lot of them.

We asked about wind farms, we asked about the Janeway, we asked about emergency response plans in Placentia Bay. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the government does not answer the questions in the House of Assembly; therefore, the only way to get the information is through FOI, and now they are going to make sure you do not get that.

Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous what is happening in this Province. It is regressive. The people have a right to know. They have a right to know how their government is making decisions, how they are spending their money and how they are running the operations. Mr. Speaker, that is what this government campaigned on, that was what they knocked on doors about, that was what they said they were going to do. They went and did it and now all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, they are afraid that if the doors blow open there is going to be a lot of wind blowing through the place, so they want to keep the doors shut.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They want to keep the doors shut, Mr. Speaker. They do not want the draft. They do not want anyone to get a whiff, Mr. Speaker, of what is behind those doors and that is the reason for this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time has expired.

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

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

Here we go again. I would like to quote the Member for Mount Pearl South who spoke earlier this evening and so eloquently said of his government: Mr. Speaker, we are transparent. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with him and echo his statement. Yes, the government is transparent. It is so transparent we can see right through it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: We can see right through them, Mr. Speaker. That is transparency. When we see right –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members that the Speaker has recognized the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we see through this transparent government, Mr. Speaker, what do we see? We see a government that is tired of the democratic process. They have been around so long now that they are arrogant. This is a government that wants to control information; that has done everything in their power to control information on all kinds of levels. They try to control their own information and they try to control the information of other people as well. We have seen this time and time again.

As a matter of fact, this government prohibited its own Public Utilities Board from looking for more information so that a more informed decision about the least-cost option for power in our Province could be made in order to make an informed decision of Muskrat Falls. Not only was it controlling its own information, it was controlling the ability of its agencies to be able to get information.

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the PUB has to do with this ATIPP Act that is now being discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

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

Over $600 million has been spent so far on Muskrat Falls and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not know where it has been spent, how it has been spent, why it has been spent and cannot get the information on that. When we asked for information about the analysis of alterative energies for the Province, government made a huge production of bringing seven boxes in a parade into this House of Assembly, and none of this was new information. There was nothing new to any of us, this was information we already had. They made it seem as if they were providing us with something new.

Then government holds over our head the withholding of information about legislation, about the possibility of being briefed on legislation, legislation that governs the way we live together as a society. They hold that over our head by saying whether or not we can talk about this information, whether we can talk about this legislation.

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order.

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

MR. KENNEDY: There is an agreement, I thought, between the parties. Now if there is no agreement, I say to the Leader of the Third Party, tell me and that will be the end of it, but if you are going to have the members up there speaking like this, Mr. Speaker, the agreement is off. Do your own (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, that again is an example of what is held over our heads about whether or not we can have information that enables us to do the work that we have been elected to do as legislators, as people who have been elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this government talked about ten people Province-wide showing up for its consultations on the amendments to ATIPPA. They said ten people showed up, saying that probably means – they interpret the fact that only ten people have showed up, that that shows a lack of interest or a confidence in the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned with the fact that only ten people showed up Province-wide for the consultations on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am finding it very hard to be able to even hear myself speak at this point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, you're never here.

MS ROGERS: The current ATIPPA is a strong act. We have a –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is there someone going to stand to speak?

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find what is happening in the House right now goes against our parliamentary procedures in the House, because I am hearing things being shouted across at the Member for St. John's Centre with regard to her attendance in the House of Assembly. I think this is unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and I am very disturbed by these comments being made with regard to the Member for St. John's Centre and her attendance in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: During the debate, the Speaker's residing officers throughout this day have risen any number of times to call for order. Debate needs to be informed, frequently it is very spirited, but it is always – the Speaker reminds everybody again, we need to provide respect to the member who has been acknowledged in their place. The comments that are being made, being exchanged across the floor, inasmuch as it may have historically happened and it is a practice, it is heckling back and forth and the commentary across the floor continues to be a part of the day-to-day debate. Unfortunately, it is disruptive to the debate itself and it serves to undermine the member who has been recognized to speak. I would ask all members to be respectful of their colleagues in the House when the Speaker has recognized them to speak and they have the floor. I would ask members to give them their attention and the courtesy of letting them speak without interruption.

The Speaker has recognized the Member for St. John's Centre, who has the floor and has twelve minutes remaining in her allocated time.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the core purpose of ATIPPA is making public bodies more accountable to the public by giving public a right of access to records –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's Centre, continue.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the core purpose of ATIPPA is making public bodies more accountable to the public by giving public a right of access to records and by providing for an independent review of decisions made by the public bodies under the act. The function of the commissioner is not simply administrative but is one of the core purposes of the act.

Jurisdiction of commissioners is not jurisdiction over records; it is rather a jurisdiction to conduct reviews of decisions, acts or failures to act, of heads of public bodies in respect of access complaints and to investigate complaints. All Canada has provisions to allow commissioners to review complaints, even Alberta; yet, these amendments remove the jurisdiction and the authority from our commissioner to be able to provide his function.

The commissioner has the authority that provides the citizens of the Province with the confidence that their rights are being respected and that the decisions of public bodies are held to a higher standard of openness and accountability. We have a commissioner who can determine whether something is solicitor-client privilege, what is Cabinet secrecy, whether harm is involved. He can handle this with his expertise and independence.

By usurping the authority, the jurisdiction and the mandate of the commissioner, this act, in fact, the amendments create many commissioners. They create many commissioners out of the heads of public bodies and even out of ministers. They do not have the expertise to be able to make these judgments. What happens is that we are then relegated to the courts, which involves timely procedures, courts that are already booked to the hilt. This provides extra stresses on the court.

Has government estimated the cost this will ensue to the Province by sending all of these appeals to the court as opposed to having the commissioner do his rightful job, of which he has expertise and which he has the mandate to do under the current ATIPPA? Also, what does this mean for the citizens and groups and organizations that must go to the courts? Will citizens, who are on limited incomes, have access to legal aid to enable them to be able to in fact exercise their democratic rights by taking their appeals to the court? I doubt that will be the case, Mr. Speaker. If they do not have access to assistance through legal aid, it means then that those on limited incomes do not have access to full justice, do not have access to full democratic representation.

In terms of frivolous and vexation, the commissioner can determine that as well under the current act. There are already mechanisms available to deal with those situations. There are mechanisms to deal with the abuses. The act does not have to be redefined and amended against abuses. Those mechanisms, those protections already exist in the act as it stands. We cannot build legislation against abuse. We have to build legislation for the core mandate, for the spirit –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Legislation must be built in terms of the core mandate and the purpose for which it was intended. Mechanisms can be added to ensure that the purpose, the spirit of the act is protected. This bill does not protect that, it does not enhance the act any further.

This government has a siege mentality and has been responsible for increasing our democratic deficit. This bill furthers that deficit. If we had all-party legislative committees to thoroughly review and consult the public and agencies on this five-year review, we would not be in the situation that we find ourselves in this evening. This is no way to run a Legislature. This is shameful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: To limit the democratic process reflects the attitude that is reflected in the regressive amendments proposed in this bill. This is not progress; this is divisive and corrodes the public trust and confidence in the legislative body. We are a Province of 512,000 people, of people who have a history of compassion, of taking care of one another, who share in each other's prosperity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is going to ask you one more time for your co-operation this evening. The Speaker has recognized the Member for St. John's Centre and it is difficult to hear her with the interruptions. If this behaviour persists, the Speaker will have no choice but to name members and ask them to excuse themselves from the Chamber.

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: This is not a progressive bill; this is divisive and corrodes the public trust and confidence in the legislative body. We are a Province of 512,000 people, a people who have a history of compassion, of taking care of one another, who share in each other's prosperity. Exactly what is this government protecting itself from? Who are the bogeymen out there who make them turn this ATIPPA inside out and destroy the very fabric and mandate of this act?

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day indeed, and I cannot but ask yet again why, why this, and why now? This government has promised the most and is taking away the most.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to rise again to speak to this amendment, Mr. Speaker. This amendment has gotten a lot more attention in the last five hours than when it was first proposed for consultation and only received ten people in attendance. I think it shows that our job as Opposition is to hold the government accountable and to bring forward the cons of a bill that may look good to the government but certain members of the Opposition bring accountability and ensure the people of this Province that there is a need, especially in this case, Mr. Speaker, for accessibility and for transparency. For this bill to gain national attention in a very short time, it shows how the people were not involved and now certainly they are.

Mr. Speaker, the public do have a right to know what elected officials, especially ministers, are doing. As elected ministers, it does not give the right to withhold information from the people of this Province. When elected officials sit in the House, when ministers sit in the House, Mr. Speaker, they are legislators first as opposed to being executive members, and I think that is very essential. In terms of accountability, when it comes to the public expense, they do have a mandate to be accessible to the people of this Province and to bring accountability and transparency, which I will go back to every so often.

When you see introductions of Bill 29, and they are aspects in the bill with privacy, Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with a lot of points, but when you use legislation in terms of denial, denial of accessibility and almost waiving transparency, it tends to destroy the public confidence. It tends to destroy the people's confidence in public institutions. No doubt, this hon. House is a public institution, one of the most public in our Province. I certainly would not want to see the people of this Province lose that respect, Mr. Speaker. It is an hon. entity and certainly one that will continue to be so.

Mr. Speaker, just going through parts of the bill, I would like to talk about section 30, with the protection of situations where third party interests could be impacted. I do not have a problem with this; it is there for the protection of individuals. We would not want to share information that could impact an individual.

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to section 26 where you are talking about unions, labour relations boards. This legislation could compromise future negotiations with the unions, Mr. Speaker, and with the labour relations boards in terms of information being withheld and the people not being able to access information that could impact their bargaining performance. I think that is very important, especially where we are entering into some negotiation now in the public sector.

I listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs making reference to the Auditor General and how it was the government opposite that brought the Auditor General back. In the same breath, the Auditor General, while he was trying to do his job in terms of accounting for public funds in our Province, when he got as far as Cabinet he was denied access to information. We are still wondering where approximately $5 million or more of the public money has gone.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listened to the Minister of Environment and Conservation talking about the occasional requests that goes to his department, and certainly the particular case making reference to Route 60 or Route 70, the minister was unsure at the time, and that it was a frivolous request. Mr. Speaker, I think there are safeguards in the existing legislation that protects the government in situations where there are requests for information that it could be deemed as fishing, and it covers off a broad sense of requests. We would like to see safeguards put in place to not allow this kind of request to go on.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, in an earlier presentation to this bill, that it should not be too hard to put safeguards in place. Not to deny access, Mr. Speaker, but certainly to give the government notice that (inaudible) requests are coming in, and it is all encompassing. It is not a valid or an honest request, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about section 18 again in this bill, and to go through some of the examples of how the head of a public organization or a public body can hold back information. I will just read off a few, Mr. Speaker.

The head of a public body can deny information on advice –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The head of a public body – making reference to the ministers, Mr. Speaker – can withhold information on drafts, withhold information on memorandums, and withhold information on discussions, on policy analysis, on agendas, submissions, even portions of public record. This new legislation, Mr. Speaker, pretty much give the heads of public bodies authority – based on Bill 29 and the amendments – to deny access to every bit of information that will pass through a minister's office.

I agree with the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, Mr. Speaker, when we made reference to the Minister of Justice being very careful as he went through these amendments. I agree with him because he certainly did not miss any opportunity to deny information to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, every piece of information that comes across the minister's desk, I guess short of a piece of scrap paper, the minister or the head of a public body now has the authority to deny access to the people of this Province in terms of accessibility.

Mr. Speaker, we heard many comments today in the media, on Twitter, about the challenge to democracy. When democracy is challenged through legislation it becomes the focus of many forms of government. It challenges municipal democracy, regional, provincial, and it has now received national attention. When the people of this Province feel threatened, they do so for a reason, Mr. Speaker. To introduce these amendments gives people in this Province the right to feel threatened. I think one of the reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, is how does this impact future legislation? How does this impact the future plans of this government?

Mr. Speaker, should those pass with a shroud of secrecy falling upon access to information, it certainly would be a good process for the government in terms of holding back information. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it would be a bad process for the people of this Province not having the right to access information, not having to look at transparency in this government, and it leads towards the loss of confidence in public entities.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives this government the go ahead as they proceed on their course of governance without being accountable, without being transparent. We have already seen many examples of information that has more blackouts on the pages, to the point where the information itself is unrecognizable as to the content, as to where it came from, and how it is relative to the people of this Province as they try to get information to make themselves more educated. All of this is without amendments to Bill 29. What we can expect now, Mr. Speaker, is a larger effort by this government to deny access to information. I think that is the design of these new amendments.

I heard comments made by my hon. colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, talking about questions that have come to the government and how these questions were sometimes answered with one word, yes and no. There was very little information, Mr. Speaker, presented to those asking the questions, whether it be in government, as Opposition, or whether it be the unions or any other public entity that would like to get information from this government.

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot have access to this information and as a result of non answers or inadequate answers, you are sometimes forced to go through the Freedom of Information act to get the information that can be used in making this government transparent. Again, it calls into question accountability and transparency, and I think these are the two key words that the people of this Province are looking for in any government. They are having trouble accessing both with these new amendments.

I have heard reference from several government members across the way, Mr. Speaker, along the lines of do it yourself. It costs too much money for our public service to do the work. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I think the access to information act is a guardian for the people of this Province and it gives them an opportunity to learn what is going on within the government. I think to remove this access is wrong and it goes against the very definition of accessibility and transparency.

Thank you.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is my second time tonight talking about this piece of legislation. I do not know if anybody has found any real great pleasure in having to talk to this piece of legislation, unless you are with government and you are be happy with it, but I wanted to bring forth a couple of new observations when it comes to this piece of legislation that I think are pretty important to the people of the Province, as well as important to the people who serve in Opposition here. Part of that discussion has to circulate about our role as Opposition members again, and exactly the reason why we have to oppose government on this piece of legislation. Not only are we paid to do the job, we were hired to do the job on the part of the people of the Province.

Just of a couple of initial observations before I get into the heavy end of the legislation, and I am kind of curious and maybe government will probably answer this when it gets to Committee. Why should an Opposition Party have to pay government for any information it wishes to access? The initial thought here is that if we are here to do the job of opposing government and helping government to govern here in the Province, if we pay for an ATIPP request, obviously there are two things happening here. The taxpayers' money goes toward paying, number one, for a government worker somewhere to look up the information. Number two, there is the money expended on the part of that person to go ahead and look up the facts. It comes out of, in some cases, some pretty important government caucus funds or Opposition caucus funds in order to perform that task. It is just a thought. Maybe it is more of a question than anything. It is just an observance that came along here that if we are to help government govern and do our roles right, then the question has to be asked as regards that.

Getting into the legislation, I know the hon. Member for Gander and the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about the protection of privacy. We respect that. We know there has to be a degree of privacy, absolutely, but does privacy include times where the taxpayers' money is misspent? Should that privacy include times when taxpayers' money was used to perform a certain chore, for government to institute a program, how government institutes that program, or proposals it may even have gotten along the way in order to progress on any kind of program? Should the investment of money into ATIPP ask questions about where taxpayers' money is even invested when it comes to a project of some kind the government wants to undertake or some kind of a social program it wants to venture into? These are all good questions. The simple fact is if you are talking about the taxpayers' money that goes toward ATIPP and a request for information, then those same taxpayers have a right to know how those programs and those monies have been arrived at to be disposed of in that particular way. We cannot hide behind the veil of transparency in cases like these. The legislation here is problematic in that.

Just looking at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for example, as regards to a good spending of taxpayers dollars here, and I want to come to one particular – well a couple of different facts that have not come to light here yet and I think I will bring them up now. Government money is not used to ensure ATIPPA – there is not enough money invested to ensure ATIPPA co-ordination and co-ordinators. Eleven per cent of public bodies cannot afford or do not have funds despite the fact that they have to have ATIPPA co-ordinators. It is legislated on the part, particularly when it comes to municipalities that they are supposed to be able to have people who are instructed in the proper disposal of ATIPPA information.

We are running into a problem right now that there is a high turnover rate on the part of these people who are serving in various roles when it comes to disposal of information. We are talking about roughly half of the current ATIPP co-ordinators who have only received formal training in this, so we are not meeting the need. Because we are not meeting the need, that is probably one of the reasons why government is having a problem with the build up, Mr. Speaker, of so many requests for information that seem to be piling up on some of these departments. If we only have half the people who are answering ATIPP requests, then it is obvious that government itself has been creating the problem by not properly supplying funding to various public bodies, like municipalities for example, in order to help solve the problem initially. Government should be turning its own eyes towards some of its own programming here in cases like this.

We are having a large turnover of staff in statutory offices like that. Why is that? Is it the simple fact that they do not want to be able to meet the challenges, or they find it too aggravating, or is it too stressful? We do not know. That is something that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner should be able to be sent out to look up. Why are we having a problem keeping statutory people in here in some of these statutory offices, the people who have the formal training in these particular matters who can be looking after ATIPP requests? It may be as simple as somebody picking up the phone at the same time when somebody is asking for a request of the information. Instead of hearing an answer like they do not know to a particular question and somebody having to put in a request for paperwork, maybe it is as simple as that, having that person who is training enough to be able to say yes to a particular piece of information or even answer a question at the other end of the phone line.

We have to ask the question: What is government's commitment to ensure the training and the funding of proper co-ordinators here, of the co-ordinators to fill that load of requests? My understanding is that there were only 581 last year. We heard from one of the ministers earlier – I believe it was the Minister of Environment and Conservation – talk about forty or fifty requests that he had down – he was not sure if it was Route 60 or Route 70. That is 10 per cent of the requests that he had a problem with, that government had to deal with in that one particular department. The Minister of Service NL talked about sixteen calls that he had for ATIPP information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, according to that, I do not think that there is a great, insurmountable problem with frivolous calls or requests for information as what it is made out to be.

I will leave that at that for now. I guess when we get to Committee of the Whole I will bring up more questions in regard to that, but I want to get into talking about some of the pieces that are talked about in the bill. I guess the first section here that is probably a real stand out for me was section 20. Section 20 is talking about information held by public bodies. It says that subsection 20(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted. Policy advice or recommendations – the head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the following: formal research reports, audit reports that they feel are incomplete; consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of a public body, a minister or the staff of a minister; or, draft legislation or regulations. It also gets into advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options developed for a public body or minister.

I think a lot of people might have a problem as regards to that because –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has been reluctant to start naming people, but I really have expressed my concern about the level of discussion taking place, other than the member who has been recognized by the Chair. I ask members one more time for your co-operation. If it persists, I will have no choice but to start naming members.

The Chair has recognized the Member for St. John's East. I ask one more time for your co-operation; and, please, if there is a discussion you need to have, take it outside the Assembly.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 20 is just one of the many sections here that are problematic for me, that I have several questions on. Another one is section 24. Section 24 deals with the conversation of the head of a public body. In this particular section, I will just read out a couple of the lines here.

"The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information which could reasonably be expected to disclose (a) trade secrets of a public body or the government of the province; (b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to a public body or to the government of the province and that has, or is reasonably likely to have, monetary value…" – I think that is wide-ranging.

"(c) plans that relate to the management of personnel of or the administration of a public body and that have not yet been implemented or made public; (d) information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in the premature disclosure of a proposal or project or in significant loss or gain to a third party; (e) scientific or technical information…" – again it carries on down here.

"(f) positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions developed for the purpose of contractual or other negotiations by or on behalf of the government of the province or a public body, or considerations which relate to those negotiations; (g) information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the financial or economic interest of the government of the province or a public body".

This is wide-ranging. This just about tells everybody here that you cannot have any information on anything that government is going to be coming out with in the next little while if these changes are made. The really important thing about it is that if government wants to put its stamp on it and say you cannot have this information, none of this has to be proven. If I do not have to supply proof, if I were the government as regards to some of these pieces that I was looking for, I do not have to and it is too bad about it. You can stomp and cry and call out all you want about the wrongs that the government is going to do but the simple fact is, is that none of these have to be proven.

When was the last time you ever went to court and you did not have prove that somebody was guilty? I think this has a wide-ranging question here, for example, as regards to some information and some of the potential things that are going to be happening in the very near future that this government is going to be making progress on. Could it be Muskrat Falls? Could it be the reform of another health board, for example, when it comes to the request for information as regards to what government's strategy is when it comes to straightening out Western Health? It does not have to be Eastern Health this time.

We should be asking ourselves the questions as regards to where government is going to be going with this policy. We, as Opposition people representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, hired to do the job in the last provincial election, have that right to ask those questions on behalf of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. That right under this piece of legislation, as far as I am concerned, is being taken away, or at least it is being infringed upon, Mr. Speaker.

It is very discouraging when you see a piece of information like that coming forward. Really, this piece of legislation is about the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about their protection, yes, in some regards, but at the same time it takes away some of their rights. When somebody goes ahead and they apply to have a piece of ATIPP legislation, it is also meant to look at the rights of the person who may be trampled upon. We do not know if their rights are ever going to be trampled upon but the simple case is that they may be, so they have a right to question it.

The other part that is a bit disturbing, the simple fact of disclosure harmful to the business interests of a third party. It sounds like you are protecting a corporation here. The national standard here is that a three-part harms test, trade secrets, commercial and financial information, and financial loss or gain, is going to be one of those tests. All three of the tests are going to be confined to that. The selection is broader and is moving away from the intent of the original, which was to protect trade secrets or commercial or financial information on the part of that third party.

Who are we protecting here? Are we protecting the spending of the consumers' money here? Not in this particular case. We are protecting a corporation by the sound of it. Why? I figured a corporation would be big and ugly enough that it would be able to look after itself, even if it was going to go out and sue a person. It has the perfect right to do it I would imagine, if it feels threatened. Why is government stepping in here to protect a corporation? It begs the question.

The old wording is standard across provinces, and in this new wording no harm is to be proven to a third party. Again, no proof needed, no proof given. We are fooling ourselves. Plus, a public body cannot release this information. It is mandatory not to release it, even if it is innocuous and not harmful to the company. It is extra protection for corporate interests. Well, welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador incorporated, because that is what it sounds like to be me.

We have doors closing rather than opening. I thought this was an open Province. I thought this belonged to everybody. It sounds like it is corporate minded. Do we believe in business here in Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely, but do we believe that we should be protecting the interests of the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayer here as well, or the freedom for the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayer to access information about where its money is going? Absolutely, and that is the big part that I think is missing here, Mr. Speaker.

In summing up, there is going to be lots of time to be talking about this one. I do not take any pleasure in having to speak to it, but in the interest of the little guy out there who is paying his taxes and wants to see some sort of regress not happen to him in this particular case and see his doors close, or her doors close, or the person at work whose doors may be closed because they cannot get hold of information on themselves as supplied even through some organization like workers' compensation, I think we have to stand up. That is the reason why we have to stand up to this legislation, Mr. Speaker. We have to hear from government why it is wrong for us to be standing up against this piece of legislation. We hear it is good. I am sure it is in some regards, absolutely, but in this particular case I think it does more kicking than it does soothing.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the debate on this particular bill and this amendment, I think it is useful to look at, first of all, section 3 of the act. Section 3 sets forth the actual purpose of the act. The purposes of this act are to make public bodies more accountable to the public and to protect personal privacy by: (a) giving the public a right of access to records. We have to wonder whose records they are and whose information it is, and whose government it is. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is the people's government, it is the people's information, and the act is designed to permit access to that information and to protect personal privacy.

Second, the act gives individuals a right of access to and a right to request correction of personal information about themselves. It specifies limited exceptions to the right of access, prevents the unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of personal information by public bodies and provides for an independent review of decisions made by public bodies under this act. Mr. Speaker, if we are initially mindful of what the act is all about, then it probably assists in focusing our attention on where we are today and exactly what these amendments are all about.

In 2010, the Province's efforts in how well we were doing are demonstrated by the National Freedom of Information Audit which was released May 12, 2010. It said Newfoundland and Labrador placed fifth among provinces and territories receiving a grade of B^-. Mr. Speaker, fifth is not really that good. I suppose it is not really that bad but it is also not really that good. We would have to look to see whether the amendments in this amendment, does this improve the way information is provided to the public or does it make it worse?

Mr. Cummings reviewed his findings and the hearings that he had. He indicated he was disappointed that there were only ten people who came out to provide public consultation. In that respect, I am reminded of a story of a family who had a child. The child, Mr. Speaker, did not speak, did not say a word and they were very concerned. When he reached five years of age and his mother was serving him breakfast one day he said it is too hot. The family was really overjoyed because he could speak. They inquired as to – he finally learned how to speak, and he said he was always able to speak it is just up until now everything was okay.

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is up to the time of the ten people coming up for the hearings, everything was okay with the access to information and protection of public, private information. Maybe things were okay and there was no concern about the act. If the commissioner was concerned because not enough people came out to complain about it, then maybe it was working fine. The act had been around for a number of years. Maybe it required some review and some upgrade, certainly not as sweeping as the government seems to be proposing right now.

The reference he indicated, he said over the course of his consultation with public bodies he observed widespread frustration and anxiety regarding the ATIPPA, access to information requirements, and to a lesser extent part 4, privacy provisions. He also stated that public bodies also deserve that once an initial review is complete, it is frequently necessary to obtain the approval of superiors. Then where superiors determine that the information in question may be sensitive, the approval process would sometimes turn into a second round of severance. It seems, Mr. Speaker, there were some difficulties in the implementation of the statute that did not necessarily require amendments. It may have required more training and information.

He also indicated that if there was a need to provide briefing documents for ministers, then providing access to information to these briefing documents would have a chilling effect. He went on to say many ministers preferred not to have briefing documents because they would prefer that the information not be available under access to information. Of course, the shortcoming to not having briefing documents is that ministers make poor decisions. Mr. Speaker, I can conclude that he was absolutely correct because we have seen many poor ministerial –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: When we see poor ministerial decisions made, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because the minister has not been properly briefed and maybe because he was concerned somebody might find out the briefing documents, or maybe because he did not read the briefing documents. Clearly, the people are entitled to the best government that is available from the minister regardless of – respecting whatever ability he has, and presumably the first minister, the Premier, would only select the most competent people.

Mr. Speaker, this act seems to have been going along relatively nicely for many years. The act was enacted in 2002 and proclaimed in 2005, with a requirement that it be reviewed after five years. In fact, the commissioner was engaged six years after and his report has been available for more than a year.

Mr. Speaker, one area the commissioner pointed out where he had an issue that came up, is there had been a case before our Supreme Court and there was a decision, and this had to do with solicitor-client privilege. Solicitor-client privilege is clearly an important aspect of our law. That case was then taken on appeal and the commissioner, at page 68 of his report, said I do not – even though the matter was on appeal, "I do not feel it is necessary for me to wait for a decision in the matter currently before our Court of Appeal in order to make this recommendation."

Mr. Speaker, in fact, he probably should have waited because the Court of Appeal overruled that decision. The decision was overruled and there was significant commentary by the Court of Appeal. If we were dealing with a government, Mr. Speaker, that had the courage of its convictions, then they would have taken that matter on further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Clearly, there is variance in the points of view among the courts and among the various provinces. It would have been very useful and helpful for the Supreme Court of Canada to have had an opportunity to review our Court of Appeal's decision in the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Attorney General, having lost the case at the Court of Appeal, basically chickened out, would not take it on appeal, would not go to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that this decision was rendered on October 26, last year, when this government had only been elected for fifteen days. Maybe they simply did not have the stomach for another loss in the courts or maybe they would have gone through and had a Supreme Court of Canada appeal.

In its commentary, the Court of Appeal said: this application involves documents in the hands of the Department of Justice "…solicitor regarding an employment issue affecting a requestor who is an employee of the department."

The Court of Appeal went on to say, "Personnel related matters that may adversely affect public servants whether represented by a union or not, may have significant implications affecting career advancement, demotion, discipline and even termination. There is always a risk that internal management of documents may be affected by personal issues and even matters of political sensitivity."

Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal went on to say, "It would be too easy to have documents declared to be subject to solicitor-client privilege to delay resolution of a matter and to deter a public servant or citizen from pressing a claim for access to documents in court."

Mr. Speaker, one would think this government would have found it imperative that their actions so castigated by the Court of Appeal in this decision that was overturned would have been absolutely adamant to have this matter go forward to the Supreme Court of Canada. No application was taken; no application to determine leave for appeal was taken. Instead, the government resorted to what I would say was a very cowardly act, and that was to introduce this piece of legislation, which essentially circumvented the Court of Appeal of our Province, which is the highest court of our Province. Now we are stuck with this piece of legislation with a huge majority. The piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is terribly, terribly flawed. It does not improve access to any sort of information. When this act was initially passed, it was based on a report titled Striking the Balance: The Right to Know & the Right to Privacy. This was July, 2001. This ruse the government is using to say that solicitor-client information or privilege is protected; in fact, it is not protected. It makes it possible to be able to use it as an umbrella, a shield, to be able to cloak all sorts of government secrecy.

The original committee in 2001 expressed the view that the cost of any citizen taking a denied access request to court was both time consuming and expensive, and that an alternate method should be considered. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the thing this government has decided to undo. Instead of the current status whereby the individual would appeal to the commissioner, and then the commissioner could take that matter to court, if necessary, this act strips that particular section from the bill.

When this particular legislation was undergoing second reading, Mr. Speaker, as stated by the Court of Appeal on page 20 of the decision, the Appeal Court said during the second reading of ATIPPA in the House of Assembly, Kelvin Parsons, QC, the Attorney General at the time, stated: "At present, the only option under the Freedom of Information Act," – which was ATIPPA's predecessor – "for a person who wishes a decision reviewed, is to launch an appeal to the Trial Division of the Newfoundland Supreme Court." Indeed, this was one of the concerns most frequently voiced with respect to the current act. That was the predecessor act, which was the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Parsons went on to say: costs of a court appeal are high and often very prohibitive. As well, by the time the court hears and decides on an appeal, the information may no longer be of use because the time has elapsed. Mr. Speaker, ten years ago when this act was being enacted, at that time the model we chose was similar to that witnessed in Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and the federal government. Mr. Speaker, that piece of legislation, the one that we are looking at, which essentially we are stripping right now, that we are absolutely gutting right now, has served us well even though based on some of the invoices that I have seen from the government for searches, it was seen that the government has tried to do much to circumvent the existing course of action.

Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal set forth certain points in addition to the main decision points that are referred to as obiter dictum. They said the court is concerned about the possibility of misuse of authority conferred by the legislation. One form of misuse would be for the Department of Justice to claim blanket privilege for files, which while they contain some privileged documents, also contain others for which privilege clearly does not attach. Another form of misuse of authority would arise if the Information Commissioner demanded to have documents produced so that he could reasonably conclude, without inspecting them, were covered by solicitor-client privilege.

Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal went on to say that the key to properly applying this act is good faith in the exercise of authority. So, if the parties exercise good faith, then with that comes mutual trust by the commissioner that senior Justice officials have been truthful, and by Justice officials that the commissioner will not unreasonably call for production of legal opinions and advice. Co-operation should be the rule, and litigation very much the exception.

Mr. Speaker, these new amendments that are being proposed would seem to make the litigation the first step, and co-operation to be pretty much non-existent. Now, some of the submissions that have not been adopted by the government in this piece of legislation, in this bill, are rather mind-boggling. Under exercising the rights of another person, both the commissioner's office and the Department of Justice recommend an amendment to section 65(e) to permit the nearest relative of a deceased person to exercise rights or powers under the act in relation to the administration of the deceased person's estate, where the deceased has no personal representative.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is both the commissioner and the Department of Justice recommending this amendment. When we look at Recommendation 30, Mr. Cummings' recommendation is set forth and the government says: This recommendation requires further review. Well, if the commissioner is recommending it and the Department of Justice is recommending, then why won't the government simply act on that recommendation and accept it. In essence, the Minister of Justice in bringing forth this bill, without considering or without including this section he is really rejecting the recommendation of his own department, of his own solicitors, he is saying this requires more review. If the lawyers at the Department of Justice have already made the recommendation that this should be included, then why won't the minister go along with that recommendation?

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue that comes up regarding submissions and consultations and some of this refers to section 18. What was expressed by the Executive Council of this government, their point of view in their submission was that effective government requires that Cabinet ministers speak freely –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: – in the Cabinet room without fear of stating unpopular positions or making comments that might be considered politically incorrect if made public. Mr. Speaker, I can accept that ministers ought to be in a position to be able to put forth unpopular positions, but why is it necessary to cover up politically incorrect comments made by Cabinet ministers? What it brings to mind, Mr. Speaker, is if we have a Cabinet made up of individuals like Boss Hogg and Jethro Bodine who are sexist, homophobic, racist, and they make these comments, then we cannot get these comments because these are politically incorrect. Why does the Cabinet need that kind of protection so individuals who would make politically incorrect statements are protected? Similarly, Cabinet documents must be protected to avoid creating the type of ill-informed public or political criticism that could hamper the ability of government to function effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, this is the submission of the Executive Council and it seems to be saying what you do not know will not hurt you, and we know what is best for you. Mr. Speaker, this type of mechanism that the government wishes to use to cloak Cabinet secrecy, I can understand it for Cabinet deliberations or unpopular decisions, or ordinary deliberations, but to be able to cover up politically incorrect or not to tell people exactly because they want to tell us what is good for us is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude now.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 29, the amendment that was put forward to delete the word "that" so that the bill can be withdrawn and referred to the Standing Committee of Government Services.

As I spoke to the previous amendment, I had talked about how more time would be good to have an appropriate level of public consultation that takes into account more than just ten individuals at eight consultations, and gives a chance to do a thorough review of what these recommendations mean. By having those all-party standing committees, it gives you that chance.

Right now, we see a government that is being very selective in what it is choosing to implement based on recommendations from an individual who they commissioned to do a report. Obviously, there were thirty-three recommendations and only sixteen are looked at being accepted, and some are also partially being accepted. This government is being very selective in what it is choosing to accept and what it is not. I will have the opportunity to speak to some of those recommendations and some of the action that has been taken.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the solicitor-client privilege because I think that is very important. Right now, until this point, the Privacy Commissioner has the ability to request a review of records where a public body has been denied access of an applicant that was based on a solicitor-client privilege to basically verify that claim. To have that independent body, that extra mechanism there to be able to look at that, gives a little bit more validity and credibility.

He can recommend the release of records where that solicitor-client privilege does not actually exist. Then we can settle the case and the information can move freely. People can get that access and nobody's privacy is compromised in those situations. In February of 2010, a judge took away the right of the IPC – they did – to view such records.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: We had the only IPC in the country with no ability to review such records. It is completely unacceptable. What happened was the Privacy Commissioner's office –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having a little difficulty hearing the hon. member who has the floor. I ask members for their co-operation.

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I was talking about is that in February of 2010, a judge basically took away the right to view such records from the Privacy Commissioner. With no ability to review such records, then what happened is the IPC looked at appealing that decision. It is important that that court system exists to be able to do so, to overturn such decisions. The Court of Appeal gave the commissioner back the right, the authority to review such records.

In those cases, the commissioner reviewed, I believe it was a total of fourteen cases. Some of this information was allowed to be submitted to the person who was requesting it and others could not be, and rightfully so, for information that is absolutely protected in an accurate form, this client-solicitor relationship. It cannot be a mechanism where the client-solicitor relationship is being used as a mechanism to shield information, and it has been proven. It has been proven in the past where the Privacy Commissioner has that ability to do a review and say this is accurate or not. That is certainly something that is highly important.

If a public body right now refuses to give an applicant records based on the solicitor-client privilege, the applicant will have to go court. Right now, there could be long delays. Things could be time sensitive. Rather than going through an independent office which can review and have that ability, and if it is restrictive then it is restrictive. Then they have the alternative of going through the courts, that route. This could be a way – because no other jurisdiction in Canada is basically at this point.

The court will be a major deterrent to applicants, for the purpose and the spirit of what ATIPPA is all about. We are going to start seeing, I would imagine, large quantities of information being improperly withheld. This is what is setting up a framework where information – barriers are being put up, and without the appropriate consultation, without looking at what all parties can contribute and more review on what all of these recommendations mean, it would be at haste to just rush this into law.

I would like to talk about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would like to talk about recommendation 10, "It is recommended that public bodies have authority, with prior approval of the Commissioner, to disregard requests for information if they: (i) are frivolous or vexatious; (ii) are made in bad faith or are trivial; (iii) because of their repetitious or systematic nature, would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body; or (iv) amount to an abuse of the right to make requests..." That was the recommendation of Commissioner Cummings.

What is being proposed now is amended to reflect Cummings' recommendation, with the exception requiring prior approval from the OIPC, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, because these documents, such as commissioner reports, case laws and policy manuals, provide guidance. It is taking away that extra mechanism there, which would be good to have.

One of the other points I wanted to make was around the administration. I had talked about it previously. In recommendation 8, it said, "The fee structure as currently set out in the ATIPPA should not be increased." We are seeing right now that it is being raised from $15 to $25 an hour to be more consistent with other jurisdictions. Then it also includes paying for fees 50 per cent upfront. It is creating more red tape to have to pay for these costs upfront, more administration, and more burdens that are there. In a government that is committing and holding itself to its red tape reduction strategy, some of these mechanisms in place are going to be adding back some of that red tape to the system.

In the existing act, under section 18, it talks about how a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance of Cabinet deliberations. It goes on into further detail about that. Under 18.(1), under this new section, it omits what is called substance of deliberation. Instead, it interjects a list. It highlights a list of defined items that would be into Cabinet. These things would be what would be restricted in 18.(2).

The list includes things like a draft, policy advice, memos, things that would be restricted, a number of information certainly. Things such as policy proposals, factual or background information that can be presented can sometimes be a little bit problematic.

Depending on the type of information, a number of it should be available and accessible. It puts to a level that almost any documentation at this point if you are looking at a proposal or background material not being able to make some of this information available. Many things right now based on that then can be defined as a Cabinet record and it would not really reveal any confidences of the Cabinet. We have to look at having that extra mechanism in play. Right now based on the recommendations that are put forward –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – a document that is certified by the Clerk or the Executive Council there, under that level, not necessarily would it have to meet criteria if the list is so broad and vague that we may need to see a situation where there is some assessment of that. That is where the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner comes in. Removing those abilities is taking away a level of accountability when it comes to this very, very important piece of legislation.

You are talking about accessing information, things around public funds, around personal information and there is a privacy component as well. We do not want to be breaching private information and providing things that really can have an adverse effect. Records that are defined as official and discontinuance and supporting documents – it is really extending that, so the Information and Privacy Commissioner will never be able to review any of these official documents, what is stamped or certified as official. That creates a bit of a problem there.

Instead now we have a list, and if the document is on the list, then it is certainly protected by Cabinet secrecy, whether necessary or not. About being open, transparent and accountable, it is something that this government in 2003 had campaigned on and had listed that they would. It has been noted, they have written a number of press releases and talking about providing information. That is something as well as the federal Conservative government right now has campaigned on about being an open and transparent and accountable government.

We really do need to put into question when we see mechanisms put into play that takes away a bit of consumer protection, public protection, because some of this information can be provided. There is nothing that would adversely affect – the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has the right to look at it, to review it, to make that determination. They have the expertise in their office and if it is determined that this is not acceptable to be released, then it is not released. This is something that then the person who is filing the request, if they are dissatisfied with that, they have an appeal process and they can go through the court system. That alternative is there. Now we are bypassing an option and what would be a means to streamline and improve the service. That is something that is very concerning.

Could the kind of information become confidential if it was not public before? The commissioner will not be able to review that and assess government's claim that the information should not be disclosed. So the case has to go to court. In some provinces, the release of Cabinet background information material is discretionary and a Cabinet might, from time to time, decide if they are going to release information. In Newfoundland, it seems right now with all of these recommendations that it is absolutely mandatory to hide it because there is a reason for it, it is placed on the list, it is clearly defined that that information needs to be looked at and also included.

If we look at information and access to it – I mean, any information that would reveal advice or someone's idea, looking at a proposal and how it is put together, that analysis of a policy option is much wider than the original documentation. This is extra information and this is enlarging the restriction which was originally a standard across the country. It seems right now what is being done with the recommendations and how it is being worded is that it is worded to follow a lot of the legislation around Alberta. Alberta, as a province, has one of the least transparent pieces of legislation pertaining to this in the country. We should be very progressive in how we deal with this very important issue around people's privacy and around the information and find that balance. By taking away a lot of authority in an independent office to do that review is being regressive. It is not progressive; it is taking things back.

We all know what happens when you take government offices and independent authorities, you take away some of their powers. We saw it with the Auditor General when they were barred from this House of Assembly. We saw that there was a big scandal here in this very House of Assembly. Would there have been that if we had the appropriate ability and authority to access information and privacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: By looking at and making those changes you are seeing – one of the other comments that I see there under Bill 29, section 20, on page 9 there: if a report is incomplete, if nothing has been done on it for three years. So there can be a period where a report is sitting idle and if it is just tweaked moderately or if there is just a minor update to it now, it may get to a period that it never becomes accessible or it ever becomes available because it is a constant work in progress.

We see that government does its strategic plans on a three-year basis. If that is constantly being updated and revised and there is information being on that, then it may come to a point where absolutely nothing from any of these government departments will get released. It states here under section 20, on page 9: if a report is incomplete, if nothing has been done with it in three years. If government can hang on to reports that it makes minor and moderate changes, then that is a serious problem if we look at that.

I have to go back to the comments of what is frivolous and what is vexatious; because, having that connotation of those words there, to be able to have clarity –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – that a minister or a public body head could determine without having any type of secondary review, that something is frivolous or vexatious, they could simply ignore it. Also, looking at extending time limits to a degree – I understand there could be a need to extend time limits in certain circumstances, but if you extend them in all cases, based on the information, then you could see a real slow down of people being able to deal with their issues, deal with information that in some cases is rightfully theirs, and they should have that ability to access that. Right now, by removing certain barriers, we are adding more burdens to our overburdened court system that has quite a lengthy process when it comes to hearing cases, seeing cases. We are going to add other costs to the taxpayer, and also to our own house by doing this type of business.

We should be more progressive, we should be looking at enhancing the ability of independent bodies such as the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and also the Auditor General who came out, in the last report, so forceful about the inability of being able to get the information – the thorough information. Sure, the Acting Auditor General –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – could get any cost, any cost that this person wanted by going to the Receiver General, and knowing that the money spent, the $7 billion-plus last year, was actually spent and what it was spent on, but not in the detail to be able to do the analysis, to draw the lines as to if there is a strategy and if there is a fund. So, I certainly think that there is a need to have this legislation reviewed by an all-party standing committee, because there is value in doing so, because there is a lot of information there with all the selection that is being done –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – in the recommendation.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it there. I will have another opportunity to speak on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, this gives me the second time tonight to actually rise and speak – the first time to the referral motion of this, Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Speaker.

The first time when I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I gave somewhat of an overview on the timeline –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – and the history of where we are today in terms of the Freedom of Information Act that was actually first brought to legislation in 1981. Then, twenty years later, subsequent to that, we did see new legislation that came into being, in 2001. Then that officially was proclaimed I guess, or was in legislation in 2002, but the official proclamation was done in 2005. There has been some discussion on really the timeline behind all of that. Mr. Speaker, when you review the documentation surrounding all of that and you look at the access piece, the access provisions that were made, that were put in place in 2005 and the privacy provisions that were put in place in 2008, when you follow through the timelines and you ask the question why indeed it happened this way; indeed, what happened was there were certain communities and public bodies, like health authorities and education boards, that were not in a position to actually comply with a lot of the provisions of the legislation that would have been required.

Mr. Speaker, that is a reason. It was not, in our opinion, to be something that was actually political or not, but indeed, it was more in line with getting the public bodies into a position that they could actually respond in a timely fashion and get themselves used to some of this new legislation that they would be faced to comply with, Mr. Speaker.

After that, we went on to give an overview of where we are today in terms of Mr. Cummings' review, which was part of the mandatory process of this legislation that was actually enacted in 2005. That being, of course, that there would be a mandatory review done every five years. That brought us to the 2010 time frame where Mr. Cummings was hired to do his review. From that, after some public consultations, there have been some discussions about the number of people who actually showed up to the public consultations and they are on record as saying – when you look at the information that has been provided, indeed there were just a limited number.

When you look at the history of this in terms of public consultations on something like an Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, when you look at it, when you make the call for consultations from the public in communities, it is not unusual that you really do not get much of a turnout from people in communities. It is not something that actually people would rally behind, because they see this in place.

If we set the clock back to 2010 when this request was made, it is no wonder; it is something that was around. It was felt, in my opinion at least, it was working. Unless they were using it or reviewing it on a day-to-day basis, it is not something that would actually affect them on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand when you look at, I guess, the impact that it would have on communities, as I mentioned, health boards and some of our education boards, we found out from the review that indeed it was having, in some cases, a profound impact on their ability as they saw it to do their day-to-day business.

What happened as a result of all of this? There was a bunch of recommendations – thirty-three, in fact – came from Mr. Cummings' report. A lot of those varied. Like most legislation when you look at a public consultation process, you would see when you look through it and you analyze it, no matter if you are in opposition or if you are in government, that some of the recommendations are something you could support. Indeed, some others are an area that raises concern for us.

As has already been mentioned in much of the debate tonight, you will see that many of the recommendations Mr. Cummings made, for instance Recommendation 1, were something that did not require a legislative amendment. This could be done through further review. In Recommendation 1, it was recommended that every department have a policy on routine disclosure. He further recommended that funding be available to provide public bodies with the ability to post as much information as possible on their Web sites. Mr. Speaker, when you look at openness, accountability, and transparency, having information on Web sites, it is really very difficult to get much more open and transparent than that.

Recommendation 1, it was felt by government when asked to do this, was not something that required a legislative amendment but indeed could be done outside of this process. It is not something we have seen a timeline on yet. This is something we would support and believe that having as much information available to the public through various Web sites is something we should pursue. We would encourage that we would actually get some kind of timeline on those sorts of changes, so when the commitment would be made to make sure this gets done.

Recommendation 2, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings recommended increased privacy training for all public bodies and the development of a written privacy policy. This was something that was seen as non-legislative and something that could be done outside of this House but –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – would require further review. It is something that would be important and we would see as something that could be done by government without the legislative process being involved. It is something we should focus on, putting some kind of timeline in place so that we would make sure that those sorts of things are done.

Recommendations 3 and 4 were indeed something that was similar. Recommendation 3, for instance, from Mr. Cummings' review recommended an improved information management. Again, this is something that is not seen as something that would need to be done in the House but would help the members of the public and those who require the access to information, this is something that would enable that and it would be seen as an efficient manner to do.

Recommendation 5, Mr. Cummings, as part of his review, that personal information – Mr. Cummings recommended amending the definition of personal information to clarify that an opinion expressed by another person about an applicant is the applicant's information. Mr. Speaker, this makes sense. What they are referring to here is that if someone makes a request about an individual or someone, then the person that the information is being sought, they have a right to know that someone has put in an access to information about that individual. In this particular case, this is a recommendation that I think both sides of the House could easily accept and it would seen to be as a reasonable recommendation.

Recommendation 6, there were some comments about how this would affect the public bodies. Mr. Cummings recommended amending the definition of a public body to include any board, committee, panel or similar body created on behalf of the public bodies.

When this question was asked, it was felt that this could already be done by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the authority was already there to do it. When you take a further look at that, if you expanded the definition within the public body itself, within the legislation, well then indeed that would not place the onus of the responsibility on the Premier at this particular time, so that would be done. As I said, the responsibility would not be left to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to do that. That would already be part of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, of the thirty-three recommendations, there were a number that would obviously, from what we can see, cause more concern than others. Recommendation 7, for instance, speaks about, "section 5 records being referred directly to the court when in dispute." These would be included into police informants and RNC investigations.

Some of these recommendations, as I said, Mr. Speaker, would be understandable, but there are others. One I would like to speak in some detail on, as I use some of my time here tonight, would be around the three-part test. This is section 27 of the original act back in 2005, and some of the changes that would be accepted there. When you take a quick look at it you would actually think there was not a whole lot of changes that would be made, but the three-part test would go to what is now looked to be as a one-part test. It essentially means there are just a few words that would be removed from this test, but indeed, I think what we see here is a loss of balance in some of the legislation that it mentions here.

Section 27, "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information (a) that would reveal (i) trade secrets of a third party, or…" and it goes on to outline two others. It says, or. When you look at the one-part test, that particular word "or" is moved. It means you would have to really reach the benchmarks of only one of those three as opposed to all three.

If we just look down through it, it says the "trade secrets of a third party, or (ii) commercial, financial, labour relations, scientific or technical information of a third party". That is the second part of a three-part test. In order for any information to be exempt and not to be disclosed, that would be two things in terms of the test that would have to be met, as opposed to the one-part test where the amended legislation would now go.

The (b) part of this, the second part of the test, "that is supplied, implicitly or explicitly, in confidence". The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant the information, which includes this information here.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say "and (c) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to (i) harm significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the negotiating position of the third party". What you see here is a three-step process where all three parts of the test would have to be met as opposed to just meeting the one-part test where the new amendment is – which is where we now see the one-part test.

The discussion today seemed to be – there was some discussion about Ontario having a one-part test. Two or three other provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, PEI, in this particular case, and other provinces have evolved to the point where they do use the one-part test, Mr. Speaker. We see here that it would make it much simpler for a public body to be able to refuse access to information with the amendment to section 27 of Bill 29. This is one area we will continue to raise questions about, the three-part test versus the one-part test, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of other recommendations. We have talked quite a bit tonight about the fees and if it would be more expensive to do this. Indeed, we have seen that there would be an impact on the financial cost of accessing the information that we often make requests for.

Recommendation 10 is also an area where we get the frivolous or vexatious requests. Mr. Cummings recommended that ATIPPA be amended to permit a public body to refuse to respond to an access request with prior approval of the Privacy Commissioner, if this request is frivolous or vexatious; made in bad faith or trivial; repetitious or systematic, or amounts to an abuse of the process. Of course, Recommendation 10 was not accepted because the prior written approval, which he anticipated would be required or suggested would be required, we now know that this could be done without the prior approval of the Privacy Commissioner.

The other thing that gets affected here is the single request, and if a single case can be dismissed with the approval of the Privacy Commission. We now know that this is certainly broad in nature. The amendment also permits a public body to disregard a single request that is excessively broad, with the prior approval of the OPC, due to its broad nature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of recommendations here, this being some that would have more far-reaching effects than others.

Under section 18, which is certainly an area of contention throughout the amendments of this legislation, Mr. Speaker – section 18 is actually where we see the removal or the exemption of certain material that would be used to make Cabinet decisions. When you look at the old act and you look at some of the wording in section 18, you will look at some of the words that were used about the substance of deliberations test is removed.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at Part III or section 18 about Cabinet confidences: The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant, information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the amendments, you will see that the substance of deliberations, the actual test required under section 18 of the old act is certainly no longer required. Indeed we will see that not only do we have certain changes in section 18 of what would now apply for exemptions from Cabinet material, we have moved beyond and that the substance of deliberations test is removed from all this. We have moved into a complete listing of Cabinet records, for instance, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – that are found in the Management of Information Act. These would include things like an agenda or a memorandum to present proposals to Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, this, in our opinion, is certainly very diluted, and dilutes section 18 and makes it much easier to see Cabinet documentation that would be used, in particular briefing notes and other material that would normally be accessible to the public and indeed to Oppositions in the past, that is no longer available. The substance of deliberations test is also removed. Mr. Speaker, that is something we would actually question and look for clarification on why indeed that reads like it does.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things when you look at the information provided here. I will just speak to Recommendation 11: The Auditor General Act is amended to provide the AG shall not be permitted access to section 18 – these are the Cabinet records I just spoke about – where the Clerk of the Executive Council has certified the documents. What it would mean there, once the Clerk had certified the documents they would be no longer available. We would find, when you look at what means you would have to actually then go through to make sure that this information is available, it leads us really back to the court, which is not somewhere that we felt, as the general public or even as an Opposition Party, is very comfortable. We all know the expense that is created in doing that.

In Recommendation 15, which applies to section 24 of the act, Mr. Cummings recommended that the protection for financial and economic interests of public bodies should be expanded to reflect the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, earlier on in the debate tonight there were some comments made about if government were to make an investment to help, in particular, some businesses or companies that would require government funding, and if the investment into that company should be something that was made public. When you look at that, on the surface it would seem that you could make an investment of public money into a business; yet, you would have to question, really, what you do in that particular case is government becomes a partner with that business. Is it fair to have the information about that business related to the activity of the investment? Is it fair to have that public knowledge? Mr. Speaker, of course, in that particular case it is.

Anybody who has gone to seek money, no matter if you went to any financial institution, no matter where you went, it would be very clear that it is quite a bit of information that would have to be provided, even to a bank and a lot of personal information that has to be provided. In this particular case, providing this information to government, because the person is looking for money in return, is something that would not be unusual, it was something that would be expected to have. It is part of the due diligence of what you do when you invest government money.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of recommendations here. I have touched on about a dozen or so of those. I will finish up and conclude my remarks on those recommendations right now. There will be more time, as we move through the evening, for me to speak again. I will use up my twenty minutes or so that I have already, and I will leave now and conclude my remarks and look forward to further debate on this bill as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased again to say a few more words about Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing, some time back in 2009 the Department of Justice had suggested it was holding certain requests because of solicitor-client privilege and that went to the courts and was subsequently lost by the government. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was able to go through it and adjudicate the cases, as is its responsibility.

It was really interesting because after those cases were decided and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner turned its attention to dealing with the information that was contained in those files, as per its right which was upheld in the court action, the commissioner subsequently pointed out that more than half of those cases were held up – in over half of those cases the claims of solicitor-client privilege were, in fact, not valid. In fact, in some of these cases where solicitor-client privilege was claimed, the documents in question were actually already in the public domain. For example, Mr. Speaker, that included legislation that was already, obviously, in the public domain. It included one collective agreement, which was again something that is freely accessible to the public, and also a human resources policy manual –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: - again, another document that was freely available to the public, that one of the parties was suggesting was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

In one case, the claim of solicitor-client privilege was actually applied to, involved a piece of correspondence that was actually written by the person who was making the access to information request. That helps to provide some context. These are good examples of how the solicitor-client privilege can be claimed in instances where no solicitor-client privilege exists, none exists. This could be because of lack of oversight, it could be for other reasons, scarce human resources, a volume of work in a certain workplace, but it certainly illustrates the important role that is currently played by the office of the commissioner.

It is unfortunate that we are here debating this, debating whether or not that important oversight function should be legislated away. As it stands right now, claims of solicitor-client privilege can be examined by an independent officer of the House. When there has been a reasonable explanation for the claim, the office has seen fit to uphold and deny access to information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: When there is no reasonable explanation for the claim, and that obviously occurs from time to time, the information is provided. That is a strength of the current Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is not a weakness.

The commissioner said, "There were clearly instances where inexperience and a simple misunderstanding of the concepts in solicitor-client privilege might be at the root of the problem. In other cases, including some of the most obvious misapplications of the exception, the initial claims appeared to be made with the support of experienced legal counsel, which is certainly troubling." This observation should give us some pause because whether we like it or not, there have clearly been instances where informed individuals have misapplied the solicitor-client privilege in access to information cases.

The current system, with the commissioner as an independent party, provides some assurances that problems such as these can be dealt with in a fair manner and it helps to ensure that information is not improperly withheld and shielded from public view. It also ensures that the cost to the taxpayer, and to individuals who are seeking access to information, that those costs are more manageable for individuals as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Under the proposed legislation, the proposed changes, the costs have the potential to increase if all these cases have to be dealt with by the courts, obviously. It is much more efficient to do it the way that it is, to deal with things through the Information and Privacy Commissioner, as is the case today. Of course, in many cases it is unlikely to be dealt with by the courts because it is unlikely that individuals in many cases will be able to afford access to information through the courts, just by virtue of their inability to retain legal counsel, to afford legal counsel, and to access the courts; and that in itself would deny access to information. We would all like to think that is really not the intention here.

There are a number of other elements of this legislation that are problematic. It strips the Auditor General of the right to access certain information and certain documents. Of course, that was a source of disagreement with the Auditor General in the most recent report, where the Auditor General is seeking documentation around the $5 billion infrastructure strategy and was unable to get the information he was looking for.

Then, through this legislation you can appeal frivolous and vexatious decisions to the information commissioner, but the commissioner can only make recommendations. There are no orders that can be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Also, Cabinet briefing notes will now be exempt from access to information requests for a period of five years. These amendments will make decisions of government, especially those of Cabinet, more secretive and more difficult to access than ever. It is hard to really find a change in here that makes it easier to get information, if that indeed is the intent. We used to be able to brag about having some of the better access to information legislation in the country, but this really is a diminution of a quality of the legislation that we have at present in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It seems that Bill 29 and the provisions therein will really give us some of the most restrictive legislation in the country now when it comes to providing access to information. It appears to be more of a case of denying access to information. That is unfortunate, because we could go across the country and pick through all of the different access to information –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – freedom of information acts that exist from one province to the other and pick all of the more restrictive provisions and create one bill, but that really does not provide us with the sort of legislation we need in a free, open and democratic system of government, such as the one we endeavour to have.

This also expands the scope of the documents that are protected by Cabinet secrecy. As I said earlier, just enabling government to stamp documents as under Cabinet consideration can shield them from public view according to the provisions in this act. It expands the definition of Cabinet documents and so exempts more of them from release to the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister really has sole discretion to say that access to information is frivolous and vexatious, and maybe in some cases frivolously vexatious, ‘vexatiously' frivolous, or whatever mood the minister happens to be in that particular day. It runs contrary to a free and open democratic system that we want to have and runs contrary to this government's assurances of improved access to information. In particular, I know members on this side have referenced the 2003 Blue Book, which was particularly pointed about enabling access to certain Cabinet documents. It had been the experience of the Official Opposition prior to then that documents were very difficult to access.

This legislation, as well, extends the length of time it takes to gain access to information. In many instances for individuals, the information they are seeking is needed in a timely manner. This can really extend it and make things more difficult for the public, for the media, for Opposition, and political parties to gain access to information. It also increases the cost of accessing information. All of these changes can have the combined impact of restricting access to information and enabling ministers to make decisions about access themselves rather than having an independent arbiter or umpire to help with that. I thought it was interesting – we are keeping ministerial briefing books away from the public and there was some talk of a chill when it comes to briefing books, but I think some of that is really self-imposed, Mr. Speaker.

Some members earlier, when there were members of government up talking a few hours ago now, there was some complaint about the number of presentations that were made to Mr. Cummings when he was doing his review and consultations across the Province.

I went upstairs and I had a look, and the notice of consultations was released on May 7, 2010, but that really was not much notice at all if you lived in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, because the first public consultation session was held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on May 12. That is a very short time after the announcement that these consultations would take place.

That was followed by one in Labrador City a day later, on the thirteenth of May, and then Corner Brook on the eighteenth of May, and Stephenville on the nineteenth of May, and Gander on the thirty-first of May. There really was not a lot of time for individuals to prepare submissions for this, so I think in the future this is probably a lesson learned. If we provide sufficient notice or additional notice to members of the public, there is a good possibility we will get more people to participate. I do not really blame the public; I think we all share some of the blame.

I know one of the government MHAs stood up earlier, Mr. Speaker, and said that the problem with the current legislation is that there were thousands of requests – thousands of requests – that were going to clog up the system and cause everything to slow down. Well, that is really interesting, Mr. Speaker, because there are not thousands of requests. There are hundreds of requests every year. It is interesting, in 2007-2008 there were 131 requests for review and complaints dealt with; 83 per cent of those were initiated by individuals; 8 per cent by businesses; 4 per cent by the media; and only 2 per cent by a political party.

To go on to the next year, in 2008-2009, there were 164 requests for review and complaints dealt with. In that year, 88 per cent of those were initiated by individuals; only 5 per cent by the media and only 4 per cent by political parties. There were 2 per cent by legal firms and 1 per cent initiated by a business. Then to go on to the next year, 2009-2010 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – 93 per cent of the requests for review and complaints dealt with – there were 164 – 93 per cent were initiated by individuals, only 4 per cent of these were initiated by political parties and 1 per cent initiated by the media. So, we have only 5 per cent of these purported thousands –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: They are not thousands. The total was actually eight cases. So 5 per cent were initiated by political parties and the media, combined; 1 per cent by law firms, and 1 per cent by businesses.

Then for 2010-2011 – so I guess that is the most recent year that we have statistics available for – 90 per cent of the requests for review in complaints dealt with in that year were initiated by individuals, only 4 per cent by the media, and 2 per cent initiated by political parties. So, only 6 per cent of the requests for review and the complaints dealt with in 2010-2011 were initiated by either the media or political parties. There were a further 2 per cent that were initiated by business, 1 per cent initiated by legal firms, and another 1 per cent initiated by public bodies. So there you go.

Now that we have dealt with the issue of the thousands of requests, in terms of routine disclosures of information, I think this is really important because there is a lot of information that should be available to the public or –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – is available, is handy, is accessible, but we have not really made it available to the public. So, when you think about – especially with the advent of the Internet, the extent to which the Internet is available –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – these days to many people. It makes sense to try to make information available through those means and then also through other electronic means. There are probably a lot of documents that are in storage that have not been scanned, that do not have electronic versions. They sort of predate the electronic age, if you will. It would be useful to have those scanned and made available electronically; it would make things a lot more accessible.

The act, as it stands, guarantees the right of access to information to government information. It really only should have very limited restrictions, not like the ones here in Bill 29. There really only should be limited restrictions and those would be legitimate to protect legitimate government interests, to protect information, personal information, information that should not be in the public domain. There is no argument here about whether or not there is because there certainly is, there is no question.

I think one of the things that have been pointed out by Mr. Cummings – but there has been a burden of difficulty that has been foisted or felt by municipalities and educational bodies - he suggests that there is really a secretive attitude that has been adopted by some government departments, while others are more open to access to information requests.

I think I will leave it there for the moment. There is a lot more to say and a lot more that will be said before we are done. This bill is imperfect and I think that would be a great reason to send this to the Committee to review and to improve.

With that, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see it is about 3:12 in the morning and I see there is a bit of energy on the other side, clapping because I stood up. I am just glad that there is a lot of energy here, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly. This is a very important piece of information, Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to start out with some people out in the public who I spoke to tonight and probably even some media when they look at this Bill 29 and they think about Nalcor. They almost think that Nalcor is exempt from any of this because of the energy act. That is true, but with this new Bill 29 that comes in now, Mr. Speaker, any information that is given to Cabinet to make a decision, like Nalcor, is exempt. Any information now that comes up from Nalcor, or anything around that is associated to come up with an opinion for Nalcor, the Opposition, which will be looking for information, under this new legislation will be exempt.

There is a major concern for a lot of us that this new legislation will expand a lot of the powers of Cabinet to exclude information that we would need to make a decision. That is very, very important, Mr. Speaker, to make a good, sound judgement decision on a project like Nalcor. I just want to let people know and be on the record to ensure that people understand that Bill 29 will include the information gathered by the government for a Cabinet decision on Nalcor, on Nalcor's behalf, but on something like Muskrat Falls – Mr. Speaker, it is an important aspect that I just wanted to bring forward pretty quick.

I know the Minister of Environment made a few statements earlier, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it is nice to be around to have a bit of history, because I know the statements he made – then I thought about it when he was saying it, factually that is not correct. So I said to myself, I am going to go out and check on the right information.

The Minister of Environment or anybody opposite can stand up and correct me if I am wrong, which I know I am not, Mr. Speaker, this act was actually passed in 2002. Mr. Speaker, I know that because I was part of it. The former Liberal Administration, I was part of it and I brought it in. Then the PC government took over power in 2003. They proclaimed the access in January 2005, a year-and-a-half later, Mr. Speaker. That was the access part. I know the Minister of Environment, and anybody can stand up and clarify if I am wrong. I know they are not going to be able to do it.

Mr. Speaker, then he talked about the privacy part. The privacy part, Mr. Speaker, this is what they all forget. Some of them were around, some of them were not. In 2008, almost five years later, they brought in the privacy section of that legislation. When the Minister of Environment wants to stand up and say: Yes, we are the ones who brought it in. They have to keep the records straight, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: Tell him to stand up.

MR. JOYCE: Tell him to stand up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I know they cannot stand up because I know they cannot correct me. I know the facts on it, Mr. Speaker. When you want to stand in this House of Assembly, and if I happen to be here, Mr. Speaker, and you want to make a statement that we brought this in, in 2002 and we did not proclaim it, but we did as soon as we got in. When, factually, it was in 2008 when they proclaimed the second part of it.

I am going to stand up and defend our record, because, Mr. Speaker, I know what happened then. It is easy to stand up and pound your chest and throw out numbers and throw out years but when someone who has been involved, who is pretty good at it, Mr. Speaker, is going to stand up and correct any false information – I am not saying it was done deliberately, but I am just saying the information is factually incorrect. I will just talk about that.

We want to talk about the Auditor General, the Minister of Environment – the Minister of Municipal Affairs is talking about the Auditor General, let's talk about the $5 billion that he could not get. I knew this was coming. I told our caucus, I said the Auditor General, we sat down with him and he went through about he could not get the deliberations on how the $5 billion infrastructure spending was spent, what criteria was used. I said there is information coming, and going to be coming in. There is going to be new legislation coming in to make sure that he will never be able to do this again. He will not be able to embarrass this government again by saying that I cannot get how they went out and made the decisions on it. He said the first time ever, the first time ever, he could stand up and say that I was denied this information.

When the members opposite want to talk about the Auditor General and want to talk about the legislation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I warned people on this side, Mr. Speaker. I warned them that this was coming through; that this was coming because they were not going to be embarrassed anymore.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs could stand up here and say the Auditor General did not say that. He cannot do it. I know the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, who is on the public accounts, heard the same thing the Auditor General said to him, he said to me in the meeting; the first time ever. The first time ever that he could not see any – he is not allowed to see the information, how the strategy was developed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I know it is 3:00 o'clock in the morning and they are all a bit tired, a bit cranky, but I ask for a bit of respect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the Chair has recognized the Member for Bay of Islands and I ask for your co-operation.

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I need a bit of protection. I should have kept my boxing days going, Mr. Speaker, to get a bit of protection here at 3:00 o'clock in the morning.

There is something I found ironic, Mr. Speaker. I will just tell the people, anybody up will want to see this. We are here in this House of Assembly discussing the ATIPP, freedom of information access. That is what (inaudible) people who have this opportunity to look for information. This is supposed to be open to all the people in Province to make sure that everybody has access to all of the information, that everybody can have an informed decision, but guess what, Mr. Speaker? I know you are paying attention to me also, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: I am.

MR. JOYCE: - but guess what? We are doing it 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Mostly everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador right now are asleep, which they should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the majority of people cannot look at the debate here in the House of Assembly. They cannot look at the debate on the House of Assembly because this government is taking us in steel-toed boots and pushing this legislation through at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, going on 3:20 in the morning, Mr. Speaker, pushing this right on through, ramming it on through. They want to do it under the cloak of darkness, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: They know the information we are going to be bringing out, Mr. Speaker. The information we are going to bringing out, Mr. Speaker, shows that this is going to be just rammed right on through. The information that the people want, the rules and the regulations are all going to be thrown out through the door, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: It is 3:30 in the morning, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine? Mr. Speaker, what would you think if someone voted for something like that? Ramming it through to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are all elected for, Mr. Speaker. Even some people in your own district would love to see this debate, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine, people are going to go up and vote for this, vote for this to push this through at 3:00 and 4:00 o'clock in the morning? Yet, now it is freedom of information, Mr. Speaker. This is the open and transparent government here, Mr. Speaker, the family-friendly sitting of the House of Assembly at 3:22 in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, I know I have to refer all of my statements to you: What do you think of a member pushing this through at 3:20 in the morning, 3:25 in the morning? I know, Mr. Speaker, you are impartial. Just think about it, pushing this through, Mr. Speaker, hobnobbing this here right on through. They rammed it through, Mr. Speaker. We are supposed to be here, parliamentarians across the Province representing everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, yet we are going to ram it on through, Mr. Speaker.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is going to be rammed harder than the Beaumont Hamel was over to the dock last week. That is what I say, Mr. Speaker. This is going to be pushed right on through just as fast as that, and even with more power I say, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trust at all.

MR. JOYCE: Not a bit of trust at all, Mr. Speaker – not a bit of trust.

Mr. Speaker, there is something else I just want people to keep in mind. Of course this is for all of us, not just for people on this side; this here is for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, this access to information and I really feel that the government for some reason – and I always say it and I will say it again, I know all members in this House are hon. members and try to do the best when they are here, there is no doubt about that. We have differences of opinion, but there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to go on anybody's character because it is not my nature, unless I say it to their face first. Mr. Speaker, I believe everybody is honourable in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I really feel that the concept of this Bill 29 has gone astray. I will explain to you why, Mr. Speaker. The Freedom of Information Act as we go back and the ATIPPA information, government is supposed to hold the information for the public. Then they put certain restrictions on it so the public can gather information that they can help in their daily lives, or information for the communities, or for the towns, or how government has spent. Mr. Speaker, what is after happening and it goes to when you get in power and you get there and you do not want anyone to understand what you are doing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – or how it is happening. They do not want you to see the inner workings of the government. What is after happening, this government, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is saying this is our information, now if you want it you come the best way you can, you come and try to get it. Mr. Speaker, we have it right now, we ended up in the courts. Most people have to go to court. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are impartial and I know you would never ever support something like this or have your constituents, Mr. Speaker, have to go down to a courthouse, the Supreme Court, to get information that they deserve and they should have.

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, this government has taken this whole legislation, this whole freedom of information, and said it is our information, it is all our information if you want it you have to jump through hoops, you have to go to court and you have to do this. Instead of, it is public information and how can we divulge the public information the best way possible. I really feel government has lost its way. I can see some people in the backbenchers looking over, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why? They never even saw the legislation before we did, Mr. Speaker. We had the legislation before they even seen it. I do not even know if half of them had a briefing on it, Mr. Speaker. That is what I really feel. I know they are hon. members and there is no hon. member would have someone here in their district looking for information and have to end up down in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I really feel that they went astray somewhere, Mr. Speaker, and they are just trying to ram this through – just trying to ram this through.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go through a few recommendations here. This here, Mr. Speaker, is the briefing that we had. I would say if any of the backbenchers over there wants it, I could lend it to you after if you want to see the briefing note that we had, because I am not sure how many of them had it. I am just such a nice guy at 3:30 in the morning, Mr. Speaker. I will let them look at the briefing note because half of them never seen it, I am willing to bet. I am willing to bet that. Mr. Speaker, I know you are an hon. person – if you want to borrow it, you can too. I am a nice guy all over, Mr. Speaker.

We will go with Recommendation 1, Mr. Speaker. Recommend every department have a policy on routine disclosure. What that means, when we were explained, is that there are some small things that every department may just get that they can just do it very quickly with no sensitive information, some type of report. What the recommendation is saying is that all departments in government should have some formal process to speed up this operation, speed up the procedure so that they will not be getting tied up into each department and each department is uniform. That is what we were told. "This is a non-legislative amendment which requires further review." Now, Mr. Speaker, something as simple as saying all departments should be in here, we should have it all –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, thanks for the protection again, I say.

Mr. Speaker, this here just makes sure it gives everybody here the opportunity to go into and have the same procedure to get it. There is an amendment – it is under further review. Even something as simple as that, this government is trying to say now – they are not going to say they are going to do, but it is under further review, Mr. Speaker. That is one thing, Mr. Speaker, but just go to Recommendation 2. Mr. Cummings recommended increased privacy training for all public bodies and the development of written privacy policies. This is a non-legislative amendment which requires further review. Again, something so simple of giving training, what you should give out, not give out, what you need to ask for, make sure you have the privacy act taken care of, Mr. Speaker – and that is under review, and that is a recommendation. Here we are, we heard here numerous times here tonight, Mr. Speaker, the people say: Oh, we have recommended –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – what Mr. Cummings said. Here are two already that have been under review, yet they can stand up and say: Oh yes, we accepted his recommendations. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is Recommendation 4. Mr. Cummings recommended increased funding for Official Opposition for purchased services. This recommendation should be addressed through the normal budgetary process. What a government – I have to give you credit. Imagine the government increasing funding for the Official Opposition so we could get freedom of information from departments, but they will not give anything out. What a nice bunch. Give us all this money, Mr. Speaker, and say now, you go apply for it, yet turn another page, it is all stopped that we are not allowed to go get it. Now, if you want it, let us go down to court – what a nice bunch. What a government, what a bunch, give us all this funding to go out and get all this freedom of information, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McGRATH: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I see the Member for Lab West, is it? Why don't you stand up and give us the information when they did all the review for the Burton Winters case? Why don't you stand up and give us all the information so we do not have to do this? If you want to stay and talk, 3:30 in the morning, stand up and say I will table it. You do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand in this House and say we will drop off that information to you right now. Here is his opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Guess what? He is going to sit in his chair, Mr. Speaker, he is going to start off, keep going with his mouth, but he will not stand up –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – and table that information Mr. Speaker. He will not do it. I will bet you, whatever you want to bet, Mr. Speaker. Now that he is quiet, I will go on to something else.

Mr. Speaker, so all these funds that they are going to give us is useless, because we cannot get the information anyway. They are so restrictive that we just cannot get the information, Mr. Speaker; we just cannot get it.

Recommendation 5 recommended amending the definition of personal information to clarify that an opinion expressed by another person about an applicant is the applicant's information, accepted. I agree with that. I agree with that 100 per cent.

If someone wants to say something about me or to any member here, or anybody who is working, if they want to put it in writing that should be your information. They should do that. I agree with that recommendation, Mr. Speaker, because I think if anybody is going to make a recommendation or make statements about you and it is in your personal file, I feel you should have access to that.

There are a lot of other things, Mr. Speaker, put in writing that sometimes people wish they could have but they could not get. I agree with that. If people are going to do that, if you are good or bad, I think if it is in your file you should access to it.

Recommendation 8, that the current fee structure for ATIPP remain unchanged. Now this is a funny one, Mr. Speaker. They come up and say, yes – I heard a few ministers here tonight talking about how it has not changed. The first two hours, Mr. Speaker, now it has gone to four hours. If anybody is listening to this, this is funny. This is actually funny. When we asked a question – I have twenty seconds, and I am not going to get leave. I know they will just let me finish up.

Here is the funny part, Mr. Speaker, two hours to four, but guess what? They can charge you now for contemplating what they should give you and contemplating what they should redact. Mr. Speaker, you could have someone sitting down at a desk –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Just a minute to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, they can sit down behind a desk for three or four hours: now, what should I give them? After you decide what you should give them, sit down now, what should I redact? The next thing you know the two hours you had for free, you have six hours to pay because you are sitting down, what does she give you? That is in the legislation. That is actually in the legislation that you have to pay for someone, whatever time it is, to contemplate what they are giving you. Mr. Speaker, you can see why I have a few concerns about this legislation.

I thank the hon. members for leave. I am sure we are going to have a couple of opportunities, Mr. Speaker. I have to say, you are a fine bunch for 3:30 in the morning. You are not as contrary as I thought you would be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am happy to have a chance to speak again to Bill 29, although right now at this moment what we have on the table is a motion for referral. I would like to speak a bit to the motion itself for referral and what the implications of that are all about. I do not think I am educating anybody in the public by doing this, this morning because I am sure nobody is watching at 3:40 o'clock. Although, we might get a Tweet from somebody saying: Oh no, you are wrong, somebody is watching. At the same time, I think it is important for us to understand what the motion for referral is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: When one makes a motion for referral in second reading, one may refer not a bill itself but the subject matter of the bill. The substance of the bill may be referred to a committee if committees exist. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, while we do not use them consistently in our Legislature, we do have standing committees that do exist. The one that the substance of the bill has been referred to or the motion is asking for it to be referred to is the Social Services Committee. As one of our standing committees, it is actually empowered to receive referrals from the House of Assembly.

I remind all of us that our Standing Order 65.(5) says that our "…Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House."

While we only seem to use our committees in Estimates, our Standing Orders say that our standing committees, Government Services, Social Services, and Resources, that these standing committees in actual fact are here to receive referrals from the House and may be also Estimates Committees. That is what is in our Standing Orders.

What we have done is we have taken those committees and we have given them – the only work we give them to do is Estimates, that is the only work they do; yet, these standing committees can have referrals from the House. They have the power, except if the House orders them not to, to have witnesses, to send for persons. They can get documentation; they can get whatever they need to discuss what has been referred from the House. I think it is quite significant that we have a referral motion on the floor asking to have the subject matter of this bill sent to the Social Services Standing Committee.

We have had some experiences here in this House of Assembly where we have had times when bills have been put in place rather quickly, where bills have not had the full discussion time they need to have and where we have had decisions made because of the speed with which a bill has been put through. One example of that, Mr. Speaker, was in 2008, when we actually had the provincial government accidentally expropriating the AbitibiBowater paper mill in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The reason for the accident was that the bill was passed so quickly, put together so quickly and passed so quickly, that nobody picked up on an error that was in the bill until it was too late. So we still, as a Province, are on the hook for the environmental clean up cost, something which has to be determined by the courts. The decision is not made yet, but I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that we are going to be stuck with that bill, and it was because a piece of legislation was put through so quickly.

I think the purpose for this motion is to say let's slow down. Let's look at what this bill is all about and let's have a full discussion. Let's have the Information and Privacy Commissioner come into the committee and make a presentation, be quizzed by the committee. Let's have groups come in and talk to us, groups who had experiences with accessing information. Have them come in and meet with the committee. Let us do what the committees are supposed to do. Let us have the discussions out in committee, in public, in times of day when people can come, when people can watch and have open discussion about the content of what is in Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many points in this bill that people are concerned about. All day today we are getting e-mails, we are getting Tweets. People are communicating with us about how concerned they are since this bill became public.

Now it seems like it is a long time ago, but it was yesterday. It is now Tuesday. Yesterday morning this bill, around noontime, this bill finally became public. Since it has become public, I am even getting e-mails from people across Canada who are concerned about this. The last time I went upstairs, I had e-mails from people in other parts of Canada who were concerned about the legislation that we are passing here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

We have a piece of legislation that does require – the substance of this legislation requires discussion, Mr. Speaker. My colleague for St. John's North talked about the quickness with which the public consultations were held, the short notice that was given of the public consultations, and pointed out that that could be a reason why there was not a great turnout because there really was not an in-depth process to get people involved. The one thing that I have learned today, or since yesterday morning, since Bill 29 has become public, is that people in this Province do care, they do know what is going on, and they are concerned. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the government recognized the need to have a discussion about these issues upfront, publicly, and really get people involved in the discussion?

When I talk about the commissioner, I would like look at some of the things that the Information and Privacy Commissioner was concerned about when he presented to Mr. Cummings, because the commissioner did present to Mr. Cummings. The presentation that he made to Mr. Cummings has some very interesting things, some of the things that he was concerned about. Obviously, he had quite a number of recommendations so there were a lot of things that concerned him, but there were some that he wrote more about than others. These are some of the ones that I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker.

We have had a number of people mention the whole issue of the frivolous or vexatious clause, that we need to deal with the fact that this is an issue –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – that people can just be asking for information for frivolous reasons, or something about the way in which they are asking is found vexatious by somebody inside of a public body or a government department.

I find it really interesting that in his presentation to Mr. Cummings –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – Mr. Ring, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, pointed out that this certainly has not been a major cause for concern from the perspective of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. While the government seems to have real problems with what they call frivolous requests and vexatious requests –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I recognize that hon. members are enjoying the debate this morning, as much as I am, but I do remind members that one hon. member has the floor at any given time.

Right now, once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

As I was saying, the Information and Privacy Commissioner did present to Mr. Cummings the fact that they really have not had a problem with what are called frivolous or vexatious requests. This has not been a problem for them and they do say that it is arguable that there should be an amendment to handle cases, if they exist, and he did go into detail and he did talk about what could be done, what could be put in the act, what could be changes that the bill would put forward to deal with this since government seemed to think that it was a problem. Not a problem for the commissioner's office, but government. He actually does go quite into detail in talking about how Ontario, for example, deals with this and deals with requests that are made in bad faith. He talks about other provinces as well: Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec.

What I find interesting is that a number of provinces and territories permit the commissioner to refuse to conduct a review, if the commissioner makes the judgement that a request is frivolous or vexatious. Other provinces are looking at it and other provinces do have these positions in their legislation, but I find it very interesting that one of the things that the commissioner said and which I do not find in the bill, he talks about the fact that we do have this covered, this issue of frivolous or vexatious requests, we do have it covered in another act, the Personal Health Information Act. He does point out that there is a clause in there which is applied by custodians. He also points out that he thinks the use of the same language, as is used in what is called PHIA, the Personal Health Information Act, that we should use the same language. The thing that he names and which I have not found in the bill –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – is that where the custodian believes on reasonable grounds that the request for access is frivolous or vexatious or made in bad health or bad faith, that it can be refused. He found it really important to point out that it should say that the person making the determination should make it based on reasonable grounds. I have looked for that language in the bill and I have not found it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I will be happy, if it is there, for somebody to show me where it is, but I have not found it. I think the commissioner was very thoughtful in what he put together, the whole thing that he writes on this. He writes quite a bit on it, more than he has written on some other points.

The recommendation that he makes does not seem to be followed – the on reasonable grounds. That is what people are asking and that is what I heard asked here in the House over the last hours: How does the commissioner determine what is frivolous, or vexatious, or made in bad faith? It is not I feel it, or I think it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – or I am annoyed with a person or annoyed with an organization, there have to be reasonable grounds. I feel fine with those words being used and that would be enough to help guide decision making. We do not find that language in the bill, the language of reasonable grounds.

The recommendation from the commissioner – the Information and Privacy Commissioner, because we have two commissioners here all the time that we are talking about - his recommendation was that if the Department of Justice chooses to amend the ATIPPA to include a provision permitting a public body to reject an access request as frivolous or vexatious, that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner recommends that the provision be substantially similar to the section of the Personal Health Information Act. In turn, the decision of a public body to reject an access to information request should be reviewable by the commissioner and/or court.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I think his recommendation was ignored because I do not think it is substantially similar because of leaving out the on reasonable grounds, which is unfortunate. I think this definitely should have been in there.

Another point which the Information and Privacy Commissioner was concerned about, Mr. Speaker, has to do with section 18. Now, I know others have spoken to this, and I am sure some of us think that there is nothing else to be said about the confidentiality issue when it comes to the Cabinet documents. I think listening to what the Information and Privacy Commissioner said is extremely important. Because he is the person who has been the head of this office for a number of years, he has the experience of this office, he has worked with government bodies, with public bodies, with the public who have made appeals to his office, and his experience in communicating with other information and privacy offices across Canada throughout Canada and in the territories. All of that experience, I think, needed to be listened to. I think it is very interesting that he looked – again, it was one of the ones that he looked quite in-depth at, was the whole issue of the Cabinet confidences. He felt absolutely confident, which I find interesting, that we should continue using the language which most jurisdictions in Canada use with regard to Cabinet documents – and that is the phrase: substance of deliberations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: So, in other words, anything that could be described as having the substance of deliberations of Cabinet should not be released. This provision, as he has said, has not been in interpreted in our courts, though it has been interpreted in other courts in Canada. So, what he did was review the interpretations by courts in different jurisdictions across Canada, and come up with what came out of the Court of Appeal in Nova Scotia, which he says characterized best the way to determine the substance of deliberations. What that was, it is likely that the disclosure of the information would permit the reader to draw accurate inferences about Cabinet deliberations.

So in other words, the commissioner would look at a document, for example, a memo in some department and it is a memo that was intended for the Cabinet. If you read it, and you can figure out I know exactly what Cabinet would decide from this, then that would be an accurate interpretation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – to no, that cannot be shown because you can tell what the Cabinet's decision would be. If the document is such that it is an interesting document but you have no idea from reading it how Cabinet would make a decision, then that can be shared. That is certainly what our commissioner believes and it certainly is what he said to Mr. Cummings in his presentation. Obviously, he was ignored because now we have, for section 18, a whole list of documentation that is now predetermined. The commissioner does not have to worry about it at all because all of the decisions are made; however, if people still try to get something and it is determined they cannot have it and they want to appeal, they cannot go even to the commissioner now to appeal, as we know, they will have to go to courts.

The point that the Information and Privacy Commissioner makes in his report is very important. If I could have just a minute to give this one point because it will be my final point, and that is that he disagrees with the use of the listing of Cabinet documents from the Management of Information Act as the list that should be used in the ATIPPA. His reasoning is solid because the list in the Management of Information Act is a list which deals with how to manage information. It is not a list that is looking at what is information that should be given to people. The definition –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: If I could just finish, please, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, by leave.

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

What the Information and Privacy Commissioner is saying is that the list of Cabinet documents in the management act is there for one purpose and talking about Cabinet documents in the ATIPPA is for another purpose. Just taking the list from one act to the other makes no sense. That was his position and that position was ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for being able to clue that up. I will have a lot more to say as we continue on in this discussion.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

Certainly, it is a pleasure to stand here this morning at 3:54, which is roughly twelve hours after my first opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation.

Again, I have had the opportunity now to listen to the members have their say on this, whether Opposition or government. In the case of the Opposition, certainly we have had multiple chances to speak to this legislation and our serious concerns with how it has been drafted and put together. Mr. Speaker, I felt what I should do perhaps is address some of the comments that I heard made by various members of the government when they sort of gave their opinion on this, and how this is such a great, open piece of legislation and seemingly the greatest thing ever when it comes to access to information.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off with the comments from the Member for Mount Pearl North. The Member for Mount Pearl North stood up – again, he has been very clear with his opinion on this via Twitter, and having lots of great things to say about this piece of legislation. Certainly, he was the only one speaking on it for the longest time, on Twitter, which was unusual. He should know, in regard to the comments that – and it has been stated here on many occasions this evening – it was the Liberal government that started this process in terms of looking at it again back in the late 1990s and in the early 2000s. Then, I believe, it was actually passed in March of 2002.

Again, I know there may be a difference between passing it and enacting it, but we have to give the people the full story here, the full story of what actually went on, how a commission was appointed to review this legislation and to review the changes that needed to be made, again, all of the consultations that took place over the Province, certainly the debates that happened in this House, I guess it was over a decade ago now.

The Member for Mount Pearl North talked about how this government is committed to openness and committed to transparency. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, I am still wondering how this piece of legislation accomplishes that. I am waiting for the explanation of how that is going to happen. I do not think you can take away people's right to information, or increase a government's right to protect information and say that this becomes openness or transparency. I think there is a direct conflict in that. Again, I am hoping that at some point during the continuation of this debate a member of government will stand and enlighten me on how I cannot understand that. Maybe that is something that I look forward to.

While we are talking about Mount Pearl, I will move on to the Member for Mount Pearl South who also had an opportunity to stand and speak to this bill. Again, good for him; he stood up and had his say. We should applaud anybody who stands up and speaks to legislation. I am not saying we agree on the different points raised, but you should stand and speak to this. He mentioned the government in 2005 enacted it, but again I would reiterate once more, not the full story here. The full story is that this was started – we had a piece of legislation that came in, in the early 1980s, and it was the Liberal government that started the process again and actually had this bill passed in March of 2002.

I guess this sort of segues into comments that were also made by the Minister of Environment. He talks about how the Liberals, well basically they did not do anything with it, but here is the difference. The time between the passage of the bill in March 2002, and then the election in October 2003, is actually a shorter period of time from when this new government came in, in 2003 and actually enacted the legislation. It took the government longer to put it there. Now, the work had already been done.

What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that between 2002 and 2003 when this bill was first debated and passed, I would note that we actually had to open the ATIPP office and appoint the ATIPP Commissioner, things that had not been done. Those things had to be done. Those things took time. Another part was the education process that came with this. We had to get public bodies prepared to deal with this, with the enormity of what was placed on them. Just the amount of information that had to be passed to these organizations, these public bodies to prepare them for this, this is what took place.

Now, I come back to the Member for Mount Pearl South. The member used the phrase – I have heard him use it a few times now – principled approach; is a principled approach. What I am asking, and you have plenty more opportunity to stand up, or anybody can. Explain to me, what does that mean? What does that mean in relation to this particular amendment? What is a principled approach doing here?

If by principled approach you mean close off the information doors to the public, then yes, you are quite principled. If principled means shutting down the Privacy Commissioner and giving him no ability to do his job, then yes, you are principled. If principled means making sure that any information that ever goes inside the Cabinet doors is no longer available to the public, then yes, I say to you, you are principled.

We talk about these four hours free. Mr. Speaker, I have already listened to the Member for Bay of Islands talk about the four hours free. The fact is, now we have to deal with this issue called contemplation time. We get to watch the government contemplate what information they are not going to give us. That is what is going on here. We get to contemplate. Yes, there might be two more hours added but that is two hours likely with somebody sitting being a desk and figuring out what information shall we redact.

That is the good news, is it will be easier because there is much more now that is excluded. We are into the stage where we do not have to examine what information should and should not be included because we can just exclude it all. Blanket coverage; let's just exclude the works of it, whether it is a Cabinet document or a document that is privy to solicitor-client privilege. It makes life a lot easier now for government not to have to give us this information, or to even consider what information they wish to pass on to the members of the public.

I am going to leave the Member for Mount Pearl South alone. I am going to continue on. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not. I am coming back to the Member for Mount Pearl South. I am moving on to page 2 of my notes here.

We talk about consultation, this is a point that has been raised but these points are so serious and so important that I think they need to be reiterated. One is, was there a consultation phase leading up to this bill? No doubt there was. There was a consultation phase. You heard what the Executive Council had to say, what the Opposition had to say, what the Privacy Commissioner had to say. In some cases there were private individuals out there, or groups out there who had their opportunity. I do not doubt that, that is good. Here is my problem, none of them were consulted on the final product; none of them. The public had a right to see this document that is now being put into this House. That is not good enough. When we have something that is as wide reaching as this and regressive, people should have a right to see this and they have not.

I hear the phrase again: Committed to doing the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have a very simple question, and I would invite anybody in the government to please stand and put me in my place and explain to me, or explain the answer to the question I am about to ask. How is this piece of legislation doing the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? I ask that question; please feel free to enlighten me. Certainly, that is what we are all doing here. We are here to be enlightened. I would put that out there. I have a number of questions here; maybe I will get a chance when we do the committee stage.

I have to move on now. I cannot forget our good friend, the Minister of Municipal Affairs who had his opportunity to speak to this. He stood very proudly. This is a veteran member of this government, an experienced member of this government. He said this is the most open and transparent government ever. What I would say is this legislation flies in the face of that comment. This legislation does nothing to increase openness or transparency or accountability.

Total access; actually, we are not looking for that. We are looking for the balance that existed all along. That is what we are looking for but that does not seem to exist anymore because the balance has slid; the balances there.

MR. RUSSELL: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I ask the Member for Lake Melville, perhaps you can answer questions after I am done. Why don't you stand up and have a say as to this piece of legislation? You can certainly stand up and talk to your hearts delight about this piece of legislation. If you have questions, by all means stand and ask the questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I will keep talking but if members have questions, stand and ask those questions. That is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: I go back to this open and transparent government. Yes, there was a promise made that it was going to be the most – it was going to be unprecedented – open and transparent government ever. The question is, if that is the case why are we regressing? Why are we going backwards? Why are we going back to the dark ages of information? Because this is what is going on here.

I would say this was a promise made and a promise broken. Yes, I tell you, it was a promise made –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: - campaigned on, on numerous occasions, numerous elections. Again, it was not lived up to, not lived up to.

I will quickly move on to the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island who also stood and talked to that. Again, I applaud the member for standing and speaking to this legislation. He has obviously reviewed the draft bill. There is no doubt about that. He came up with a number of points of the recommendations but I have some concerns because I heard at one point, I think I heard the phrase: waste of time. It sounded to me like there was the inference that access to information was a waste of time. That is not something you want to hear when we are talking about people's right to information.

We talked about the time period, or I guess how long we are going to have the commissioner in. We talked about how we followed the best practices, the best practices of everywhere else. Well, the best practices of everywhere else were the five years. That was recommended, but that was not followed. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would say I have an issue with that when we cherry-pick and we make sure that we pick the most stringent parts of legislation elsewhere to impose but then when it comes to other recommendations that could be helpful, they were ignored.

It is funny, since I had an opportunity to speak last time, and one of the things that we actually brought up – it has been brought up on a number of occasions – is this new concept of frivolous and vexatious. I wanted to make sure again, because the purpose of these debates is to make sure we are all informed, so I actually took the time to get the definition of these words to make sure that we all understand and that it is on the record as to what these words mean. What I would say is frivolous, if you look at the dictionary, is characterized by lack of seriousness or sense; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose; of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice. It is funny; we go on then to vexatious. I like the first part of this definition, Mr. Speaker. I love the first part. Vexatious means causing vexation. It is funny when you hear about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Vexatious means to cause vexation. Again, the next term is: annoying. When we talk about vexatious as it relates to legal actions: instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance to the defendant. I guess if we were to apply that logic here in this case the government would be the defendant. Of course, it seems like any claim we make would be vexatious because any access to information request we put in there is annoying to the government. The government does not want to give the information to us.

I am wondering how this new standard is going to be applied if the fact is that frivolous – I would have to see some of these loosey-goosey FOIs put in for one that is given no weight, little or no weight, or lacking seriousness because I certainly know that the ones put in by the Opposition and the ones that are put in by the vast majority of private citizens which, if I recall the statistics right that were given by one of the other members, constitutes the vast majority of these claims, the fact is that none of them are frivolous. They are all serious because they all relate to gathering and accumulating the necessary information.

Again, it is funny when you look at a synonym for vexatious; it also includes disturbing, provoking, and irritating. I know that is what FOIs do to government. When we put that out there, it is an irritant to government. We continue on with vexatious: It is an embarrassment to the defendant – vexatious litigation. Really, that is what we are getting down to here when we talk about these Cabinet records here. We want to avoid embarrassment to the Cabinet and to the Cabinet minister. Before, it was a case of well, there was a time when we did not want to put any briefing books out there, because God forbid, we get those briefing books and see what was considered and what was talked about. That is why in a lot of cases people were being orally briefed on. Briefing books, this thick, were just getting put in their heads, without ever reading them or going through them. So it is amazing how that is done – but in this case, we do not have to worry about it now with this new legislation, because that is going to be avoided altogether, because it is not going to be allowed out to the public anyway.

Now, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a government that came in on this promise of unprecedented openness, but over time has become a government that has been epitomized by the continual blockage of more and more information. It has been routine, systematic, and orchestrated. It has happened more and more over the years, and now we are finally getting the legislation to prove that was the intent the entire time. Of course, I feel bad for the Privacy Commissioner, because they have had their battles over the years. They have certainly had a lot of work battling government for information – certainly a lot of work. It is hard for them to be effective without being permitted to review records. By doing so, their ability to do their job has been compromised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: We have compromised an Officer of this House from being able to do their job. One of the issues, again, that has been talked about is this blanket coverage, Mr. Speaker, this blanket coverage that has been extended. Now, when we talk about this section 18 – which we are going to hear more and more about, section 18, which is also Cabinet confidences. The fact is that most access to information legislation across Canada protects the disclosure of Cabinet confidences which would reveal the substance of deliberations – the substance of deliberations. We know that in Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Ontario, there is a much more substantial description, but again, when we look at Ontario: a public body shall refuse to disclose a record that would reveal the substance of deliberations. So what information was used to get to the Cabinet's decision? That is the promise that we are classifying entire records here. We are not looking at specific pieces of information. We are covering it all off and we are putting it all under lock and key. We have eliminated this test. This test has been eliminated, taken out altogether, just so you understand what we are talking about here. Now, we have that blanket or total coverage. Anything and everything that is discussed by Cabinet is now out of reach. We cannot touch it. We cannot look at it.

We talked about how the Manitoba Ombudsman looked through their Cabinet confidence provisions and they specifically rejected the notion that you could exempt entire classes of records from disclosure, but it is easier to exempt a class of information. Again, that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about this government is trying very hard to eliminate entire classes of information without even considering them or going through them to see what is there, what should be included or what should not be included.

My time is running out, Mr. Speaker. I am going close by saying I look forward to hearing what the members of government have to say. Certainly, they have had some questions here. I can hear them as I have talked. I would say to you now: Stand up and ask those questions. Put it on the record. We are here at 4:14 in the morning. Hansard is still here; Hansard is with us all of the time. Put it on the record and get it out there because the people of the Province certainly deserve to hear what their government has to say on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House now ready for the question on the referral motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is somebody stood there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that the member who has risen has already spoken to the referral motion.

The referral motion reads as follows –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been moved and seconded –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been moved and seconded that the words following the word "that" be deleted and that the following be substituted: "Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Privacy Act, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Government Services."

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the referral motion?

All those in favour of the motion, please say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please say ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now resume debate on the main motion, the second reading of Bill 29.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, this government has branded itself as dedicated to accountability and transparency. We are, as I mentioned before, in a crucial time in the history of our Province. We stand at the cusp of making some of the most important decisions that we will ever make in our Province's history, decisions that will affect generations to come, Muskrat Falls, the development of our natural resources, the large mining projects.

Again, Mr. Speaker, why now? Why now would this government propose legislation to limit our right to know how these decisions are being made, why they are being made, on what basis they are being made, information that tells us who is making the recommendations, what are those recommendations, what advice has government accepted, what advice has government rejected or ignored? Does government have something to hide? If not, why do what is tantamount to closing the doors to access to information?

Mr. Speaker, why is it so important that we continue to debate this? What is the issue at hand? The issue at hand is one of the precious, treasured rights within a fully functioning healthy democracy.

I would like to take a few minutes now to speak to some of the key issues that I think are covered in these amendments. In a March, 2012, newsletter of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner there is a report on the Court of Appeal decision, last fall, that allowed the commissioner once again –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: - to be able to look at records where a public body has denied access to an applicant based on solicitor-client privilege.

Now, back in 2009 again, a judge had ruled that the commissioner could not review such records to see if they really did involve solicitor-client privilege. Then we had the only commissioner in the country with no ability to review such records; Mr. Speaker, the only Privacy and Information Commissioner in the whole country who was prevented from being able to do and fulfill his mandate in his jurisdiction. Thank goodness, our commissioner appealed that decision and won. Our commissioner himself had to appeal and fight for the right to fulfill his mandate under the jurisdiction that was given to him by the ATIPPA.

The commissioner proceeded to review then, after he won his appeal –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: The commissioner proceeded to review the records in fourteen cases that had been delayed earlier by the court ruling. He found in the majority of these cases, more than half the records that he reviewed in his role as commissioner – but more than half the records for which solicitor-client privileged was claimed, in fact, did not qualify. This is a safeguard position that the commissioner serves for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: As we had heard earlier today, some were public documents, including legislation, collective agreements, and a human resource policy manual. Mr. Speaker, these would have gone unchallenged had the commissioner not had the mandate or the jurisdiction to review these cases. Unchallenged, because had they had – the people in question had to go to court, it is more than likely that this would not have gone to court, for a number of reasons. For the lengthiness that it would take, for the cost that it would incur, costs to the applicants and costs to the Province.

In these cases, the records were in fact released after review by the commissioner. In other cases, where the claim was found to be valid in the records, were not released. This is a safeguarding that is inherent in the current ATIPPA.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: A safeguard that works, that is thorough, that is comprehensive. This is how it works across the country. All across the country we have commissioners fulfilling their mandate, fulfilling their jurisdiction, as set out by their particular ATIPPAs.

Denying a Privacy Commissioner access to such records is something new. This is what these amendments do yet again, they bring us all the way back to 2009. This is such a regressive step. The article says if the commissioner is not allowed to review such files, then large quantities of records could be improperly withheld from applicants. There is no need for this. There is no need for large quantities of records to be improperly withheld from applicants.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, that members on the other –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the member who has the floor right now. I ask members for their co-operation.

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

It is very interesting to hear the words and comments from the government members, who obviously are quite anxious to get to their feet and to speak to this as well, and I look forward to hearing from them. I look forward to hearing them speak about these issues. I look forward to hearing what they have to say about the accusations we have, that this is such regressive, absolutely regressive and backward measures.

Mr. Speaker, should the commissioner not be able and not be permitted to perform his very specific mandate under the jurisdiction set out by ATIPPA, then these cases would have to go to court at huge cost to the taxpayer, if in fact the taxpayer could afford to go. If the taxpayer cannot afford to go, then it means we do not have equal access to the law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would mean huge cost to the taxpayer and the applicant, and long delays in giving the applicant records they have a right to see. This is a violation of the spirit and the intent of ATIPPA.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask, has the government estimated what the cost will be to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador when unnecessarily these cases go before the court? What will be the cost to the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador? What will be the cost to this Province? What will be the extra stresses on the court? How will this impact an already overburdened court system? Again, what role will legal aid play –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation.

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

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

Again, what role will legal aid play in assisting those who cannot afford to take their cases before the court? If, in fact, legal aid will not cover such cases, this means we do not have an equal access to justice for every citizen in this country. It means we do not have an accessible justice system, and this is shameful. This is shameful at this point in our history when we are in a period of prosperity, when we know that there will be people who cannot afford access to justice, which is a basic right of every citizen in the Province. This article concludes as well, that going to court will be a major deterrent to applicants, and it will be contrary to the purpose and to the spirit of ATIPPA.

When he won the appeal last fall, the commissioner stated in a news release on October 28, "I call on the Premier to carefully review this decision by the Court of Appeal, and before considering any amendment to the ATIPPA, to decide whether citizens of this province should enjoy the services of a strong Commissioner who is fully able to uphold the rights of citizens granted under that Act, or whether the citizens of this Province should stand at the back of the line and settle for having the weakest Commissioner of an access to information law in Canada."

Mr. Speaker, the power that has been bestowed on the commissioner is fully in line with the spirit, with the purpose of the ATIPPA. To take away that power, that authority, that mandate, that jurisdiction, means that we would have the weakest commissioner of access to information law in Canada, the weakest in the whole country. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation. I am reluctant to continue to interrupt the hon. member when she has the floor. I am also reluctant to name members, so I do ask members for their co-operation once again.

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

Again, it is very interesting to see how eager the hon. members across the hall are to have their voices and their opinions heard. I look forward to them taking their rightful place and standing and speaking when it is their turn. It is very interesting how, when they get to speak, they get to speak uninterrupted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, once again, I am sure the government's intention is not to render our commissioner of information law in Canada – it is not their intention to make him the weakest commissioner in the country, nor would the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want our commissioner of information and privacy to be the weakest commissioner in the country. There has been a lot of work over the years in bringing us an act that is thorough, that is comprehensive, that is fair, that is just, that serves the information and the privacy needs of the people of the Province, and to render it weaker is a shame.

In other provinces, privacy commissioners are given drafts of new legislation or amendments for comment before they come to the Legislature. Section 51.(d) of ATIPPA, the general powers and duties of commissioner gives a commissioner the power to comment on proposed legislation schemes; in other words, a bill. Was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner given the opportunity to comment on this bill? We have no evidence whatsoever that this was done. Again, we know this is done across the country.

In the review of the ATIPPA, section 74 of the act, after five years the minister shall refer it to a committee for the purpose of undertaking a comprehensive review. Commissioner Cummings, in the review on page 5, says the justice minister appointed him as a review commissioner and gave him a mandate. How did we get a commissioner instead of a committee, when it clearly so stated in our act that this was the responsibility of a committee, that the government would appoint a committee as instructed by our act? However, we did not get a committee.

As we can see, Mr. Speaker, there is a continued working by the government to diminish the powers, the jurisdiction and the mandate of the commissioner and also to ignore some of the instructions held in the act. The purpose of ATIPPA, we all know several years ago we had the spending scandal when all three parties learned a lesson, that too much was kept from public scrutiny. The Green report expanded the right of access to information in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Government promised that the right of access would be protected, enhanced in all of government that there would be greater accountability. Now these amendments-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation. As much as I welcome the opportunity to stretch my legs, I remind members that only one member can have the floor at any given time.

Once again, I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

Again, government promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the right of access would be protected, enhanced in all of government that there would be greater accountability. I truly believe, Mr. Speaker, this was a commitment made by the government and by all Opposition parties. This was a commitment that was made in sincerity, recognizing the rights of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have an act that was solid, that would guarantee this right. Now, these amendments are sweeping all of that away.

The spending scandal taught us that we need independent oversight when a public body is refusing access and hiding records accordingly, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by a misguided interpretation. Now government is removing a large part of the right to access. No one, if the refusal of right to access by a public body is appropriate or not, now no one – if the refusal of the right of access by a public body to someone who is requesting that information is appropriate or not, because the right of appeal to the commissioner is not there anymore. Again, we will be facing long court processes.

Mr. Speaker, what that means is we are creating mini commissioners. Who will train these people to make this assessment?

How will there be an assurance that there is going to be a consistency in the application of interpretation and determination of what is solicitor-client privilege and what are Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee that there will be –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – consistency in application in these deliberations, which again renders the ATIPPA subjective and not impartial. We have removed these –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: These amendments take away the commitment to impartiality and independence. Also, it creates an inconsistency in the application of ATIPPA in making decisions about what will and will not be released.

In section 7 of the act, this section generally says that a person has a right to access records unless they are exempted by this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: The purpose of the act is to give the public the right of access to government information unless it is specified in a limited way as an exemption. Once again with this change, they have removed briefing material for the Executive Council from this basic right of access altogether. The commissioner will not be able to review the records to see if they really should be protected. There is no right of appeal here. There is no guarantee; there is no safeguard to ensure that there is consistency in the application of this bill because there are a number –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – of different people who are applying the decisions and making assessments from different perspectives. Not from a perspective of a commissioner who guarantees impartiality and independence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Justice said this is an extensive, significant, far-reaching piece of legislation and yes, it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government, again, has promised the most and is taking away the most.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Thank you.

Mr. Cummings, in his report, had quite a number of observations and recommendations. One of the observations that I think is fair – they say that in the time of war the first casualty is the truth and I think when you are losing democracy, the first casualty is information. It seems that the government is determined to stifle and reduce and eliminate and redact the information that is made available. Doing it through an amendment to a bill – it is as if we are in Alice in Wonderland, we fall down through the rabbit hole and we can say it is what I say it is, because that is what I say it is. If two is four, then two must be four. If four is nine, then four must be nine. The government can say whatever it wants but, in fact, the bill before us, we have to read the bill, in the plain meaning of the bill, and know exactly what it is telling us.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings said that he had discovered that the implementation of the ATIPPA has not had a consistent effect across all public bodies. This is before the introduction of this bill. If it has not had a consistent effect across all public bodies –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is afraid she is going to get out of shape with heckling. No one from the government is speaking, so she does not have a chance to properly heckle so she is going to take it out on me.

In any event, in terms of workload, public bodies that operate within a culture of disclosure, in that most information of interest is freely available, field fewer access to information requests and have fewer issues meeting the requirements of the act. He says that municipal and educational bodies fall into this category, whereas most government departments and Crown corporations are not as transparent. Clearly, if most government and Crown corporations are not as transparent before the implementation of this bill, then clearly, after the fact, there will be even less transparency.

He said, "There are exceptions to this rule when a municipality or education institution becomes embroiled in a political dispute or is targeted by an irate individual with repeated requests for information. Similarly, small municipalities with few resources and little training may also have difficulty meeting the requirements of the Act."

Mr. Speaker, the consultant, Mr. Cummings, also said that during the consultation meetings he heard many comments about the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The vast majority of the comments were positive. If they were positive, Mr. Speaker, before this bill, then hopefully they will be positive afterwards, but I doubt that they will. More likely they will be more negative after the fact as people are finding it more and more difficult to receive the information which actually is information they are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker, something also this bill does not seem to effectively deal with is electronic records. Mr. Cummings said, "Electronic records are growing rapidly in volume and will likely exceed paper records in the near future. Electronic records present new issues for government in terms of access requests. Many officials do not know how to search these records properly."

He said, "Finally, it became apparent over the course of consultations that the public bodies that have adjusted easily to the implementation of ATIPPA have several things in common. In particular, these public bodies have a solid records management plan; a habit of routinely making significant amounts of information public on websites and by other means; and a policy of engaging with applicants to clarify and narrow their requests so they are responded to quickly and in a manner that is satisfactory to the applicant. These bodies deal with requests informally whenever possible and only engage the timelines and other formal aspects of the ATIPPA as a last resort."

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see that if government was in fact more open and transparent as it claims to be, then there would be less need to engage the provisions of the act in any event.

Mr. Cummings went on to say, "Successful public bodies have also readily accepted the ATIPPA issues as a part of their business. The public bodies which are struggling with the implementation of the ATIPPA did not share these attributes and are reluctant to treat access to information as part of their regular responsibilities…". Mr. Speaker, we have heard over the course of the last day, all of the annoyance that seems to be felt by Cabinet ministers if they have to produce this information when Mr. Cummings' view, and I think the view shared by most people, is that information actually belongs to the people, it is the people's information. It should be part of the ordinary course of business for ministers to expect to be able to satisfy ATIPPA requests.

He said that this manner of not looking at the information as part of the routine dealing of the business of the department means that the public bodies did not deal with access to information issues adequately.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings said that he would like to make four, and he did make four, general recommendations regarding the administration of the act related to routine disclosure, the integration of the ATIPPA into public body operations, the importance of record management, and funding. He said that it had become clear that different public bodies handle the ATIPPA in different ways, leading to varying and somewhat contradictory results when responding to requests for information. So, Mr. Speaker, it really begs the question: If we have an act that has been around for the better part of ten years and if different public bodies are dealing with the act differently, then what is wrong? Why is the implementation taking so long, and why is it still so imperfect?

Mr. Speaker, he dealt with routine disclosure and said that based on the consultation, it was apparent that public bodies that had adjusted most readily to ATIPPA are those who make information public as a matter of routine, as opposed to bodies that tend not to make information available. He said, "This seems to reduce the number of formal requests for information and reduces the burden on resources in responding to requests." So, Mr. Speaker, if government and other public bodies see the provision of information as being a routine part of their responsibilities, then there would be fewer requests and certainly fewer court challenges, and generally a better manner of governance. Mr. Cummings felt that it was only an exercise in common sense to regularly make information public, especially information that a public body anticipates will become subject to an access to information request, and which does not fall under an exception to the disclosure.

Mr. Speaker, the act contains rules that set forth exceptions to disclosure, and clearly it was and is easily available for anybody reviewing the act to determine if something is exempted or if it is not exempted, and then to take the appropriate action instead of waiting to be compelled to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it was the observation of Mr. Cummings that government departments are having much greater dealings with access requests than most municipalities and educational bodies. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that of all public bodies that deal with ATIPPA requests, the ones that would have the most difficulty in dealing with it would be government departments. It would seem to defy logic that a government that claims to be open and accountable, that has virtually unlimited resources in relation to municipal governance and educational institutions, that government would have the most difficulty in dealing with access to information requests. It seems to be that either government has not taken it very seriously or government has no interest in supplying reasonable and adequate amounts of information.

He said, "This may be caused partly by differences in the nature of requests received by different types of organizations. However, it is evident that some departments have adopted a secretive attitude, while others are open with their information as a matter of course." If some ministers say I welcome an opportunity to provide information, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, then obviously we take him at his word. If other ministers argue, bicker, stutter and stammer, and claim to be open and in fact they are not, then obviously they have not embraced the attitude that the information is the people's information and as much information as possible should be supplied.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings pointed out: "It is not the purpose of the Act to make things easier for civil servants." I realize that it is not the purpose of the act to make things more difficult for civil servants either; however, it is not the purpose of the act to make things easier for civil servants. He said, "Government departments must remember that providing information to the public under the ATIPPA is just as much a part of their responsibilities as many other things they are called upon to do. Some civil servants have not accepted this fact and regard access requests as a secondary responsibility. Public bodies must be prepared to accept the administration of access to information and protection of privacy legislation as a part of their normal business."

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that if government does take the commissioner's recommendations seriously, really we should not even be here. We should not even need to be debating these amendments because these amendments fly in the face of the recommendations that he has made.

In dealing with records management, he said, "It is important for all parties using and administering the ATIPPA to understand that in certain parts of the public sector there are large quantities of old paper records that are not properly stored or indexed." Mr. Speaker, it would seem to be very unfortunate that we would have so many resources available and yet large quantities of old records are not properly stored or indexed. He indicated, "In many cases, these paper records can only be accessed if long term employees of the public body know from experience where specific records are to be found. These employees are now retiring from the public sector in large numbers and once they are gone the only reasonable means for finding some records will be also gone."

Mr. Speaker, it would seem we are providing information to the public where we may well be at a tipping point with respect to some of these older records and older employees. What do we do when the older employees are no longer around? We are storing large volumes of paper records and documents that we have no way of knowing what is in those documents, how to access them. In all likelihood, they are taking up space unnecessarily. We may well be paying rent in various places for records that we do not even know what we have.

Mr. Speaker, he also dealt with fees, in charging fees. He was of the view that while public bodies suggested fees should apply to the time accumulated while consulting other parties necessary to respond to a request. I am not certain if this falls into the contemplation time, but it means that if a public body is requested to provide information and they have to consult with another party, then they ought to be able to charge for this time spent. He did not agree with that, although he indicated several public bodies disagreed with the position of the commissioner's office.

The actual fees charged to an applicant may not exceed the amount of an estimate provided to the applicant. Mr. Speaker, that would only seem to make sense, if an estimate is provided in order to provide guidance. If somebody makes a request for certain information under ATIPPA and provided a fee quote, then realistically they should expect to pay no more than that. In many cases the fee quotes are quite exorbitant. I have seen fee quotes in excess of $1,000 within the last month. The normal response then, simply, is to appeal to the commissioner and hope to have the amount reduced, and try to figure out a way to get less information than was actually required. It seems to be a waste of additional time and effort if there is too much argument over fees.

He pointed out additionally; public bodies describe situations in which applicants abandon their access to information requests because fee estimates were too high. Mr. Speaker, this would seem to mean that some people are going to be priced out. An individual may not be very well off financially and just give up on their chase for information. However, this still does not relieve the public body of having to deal with the request because then the public body had to deal with the request, had to generate a fee quote and no benefit resulted to anybody.

He proposed a potential solution to the problem. One public body suggested that applicants should pay a non-refundable estimate fee with their application. That would seem to make sense. Mr. Cummings' view was it is not reasonable that fees should be set to accomplish complete cost recovery, or that fees be used to discourage a wide-ranging right to seek information from public bodies. He said the right to information is the clear purpose of ATIPPA.

Mr. Speaker, it seems what we are looking at are diverging views of: Does the individual have the right to the information? That is the intent of the act. Clearly, it is the position of the Opposition, and clearly it was the position of the government before, who actually enacted the original act.

If people have a right to the information, then any fees charged could be of a nominal amount. Otherwise, we have a situation – for example, in Opposition, where Opposition is part of government as well, if the Opposition is given a budget for fees for freedom of information and then the information is not free. I can imagine a member of the public thinking: this is just insanity that one part of government is charging a fee to another part of government to supply information which should be readily available in any event.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to move an amendment, seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. I move that the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted: this House declines to give second reading to Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, because the bill, if enacted, is insufficient in strengthening the provisions to release information to the public.

I am sorry, seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains. I have copies.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

I have an amendment put forward by the Member for St. Barbe. We will take a brief recess to consider whether the amendment is in order.

MS JONES: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I was rising to a point of order, I guess, to the amendment before it is deliberated (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair to say why she is standing again, to speak to the amendment?

MS JONES: We have proposed a reasoned amendment. I just wanted to explain because there have been no recent references of this being done in the House of Assembly. The last one that I could find was actually in 2005. That was made at that time by the Member for Bay of Islands, who is currently still the same member for the Bay of Islands. It was pertaining to Bill 41 at that particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair to take her seat. I just need to check whether indeed it is proper for you to speak to this reasoned amendment before we actually consider if it is in order.

Order, please!

We will take a brief recess to consider whether or not the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has considered the amendment put forward by the Member for St. Barbe and has deemed it to be not in order. The Speaker would also suggest that if the member wishes to strengthen provisions in the bill, then this can be done through proposed amendments in the Committee stage.

We will go back to the Member for St. Barbe to conclude his remarks.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to quote from Standing Order 42 of the House –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the member is going to be speaking to contest a ruling of the Speaker, I will advise her right upfront that she cannot do that. We have ruled that this amendment is not in order and that ruling cannot be questioned.

MS JONES: On that question of ruling, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not questioning the ruling. Under section 42 of our Standing Orders it says: "Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, he or she shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereupon...". I guess what I am asking, Mr. Speaker, is for the rationale as to why the motion has been declined?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am looking at Standing Order 42, as the Opposition House Leader has referenced. Based on that, I will provide from O'Brien and Bosc, page 750, the second bullet, if the member would like to see it, says: "It must not relate to particulars of the bill if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in committee." The Speaker has given this deep consideration and believes that section of O'Brien and Bosc is certainly grounds for the ruling that we have made.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your ruling; I just want to have it noted for the record that I was putting forward this motion based on precedents set in 1991 and 2005 in our House of Assembly, and in the House of Commons in 1992 and 2006, where reasonable amendments were sought to other bills as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Member for St. Barbe, to continue with his comments.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no further comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to the amendment?

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: To the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: To the main motion, sorry.

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will spend a couple of more minutes and continue talking about this piece of legislation. I had a few minutes to go upstairs and carry on with the research as regards this piece of legislation. I wanted to get into talking about the Privacy Commissioner's role and some information from the Privacy Commissioner as regards to the number of access requests he has had to deal with over the years.

You can start off in 2006-2007 when he had 556 requests. The number of requests, basically, we have been dealing with over the years when it came to access to information requests has remained fairly steady over the years. From 2006-2007 he dealt with 556; 2008-2009 was 544; and 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 was 585. I think that number is down this year. The number of requests he has had for information this year is 581. It has remained relatively static over those years. Amongst those requests, we had 426 requests to public bodies in 2005-2006 as well. The requests for personal information, since 2008-2009, is running roughly seventy-five requests a year. It is below 100 certainly, according to the graph I was looking at.

While government may think it is critical that a lot of these requests and everything had to be dealt with – frivolous requests – I do not look at this as being a significant number that would be signifying a lot of frivolous requests. We have seventy-five here that are dealing with information of a personal nature, and 426 requests to public bodies, like I said, in 2005-2006. Those numbers are remaining relatively constant.

I want to get back, as well, to talking about the actual act. As we said, it is not all bad as regard to what is in the act. The one thing that I did find positive about this piece of legislation was the simple fact of the police forces of the Province being able to have access to information that would be critical, I guess in this particular case, in crime solving and that sort of thing. That is really the only positive thing that I could find in there.

I want to talk a little bit about what is bad in the act as well; I think is pertinent, that really stands out. The simple fact over dispute resolution, I think is one sore point with a lot of people. We are talking about an extra added cost to the court system, and no doubt everybody wants to see justice done and justice earned on the part of some people, or justice that would be passed on.

The simple fact is that the dispute resolution system, when it comes to identifying whether something is going to be Cabinet secrecy or not, the only recourse then to get that information is through the courts and that can take years. We are talking about the possibility of tying up the court system with some information like this, which should have a little bit of a better dispute resolution form to it.

What makes a Cabinet record? Again, I have to touch on that. It could be anything from proposals, briefing notes, advice, research reports, consultations or deliberations, audit reports, and draft legislation. I want to touch on audit reports again because I think the Auditor General's powers are being taken away with this piece of legislation.

If you sit down and see any one of the numbers of reports that the Auditor General does in the run of a year. He talks about the spending of taxpayers' money and how that money is being spent in departments. The Auditor General is the one person we look to, and yes, the government of the day did allow the Auditor General into the House to look at the books, and God love him for doing it.

There is not a person in Newfoundland and Labrador right now who holds this government to account for allowing the Auditor General in. It was a positive move. We know we got back as a result of the Green report and the other recommendations that came through with that. The people are able to see exactly how their money is now spent in the House of Assembly. If the Auditor General is allowed in to look at things like that, certainly with this piece of legislation he is going to be barred from an awful lot of things here too now at the same time. We are going to be missing something as a result of that.

I will carry on here with the refusal of disclosure, for many reasons. Let's look at the reasons for the refusal of disclosure, financial, third party liability for the determination of suitability, qualifications, trade secrets, scientific or technical info, positions, plans and procedures. Does this include protocols in the case of an emergency, that sort of thing?

I want to get into taxpayers' money, and talk a little bit about that. It is their money, their information, but their access is being denied by this legislation.

Briefing notes again; briefing notes are supposed to be information that would be Cabinet material that people are not going to be able to get their hands on, let alone media. Any documents produced for Cabinet purposes, anything deemed Cabinet is off limits to the Auditor General. You invited him in, now you are kicking him out. Any recourse and it goes to the courts, it could be tied up for years. The right to know has become the right to no – n o. So we are losing something here with this piece of legislation.

Part 18 of the act, the changes omits substance of deliberation. Instead, there is a list of terms defined as Cabinet records. In 18.(2) these records are restricted. The list includes advice, draft legislation, memos should be restricted, but policy proposals, factual or background material are all problematic. Many things could be defined as Cabinet records that do not reveal any confidences.

The list is the same as the management of information, an act defining Cabinet records. The government says they are just being consistent. Where is the consistency? We have seen the act changing over the years like that. We keep going and revisiting the act, which is fine and dandy. It is okay to be revisiting legislation but every five years for something like this, I think it is a bit much.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner says the MIA list should have no bearing on Cabinet confidences in the ATIPPA. That act bears on the management of information but it is the ATIPPA which bears on the public's right of access to information found in records, regardless of how the MIA categorizes these records.

Records are defined as official, discontinued, and supporting documents. We may be the only Province where the commissioner does not have the right to review a claim to something as an official Cabinet record. Imagine! It is unbelievable. We can actually discount something of our own accord. It is disturbing. Again, I will ask government to reconsider.

Information held by public bodies; information that will reveal advice and proposals, recommendations, analysis or policy offices is much wider than the original, which was a standard across the country in the first place. The difference is proposals, analysis or policy options are now being included. They were not before. You can imagine many factual documents or unpublished reports and proposals from an outside party that Cabinet is deliberating over but then become restricted. Any of these proposals, analysis or policy options – the PIRA report, for Cabinet eyes only. We do not get to look at it. If Cabinet has its stamp on it, we do not get to look at it.

Taxi chits may become Cabinet material. We might not be able to look at those costs for the particular departments in question. Some of these pieces of information are probably going to be seconded to the various departments and we may never know the actual cost it is going to be costing the taxpayer out there.

They say the new wording is similar to Alberta, but Alberta's law is the least transparent in the country. The old wording is standard across Canada still. If the report is incomplete, if nothing has been done on it for three years – a report we don't like is tweaked every few years, it could always be unfinished. You might never have to release it. Tweak and tweak away.

Mr. Speaker, there are lot of problems with this piece of legislation. I think it needs to be revisited over and over again, and that is why we are here. The longer we take scrutinizing this piece of legislation the better off we all are, the better off the taxpayers of the Province are when it comes to having it revisited.

The section is broader and moving away from the intent of the original, which was to protect trade secrets, for example. That would be commercial or financial information that could be harmful to various business interests that are out there.

The first clause is to protect all business interests whether they are harmful or not, subsection 27. The national standard here is the three-part harms test. Again, the national standard is three but now we are going to be knocking it down to one.

The old wording is standard across provinces and this new wording: no harm is to be (inaudible) to the third party is wrong. It was voted down. Plus, a public body cannot release this information. It is mandatory not to release it, even if it is not harmful to the company.

This is extra protection to corporate interests. Again, like I said, if we are going to be looking after the corporate interest here, we have to say welcome to Newfoundland and Labrador Incorporated now, because this is totally business minded. I think if the taxpayer is going to be the one who is left out of the mix here, and we are going to have more of a corporate looking after, then I think there is a bit of a problem here. I am sure corporations, in some cases, deserve a degree of protection, no doubt, as what the taxpayer does. At the same as that, these days, nothing is ever done for the taxpayer benefit over that of the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on. I am pretty sure there is going to be other times to talk about this. There are another couple of things here. There are a lot more things that stand out. When it comes to Bill 29, section 39 is particularly standing out as well: "Subsection 39(1) of the Act is amended by deleting the word ‘or' at the end of paragraph (r), by deleting the period at the end of paragraph (s) and substituting a semicolon and the word ‘or', and by adding immediately after that paragraph the following: (t) where the disclosure would not be an unreasonable invasion of a third party's personal privacy under section 30" – a very important section – "(u) to an officer or employee of a public body or to a minister, where the information is necessary for the delivery of a common or integrated program or service and for the performance of the duties of the officer or employee or minister to whom the information is disclosed".

Subsection (u) could be a loophole here. There is not a lot of opportunity for the sharing for information between public bodies about yourself, and that is pretty important when it comes to the exchange of information that happens. Information that is about you is carried on between public bodies.

Info can be disclosed to a surviving spouse. If there is a problem, it is up to the opinion of the head of the public body, for example. There are no criteria given for making the decision. There could be situations where it could be better not to disclose some of the information. Such a provision should have a list of criteria as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is an awful lot here, and it almost too much to swallow at the same time when you are looking at an act that is big and has ramifications like it does. Some things in this act, for example, under section 20, subsection 43(1) of the act – I am just looking at it here now; solicitor and client privilege. This changes what the commissioner can do. In (a) and (b), we are not aware that this is the case anywhere in Canada, unless it is very recent. The commissioner can never again look at official Cabinet records or a record claimed as solicitor-client privilege. Again, if it is deemed to be solicitor-client privilege, we may never get the chance to review a document. We may never be able to get a chance to wonder, go back, and revisit.

That is about the most I can say on this one right now. Mr. Speaker, as regards this piece of legislation, it is going to be a little bit of fun going back and revisiting this act again. No doubt there is going to be a lot more discussion with regard to what is going on with this act, but I will leave it there for now, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I have the privilege of standing on this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is about 6:16 in the morning in this family-friendly Legislature. Bringing in this here, 6:30 in the morning, and ramming it right on through, Mr. Speaker. It is such good legislation they are trying to bring it through the cloak of darkness, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are smiling, too, because you know how good this legislation is. There is no way in the world would you deny, Mr. Speaker, someone from your district the ability to get information. The only way to do it is to go to court – no way in the world. You are too fair of man for that, Mr. Speaker, I am pretty confident. I know you agree with me.

I made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, that I will not raise my voice and I will not say anything to the members opposite, only if they sit down like they usually do, be attentive, and just listen.

Mr. Speaker, here we are now, as I mentioned earlier, this open and transparent accountability was always a big issue with the government. Some of the words used were elitist back in 2003, Mr. Speaker. In 2003, there were a lot of them. I mentioned earlier some of the people who were around in 2003, in the Blue Book they committed to open up all Cabinet documents.

Mr. Speaker, when I was here, and I spoke a few minutes earlier about 1:00 o'clock, I mentioned a few names and you could see them all slithering in their seats. I was happy enough and I was good enough, I went out and found out who was around in 2003. All of those people now who were open and accountable, who were going to bring in all of this legislation and open up Cabinet documents, let us see who made that commitment in 2003 over now changing their minds, Mr. Speaker. Not only have they changed their minds, Mr. Speaker, they have made it so hard now on people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is so draconian it is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker – 6:30 in the morning; it is unbelievable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I hear a few people over the other side. Is my name on the list? They are saying: Are they over on the list, Mr. Speaker. I let you know if your name is on the list.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Georges – Stephenville East, 2003, stood up and made the commitment – 2003, made the commitment to stand up and present all Cabinet documents. Guess what? I bet you she is going to vote, Mr. Speaker, to right now to put hobnails to all the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, because now they want they everything quiet and secret. In 2003 in the Blue Book when they all went around, they brought around here – let me see, who else? The Member for Port au Port, Mr. Speaker. He was here also and he voted and wanted to get it done, Mr. Speaker. He went on that Blue Book commitment. I see a few more down there sliding down in their seats, but I have the list, you cannot slide low enough here tonight that I cannot find you here with this list, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you will never guess – the Member for Virginia Waters in 2003 stood up on the platform and said: We are going to open up every Cabinet document, make it public. Take a guess who that is today, Mr. Speaker. That is our Premier – that is our Premier. Our Premier here, in 2003, Mr. Speaker, told all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, Cabinet documents, we are going to make them public – we are going to make them public. That is what they are going to do, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Virginia Waters, our Premier, the one who stands up and says if I say it, I am going to do it – the same one, Mr. Speaker, the same one. If we make a commitment, we are going to stand by it. That is the same one in 2003, Mr. Speaker. The rest of them over there, take your time, I will get you all.

Conception Bay South – he was up earlier this morning, Mr. Speaker, going on about all this openness and transparency. He was the one, Mr. Speaker, in 2003 he stood up and made the commitment – guess what now, Mr. Speaker? He is going to have to go back to his residents – when one of his residents says I have a problem with government, do you know what he is going to have to say to them? Take it to court. Go get yourself a good lawyer and take it to court, Mr. Speaker. That is what you are going to have to say to it now, Mr. Speaker – unbelievable, unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.

Who else? Harbour Main – Whitbourne, Mr. Speaker –

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible) Harbour Main.

MR. JOYCE: Harbour Main – sorry, Harbour Main now, but it was Harbour Main – Whitbourne.

Harbour Main, Mr. Speaker – that is the same member over there now trying to get me to stop saying which member, because he was here in 2003 when he stood up and made that commitment.

This legislation is so draconian. It puts everybody behind so many years, Mr. Speaker, about the open and transparent government.

They do not even want to hear their names being said, Mr. Speaker, as being here. You do not see any of them standing up and saying: Yes, I was here in 2003. I made that commitment, but I am breaking my promise now. I am going through it one by one. They have lots of opportunity to stand up now and say: Yes, I made the promise, but I am breaking it now. Here is your opportunity to stand up on a point of order. No, Mr. Speaker, they will not do it. Mr. Speaker, they will not hide, I have the list here. They will not be able to hide.

Let me see now. The member from Grand Falls-Windsor and Springdale was here. He made that big commitment also, Mr. Speaker. I am going to go through it right now what they are going to do to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and what they committed. I always remember when the Premier, she was here: what we say is what we do. Mr. Speaker, you explain to me, when the Premier stands up and says what we say is what we do, but in 2003 she made the commitment that she is going to open up Cabinet documents.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for guidance. What is it I am allowed to say? Is it factually incorrect what was said in 2003 or is it a misunderstanding between members when you have it in writing and the member is still here? I am going to need some guidance with that eventually because I have a funny feeling it is going to come up again. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Speaker, you have to say: If you made the commitment, you should live up to the commitment. Right now, Mr. Speaker, with the commitment in the Blue Book, our Premier obviously did not live up to the commitment.

Mr. Speaker, who else do we have here? The Member for Burin – Placentia West was another one. He stood up here also. I am going to go through this a bit quicker, Mr. Speaker, because I want to get through some of the legislation. I just want to be able to get through the legislation itself. I am going to go through the names a bit quicker just to show what all of you committed to in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, not one of them stood up yet and said: I made that promise in 2003 but I broke it. Not one, Mr. Speaker. Here is an opportunity. I am a nice guy, Mr. Speaker. They can stand up on a point of order, I will not interrupt them. Here is their opportunity. I am looking. Get up; don't go falling down in your seats. I have your names here. Sit up straight. You are not going to get away from me.

The Member for Trinity – Bay de Verde was another one, Mr. Speaker. Every now and then she has her little words coming back and forth. Look at her over there, Mr. Speaker, yes. Look at her over there, a big smile. Mr. Speaker, I tell you the next time when she starts across the House having her little chatter around I am going to say, remember in 2003 you promised to open up the Cabinet papers. Stand up and say no, that was a false commitment. Look, a bit of blushing over there I say.

Mr. Speaker, who else do we have next?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Humber East, my buddy, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Hold it now, Mr. Speaker. I am not the one here – because I understand everybody in this House is honourable, I understand that. The Member for Humber East then ran with the commitment – but see I do not feel too bad about that, because he had it in his brochure he is going to start the hospital this year.

I know the hospital is not even part of this legislation, ATIPP but I guarantee you I am going to put a freedom of information in to see actually when it started, Mr. Speaker. I am going to do that just to see how long – see when the process started. The actual process, Mr. Speaker, started with the design, the pre-design.

In 2007, that is when the big announcement was made, Mr. Speaker. That is when they were ready to start the hospital, Mr. Speaker. The member now for Humber East back in 2003 committed to open up the Cabinet papers, open up all Cabinet documents and lay it out.

Mr. Speaker, if that was followed through in 2003, guess what? I could tell you exactly when the pre-design started, where it is today and where it is going to be in the next four or five years, but guess what? Because they did not follow through on that commitment – not only they did not follow through on the commitment, they are going to make it so difficult for people like me, on behalf of the people on the West Coast, to get the information on the hospital that the Member for Humber East is still going to have to run for the next two or three elections, Mr. Speaker, before we get the hospital built out in Corner Brook.

Now we have the Member for Gander, he was here in 2003. The Member for Gander was here, Mr. Speaker. Here is your opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Here is the Member for Gander, stand up, I say – I think you will – stand up and say I really meant what I was going to do in 2003, but I never did it. Here is your opportunity. The Member for Gander was going to open up all Cabinet documents, put it on the table, no secrecy, here is your opportunity. No, Mr. Speaker, I did not think so.

We look at the Member for St. John's South, Mr. Speaker. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South, I do not feel too bad about him when he was part of the government who said yes, we are going to open up Cabinet documents. I do not mind that, because he was the same member who stood up in this House when he was in Opposition, if he never did it once he never did it 100 times, promising a building for the disabled up in his district. Guess what? It is not built. So I do not mind, because I know a couple of things, when he was over here and made all of these commitments that he did not follow up on –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask the member to keep his comments relative to the principle of the bill.

MR. JOYCE: It is, Mr. Speaker, freedom of information. He used to put in the freedom of information, the Member for St. John's South, and look for the money. How come it was not spent? When he got in government, Mr. Speaker, they stopped. The Freedom of Information requests stopped. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? He had no intention of building that. All they wanted to do was stand up and say we are going to do this. The minute that he turned around and got in government, guess what? That was off the table. That was completely off the table.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just going to move on with some of the other amendments. Half of you now over across the way can get back up in your seats; I will not mention the rest of you. I promise I will not, Mr. Speaker, just for the sake of being so nice at this hour of the morning, 6:30 in the morning, with people just getting up now, looking at this and wondering why we are still going all night.

I think it is such a piece of legislation that is going to affect all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is going to affect us all, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand – and I know government is trying to push it through. Just get it done. Let's take two or three days of it, let's take the flack for two or three days and get it done. Don't give anyone any time whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, anybody given any time to go through it, to have public consultations on this legislation. They will not do it.

I hear a few of them over there telling me to sit down, but until I am elected, Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go through the freedom of information. I will stand in this House and say what my piece is. I had calls tonight from the people of Bay of Islands when they seen this on the news tonight. They said: What are they doing? I said: They are stripping away your rights. They are taking your rights away, Mr. Speaker. Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, they are taking away your rights. They are taking away your rights. At 6:30 in the morning, they are trying to take away your rights here in Newfoundland and Labrador – an open and accountable government. Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you one thing, every possible angle I can get to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to know what hobnail legislation they are trying to push through here this hour of the morning, it is unbelievable. It is actually unbelievable. They are pushing it through – every one of them trying to push it through.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go and speak a few minutes on the briefing that we had. I do not know where I left off, but I will just start at number four. I do not know if I did number four before because here I am going to give the –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: No, I am going to give number four, Mr. Speaker. This is where I have to give the government a bit of credit. I have to give the government a bit of credit here. Do not ever say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not praise the government up when need be. Here is another example for me: Mr. Cummings recommended increased funding for Official Opposition for purchased services. Now, Mr. Speaker, just imagine, they are going to give us more money, but we cannot get the information. Now what a good government, I say. They are going to give us all kinds of money to apply under freedom of information but when you go further in the legislation, we cannot get information that they gave us the money for. Now, Mr. Speaker, what do you call that? I know you are a fair man, Mr. Speaker, so you need to help me with some of this, because I know a fair-minded person like yourself understands that you cannot do that to individuals. That is taking away their rights, Mr. Speaker, and you know it. I know you are fair-minded man.

I got this one – Recommendation 5, where someone writes something about somebody, Mr. Speaker, that you should have access to it. That there is a good piece of legislation if someone writes a letter about you, but later on in the report I will show you a piece of legislation that we were given in the briefing, whereby if someone writes and they are in the educational or some other – you cannot get it, but here they are saying you can. So there is a bit of a conflicting view there, Mr. Speaker.

There is another one, Recommendation 8, "This recommendation has not be accepted as processing fees will be raised from $15 to $25 an hour to be consistent with other jurisdictions…". Mr. Speaker, the biggest part about this – and I think I mentioned it earlier – they are going to say we are not going to charge you, and I heard at least four, five or six members standing up, Mr. Speaker, and say well, two hours is free. Now it is four hours.

MR. LANE: Four hours.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, you are right; the Member for Mount Pearl North, I think it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: South.

MR. JOYCE: South, sorry. Like I said, he was up, Mr. Speaker, pounding his chest tonight with that. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? He forgot to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, now, anybody who is reviewing your request is going to charge you for contemplation, is the word. While they are sitting down behind their desk – now, what should I release? They are going to be charged for that, Mr. Speaker.

Once they decide what you are going to release – now, what should I redact? Mr. Speaker, the person who puts the request in has to pay for this. What a good government. I am amazed. You are almost fooling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador you know. You almost did say oh yes, we are going to give you four hours, but you forget to add the little part. Even here, Mr. Speaker, in the briefing note it is in the appendix, contemplation time for serving. A little, small note: contemplation time for serving – a little "Timbit" that you happened to leave out, Mr. Speaker. I know the Member for Mount Pearl South, when we talk about Timbits a bit smile comes on his face, but this is the information here, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Double-double (inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes, I agree, looking for a double-double, Mr. Speaker. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are getting a double-double, Mr. Speaker. Sit down, we will give you the money but we will charge you while we are thinking about what to do to you. That is a good double-double.

Mr. Speaker, I make a reasoned amendment. I move that the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted: This House declines to give second reading to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act because the bill, if enacted, contains provisions that will make the same release of public information too erroneous in terms of time, cost, and other resources.

This is seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains, Mr. Speaker. I will sit down and I have a copy here for the Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will take a brief recess to consider whether the amendment is in order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are going to consider if the amendment is in order, I say to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. I will not be able to recognize her until after we come back with that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has considered the amendment put forward by the Member for Bay of Islands and has ruled it to be not in order.

O'Brien and Bosc, page 750, states, in reference to the reasoned amendment, "It must not relate to particulars of the bill if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in committee." It is the ruling of the Speaker that proposed amendments at the committee stage may achieve the objectives sought through this amendment.

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

MS JONES: A point of clarification (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, on a point of order?

MS JONES: No, a point of clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: We have no provision for a point of clarification.

Are you standing on a point of order?

MS JONES: Okay, a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I am standing on a point of order, and maybe I should already have known this, but I am just wondering if there is a provision within our House of Assembly that once you make a reasoned amendment to a particular bill in second reading, if there is an opportunity to speak to the rationale for that prior to the Chair making a ruling? I am not sure if that actually exists or not because we have not had an opportunity to make any representation as to the rationale behind these amendments that we have been proposing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I will say to the Opposition House Leader, that there is no provision. Once a motion is put forward, an amendment, then there are no other speakers until there is a ruling on that amendment.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise again today and to say a few more words about Bill 29, the proposed Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, as we have been saying during this debate, that one of the core purposes of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is to make public bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador more accountable to the public, to provide a right of access to documents, to records, to information for citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: - and most importantly, to provide for an independent review of decisions that are made with respect to the act by public bodies, government departments, and so on.

The function of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, while some may not think it the case, is much more than an administrative responsibility. The function of the Information and Privacy Commissioner really speaks to the core function of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

It is important to note, the commissioner's statutory jurisdiction is not a jurisdiction over records. It is a jurisdiction to conduct reviews of decisions that are made, whether to provide or not to provide access to certain information, documents or records. Jurisdiction to conduct reviews of acts or failures to act with respect to access of information requests for a variety of information, documents, records and so on, and to consider whether decisions regarding certain records are responsive to requests made by an individual on whether refusals to disclose records are indeed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the Member for St. John's North. I would ask all members for their co-operation.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I was listening to our hon. colleagues here discussing this, I was again reflecting back to what the minister had said in introducing and providing information earlier yesterday about Bill 29 and the suggestion that this is going to strengthen access to information and protection of privacy. It may indeed protect government from having to share information. There is little question about that now.

Mr. Speaker, if you can judge from media reports and the way journalists have responded to this, I cannot see how this strengthens access to information. This is more in the order of denying access to information than it is about providing an ease of access to information.

We have had an opportunity to have a good look at the legislation and we have listened to the debate – and we have had hours of debate on this now and I am sure we will have hours of additional debate – but the more I hear and the more we discuss Bill 29, the more concerned I grow about what the impact of this will have, not only in the short-term but what are the long-term implications of these amendments to the provision for access to information in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I really find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that none of the hon. members across the room from me have some of the same reservations that I do. Because, in the end, we all are elected to this Legislature and we all have the same responsibilities to our constituents, the people who elected us, those who we represent. I find it hard to believe that there are no others on the government side who have some reservations about what it is that this legislation is going to achieve, and what the short-term and the long-term implications of the changes are going to be.

Bill 29 is not good legislation. Despite what some have had to say, it is not good. I think it is retrograde legislation. If I can, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share our top ten list of the things that we do not like about Bill 29. So, here are the top ten – I feel like there should be a musical introduction, but barring a musical –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Okay, we have some musical accompaniment, Mr. Speaker.

The top ten things that we do not like about Bill 29: Number ten, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to even find one change that makes it easier for anyone to get information – it is hard to find even one change in this bill, one change to the existing legislation, that actually makes it easier for a member of the public – and we know that, because we talked about the statistics earlier. Most of these requests that are reviewed by the commissioner are indeed requests made by the commissioner, over 90 per cent, I believe, in the most recent annual report.

Number nine of the top ten reasons we do not like Bill 29: There is no review mechanism for what constitutes a Cabinet confidence. As we have seen, this particular legislation appears to really reflect only the legislation of one other province in Canada – I believe that is Ontario, which does not provide that review mechanism for a commissioner to come in there and have a look and make an assessment, to be the empire, to be the arbiter, to make decisions about whether or not yes, indeed something constitutes a Cabinet confidence.

Our number eight reason why we do not like Bill 29 is that Bill 29 expands the definition of Cabinet documents, exempting more of them from release to the public. It provides more of a blanket immunity, if you will; it really encircles a lot more documentation and puts a lot more documents and records and information beyond the access and beyond the view of members of the public, the media, and the Opposition political parties who may be seeking information.

Mr. Speaker, the number seven reason why we do not like Bill 29 is that Cabinet briefing notes are now exempt from access requests for five years. I mean, do we really think that most of the current Cabinet will be around in five years to defend themselves? You have to ask yourself that question. Some may or some may not. Considering that members are shuffled in and shuffled out of Cabinet, it is highly unlikely that Cabinet ministers would be around the five years hence to answer to decisions that were made five years prior.

So that was number seven. The number six reason why we do not like Bill 29 is that Bill 29 strips the Auditor General of a right of access to certain information and documents. We know that there are amendments to that act, the Auditor General Act here in this particular bill as well. As the Auditor General had said earlier this year in the report of the Auditor General, there are already problems with the provision of information for the use by the Auditor General's office.

The number five reason why we do not like Bill 29: The Citizens' Representative, the Auditor General, and the Child and Youth Advocate have terms of between five and seven years and the Information and Privacy Commissioner has just two – the lowest in the country. We believe that there should be an extension of the term of office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to reflect the terms of office of other Officers of the House of Assembly, and also other Information and Privacy Commissioners, the comparable officials who are in place across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the number four reason why we do not like Bill 29 is that this government used to brag about having the best access to information in Canada, but it seems that this bill, with its amendments, will give us some of the most restrictive legislation in the country. We are going from having relatively legislation that is sort of leading, to legislation that is lacking.

Mr. Speaker, the number three reason why we do not like Bill 29 is that now with Bill 29 Cabinet ministers are the final authority on whether or not a request is deemed to be frivolous and vexatious, or as I said earlier frivolously vexatious, or vexatiously frivolous, whatever combination of those peculiar terms that you want to use. Cabinet ministers are able to make those determinations themselves without any consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which really should not be the case. Because there needs to be an arbiter, there needs to be an umpire, and there needs to be someone who has an opportunity to intervene on behalf of members of the general public seeking information.

Mr. Speaker, the number two reason why we do not like Bill 29, is that anyone who wants to appeal a decision a Cabinet minister makes on a vexatious or frivolous basis will have to take it to court. Who can afford the money or the time to do that? We think there really needs to be more balance in terms of the cost to ensure that those seeking the information, and the taxpayer as well, do not inordinately shoulder or carry the cost because the cost can be prohibitive. Depending on your particular financial situation, you may not be able to go to the courts to get remedied for information that you are seeking.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, the number one reason, the number one thing the New Democratic Party caucus does not like about Bill 29 is that Bill 29, indeed, appears to not have a proper name. It is more like denying access to information, rather than providing access to information. It should have a name that better reflects what, in fact, it is accomplishing.

This is all very interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, because I remember back in the election in 2003 when the Conservative Blue Book was released. The Blue Book promised to proclaim new freedom of information legislation which would include amendments that would clearly identify information that should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents. It says that right there in black and white. It would ensure full disclosure and prompt disclosure of that information to the public. This is a complete reversal of that position. It flies directly in the face of that commitment. It says they are no longer interested in that.

I was listening intently as the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair was talking about skeletons in closets. You have to wonder why, at this point in time, almost a decade into the mandate of the current government, that we are seeing this complete and utter shift, reversal and position on this issue of access to Cabinet documents. Because as this piece of legislation stands, Mr. Speaker, you can just stamp it top secret, Cabinet document, and it does not matter. It can be draft documents, it can be finalized documents, it can be reports, it can be briefing materials, and it can be any sort of material. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you could take this Bill 29, you could stamp Cabinet secret on it, and despite the fact that this bill is in the public domain it would then be more or less a private piece of information for Cabinet. I just do not think that is appropriate.

The spending scandal that we saw several years ago – let's face it, implicated all political parties to some extent – taught us that we need to have oversight. We need to have independent oversight over information, and that is a function of good government. We need to have independent oversight when a public body is refusing access to information and hiding records away accordingly.

Now government is planning, with this bill, to remove a large part of that right of access. No one will know if a public body's refusal of the right of access to information – that the refusal of access to information that is being requested by a member of the public, or the media, or a political party, or a business, or an organization, or an agency, that the ruling is appropriate or not. The right of appeal to the commissioner will not be there anymore. There will not be any right of appeal; that is going to be stripped. Instead, individuals who are looking for information can look forward to a long, expensive, arduous, unnecessary court process. We really do not see there being any benefit to that.

Mr. Speaker, before I go on any further – and I know I have a lot of paper here, I am trying to sort it out. I have a lot more to say about this. Before that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the following reasoned amendment. I enter this, Mr. Speaker, because I really do not believe we have had sufficient review of this particular proposal. The reasoned amendment that we propose, and this is seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, I move that the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. KIRBY: For The Straits – White Bay North. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I misspoke.

I move that the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted: This House declines to give second reading to Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the bill, if enacted, is insufficient in strengthening the provisions to release information to the public.

That is seconded by the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have an amendment put forward by the Member for St. John's North and at this time we will take a recess to consider whether the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has considered the amendment put forward by the Member for St. John's North and upon examination of the wording of the amendment, found it to be identical to the motion that was put forward earlier this morning by the Member for St. Barbe. At that time, the amendment was not in order, and it is not in order at this time.

I will go back to the Member for St. John's North, who has a little time to continue his debate.

MR. KIRBY: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently read a different amendment. Am I permitted to read the amendment I intended to read?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The amendment that you submitted was considered –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The amendment the member submitted was considered and ruled to be out of order. Without leave of the House or some other mechanism, there is no provision to go back and read another amendment.

The Member for St. John's North, to conclude his comments.

MR. KIRBY: I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if I have leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no leave.

Does the Member for St. John's want to continue with his speaking time? He has thirty-nine seconds left.

MR. KIRBY: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will speak again later.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today after this all-night session, this being the third time I have had the opportunity to speak to this bill, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Bill 29. Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity now to speak to two amendments, one being the hoist, which would essentially mean that this piece of legislation would be lifted and would be discussed again in six months. Then, Mr. Speaker, there was a referral amendment that the members of this House have had the opportunity to speak to.

Mr. Speaker, through the night session, various members have picked various sections in the bill that they would speak to and a lot of the discussion tonight has been around the Cabinet documents and the fact that people see this as a restriction and that there would be less information that would be publicly available because of the changes and the amendments to this bill. There are also a couple of other sections here that raises some concerns, Mr. Speaker, throughout this piece of legislation. We have taken the opportunity tonight to actually do somewhat of a historical overview of how we have gotten to where we are with the freedom of information and, indeed, into 2001, into the access to information. All of this, I guess, has led us to where we are tonight and this amendment to Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the legislation, usually the first page is covered off by the explanatory notes: "This Bill would amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The proposed amendments would implement the majority of the legislative recommendations of the Cummings Report…". Mr. Speaker, the Cummings report, of course, was a report that was done by Mr. John Cummings as a result of the five-year mandatory review of the legislation that was enacted in 2005, that being the access part of the access to information. Indeed, the privacy piece of this legislation came a few years after that. As part of the five-year mandatory review, Mr. Cummings found himself tasked to do a review of this piece of legislation. In doing so, he came up with the thirty-three recommendations. We have taken the opportunity, various members, to look at the recommendations and the last time I spoke, a few hours ago, Mr. Speaker, I went through essentially about eleven or twelve of the recommendations.

When you look at the piece of legislation and the bill itself, the cover page really speaks to the explanatory notes of the bill and the bill also contains proposed amendments that are engendered by the examination of matters discussed, as I said, Mr. Speaker, in the Cummings report. This bill, if we look through the eight notes that are identified here, "The Bill would exempt records relating to the law enforcement investigations which have not been completed or which would reveal confidential sources of information in law enforcement investigations from the application of the Act". Now, Mr. Speaker, as we have mentioned a few times in this House there are many things in this piece of legislation, the review, that members on both sides of this House really do not have any difficulty with. That is an example of something that we would see members, I believe, on both sides of the House, could actually support.

Mr. Speaker, the note two which is to "clarify the right of access to a record does not extend to records created for the purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council assuming responsibility for a department, secretariat or agency, or a record prepared to brief members of the Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the House of Assembly". In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of issues that have been raised. What this addresses, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a lot of information that in the past would have been available through the access to information. Now when we look at section 18, Mr. Speaker, we will see substantial changes. It also speaks to what then would be a three-part test, which we discussed earlier tonight through the process of this debate, is now down to a one-part test. There are two key words that are left out of, or taken out, or removed from section 18 and those two words being "or" or "and". Basically, it would be much easier to restrict access to this information simply because of the removal of those two words, Mr. Speaker.

In the explanatory notes, if we look to the third note which is "include a listing of Cabinet records which would reflect the listing found in the Management of Information Act, which records would be prohibited from disclosure by the head of the public body". Of course, we also know that this piece of legislation does not only refer to government departments, it refers to the many public bodies that we have in our Province. That being, for instance, school boards or health authorities, or many of the other public bodies that we would have that would actually be part of the overall organization in the Province. There are about 460 of those public bodies and all of which fall under this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Making access to this information from those public bodies, in our opinion, it seems it makes this much more restrictive and much more limiting than what we have seen in the past. This bill would seem to be very regressive in that nature, Mr. Speaker.

The fourth note which would "amend the Act respecting disclosure of information relating to workplace investigations". The fifth note, Mr. Speaker, would be to "amend the Act to add a new provision which would protect a wider scope of business information from disclosure". Mr. Speaker, through the debate tonight, we have heard various interpretations of this particular note and, indeed, what this wider scope of business information would actually mean.

Mr. Speaker, note six here, to "amend the Act to add a provision to protect from disclosure that information which may be harmful to the labour relations interests of a public body as an employer". Mr. Speaker, there is no question, there are parts of this note we could understand, but without having the opportunity – which we will get once we go into Committee, which we can actually ask more questions as we go through this clause by clause, Mr. Speaker, this is where we will get the further clarification of those kind of statements that we have there.

Mr. Speaker, note seven suggests to "amend the Act to add a harm test for the disclosure of personal information which would be consistent with the legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions". Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, this makes sense. This is something that we are seeing, obviously, at the federal level and adding it to the provincial legislation certainly puts us in line with what we see on the federal scene.

Mr. Speaker, note eight, however, to "amend the Act to clarify that where there is a dispute relating to a claim of solicitor and client privilege, the issue shall be referred to the Trial Division for resolution". Mr. Speaker, this is an area where there have been a number of comments made tonight. Indeed, this is seen again as another piece of this amendment of Bill 29, which is seen again as a step backwards. Really, what it does, Mr. Speaker, and I think everybody would agree that the protection of the solicitor-client privilege is something that needs to protected, but in this particular case, everything that is in this file and, of course, there was a court case of last fall, in 2011, where the Privacy Commissioner actually took the government to court on this very issue. Indeed, the suggestion there was that not everything that would be contained in that file is something that the applicant should not have access to.

Mr. Speaker, these are the explanatory notes as they relate to Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, when you move into the process and the recommendations that have been outlined, one of the areas that will see what we consider to be some drastic changes is indeed the authority in the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We know now that there have already been three challenges led by this office. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner will change in a number of ways, and two ways in particular. It will be excluded from examining Cabinet records where they are certified by the Clerk of the Cabinet. What this means is that any information that will be going to Cabinet or that will be used by Cabinet, once it is certified, the Privacy Commissioner would not have access to this. The only appeal here would be to go through the Trial Division. Mr. Speaker, most people see this would be a lengthy and costly way to receive this information.

Mr. Speaker, the goal of the original act was to lower the barriers to access to the information. It was noteworthy at the time that the original bill allowed the Privacy Commissioner to appeal government decisions on behalf of the applicant; in this particular case, that appeal could only be made through the courts – that being the Trial Division. As we know, as I just mentioned, this would be a very long process and a very expensive process. It would be very difficult for any ordinary citizen, Mr. Speaker, to be able to take advantage of.

Mr. Speaker, previously, as we know, the Privacy Commissioner had the right to examine any documents that were claimed by government to be that of solicitor-client privilege. That disputed document would be made available to the Privacy Commissioner who could confirm or deny that it was a solicitor-client privilege document. I just made reference to a case that was with the Department of Justice a few months ago.

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of amendments we see throughout this bill, we do believe that it makes it much more difficult for the public in particular. There have been some comments already made in the House tonight about the amount of work this creates at departments. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the workload that is created here, and the ability to screen out some of the access to information requests, there is no question that it is something that is okay to address and needs to be addressed. We are not here to be able to just simply make requests to waste time, but a lot of the information that we gather – and we have given lots and lots of examples here tonight – of requests that have gone in, we have received very valuable information. That information has formed the basis for our preparation for the House of Assembly and, indeed, many members of the public. We have seen a breakdown, in previous debates, how often the public do use and do take advantage of their right to access the information.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons why we feel that in this particular case this bill is seen to be a step backwards. When you look back at where we have come in time, from 1981 to 2001 and now into 2012, we would think that we would advance our role as governments and we would be seen, because we want to be seen as being more open and more transparent. Mr. Speaker, we feel that at least this bill here does nothing to make this government more accountable and more transparent, when you look at the deliberations and the actions of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I will use up about twenty minutes of my time. Right now, we will be proposing one more amendment, but before I do, I want to use the basis and I just want to quote from the basis that I am making this reasoned amendment, Mr. Speaker. "The reasoned amendment, which may also be moved during debate on a motion for second reading, allows a Member to state the reasons for his or her opposition to second reading of the bill with a relevant proposal replacing the original question. A reasoned amendment is introduced in the form of a motion," – which I will do – "and deletes and replaces all of the text on the main motion after the word ‘That'". Mr. Speaker, it also – with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons – makes "no explicit provision for reasoned amendments, rules of procedure respecting the latter have become established over the years by precedent." "Today, a reasoned amendment generally takes a form of a proposal that the House decline to give a bill second reading, for a specific reason, Mr. Speaker. The reasons put forward in recent practice fall into two broad categories." Mr. Speaker, it must not relate to the particulars of the bill, in what is sought may be accomplished by the amendments with the Committee.

We have a number of examples in this House where this has happened, both in April 1991, on Bill 16, An Act Respecting Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province – that was on April 5, 1991 by the Member for Kilbride – and on June 9, 2005, the Member for Bay of Islands on Bill 41, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act. We have had three examples, Mr. Speaker, in 1992, Bill 81, this being in the House of Commons; and on September 25, 2006, Bill C-24; and again, Mr. Speaker, on September 17, 1991, Bill C-29. These are the basis and the precedents that we will put forward the reasoned amendment, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted: This House declines to give second reading to Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act because the bill, if enacted, erodes the access to information laws of the Province.

I move that motion and it is seconded by the Member for Torngat Mountains, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition has proposed an amendment and the House will take a recess to consider whether the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have considered several reasoned amendments throughout the duration of the night and the early morning, and we just had a recess to consider the reasoned amendment that was put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Before I make my ruling, I want to provide a little context on the whole idea of reasoned amendments. I am reading from O'Brien and Bosc; the section is from 748 to 750.

First of all, Confederation reveals an initial period, from about 1882 to 1930, in which great latitude was allowed in the wording of reasoned amendments. "In the early 1930s, regular requests began to be made to Speakers to rule as to whether reasoned amendments were in order and a number of precedents were established." So, reasoned amendments were considered to be in order early on, but the rules kind of tightened up. "By the 1970s, it had become increasingly difficult for Members to move reasoned amendments that were procedurally acceptable thanks to the accumulating body of precedent in this regard".

I am also going to refer to note 204 on page 749, which reads, "As early as 1958, Speaker Michener acknowledged to the House that it was not always easy ‘to draw the line between an amendment which is simply a negating of the principle of the bill and an amendment which is declaratory of a principle'. Similarly, in the early 1970s, Speaker Lamoureux reminded Members that they themselves had admitted that it was ‘difficult for the Chair to rule on the procedural aspect of reasoned amendments'. A few months later, on May 19, 1972, the Acting Speaker also said that there was little doubt in the mind of the Chair that ‘a reasoned amendment at the second reading stage of a bill involves one of the more difficult parliamentary procedures'."

I read that to provide context, because while we have recessed throughout the evening to consider several reasoned amendments, we have deliberated over them at great length and had considerable debate. So, it is not always an easy thing to do, to rule on a reasoned amendment.

The amendment put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition, we have ruled to be out of order, and we are relying on justification on page 750 of O'Brien and Bosc, which says, "It must not be a direct negation of the principle of the bill. The procedure to be followed when a Member does not agree with the principle of a bill and wants to reject it is simply to vote against the motion for second reading of the bill."

We go back to the Leader of the Official Opposition to continue with his speaking time on the main motion.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration and, of course, I respect the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I will summarize my comments in terms of speaking to the main motion of Bill 29. Throughout the night, as I mentioned earlier, we spoke now to two amendments of the bill. Mr. Speaker, as I said we have had great length into discussion in terms of the context of the bill and the ramifications that we feel that this bill would have in terms of access and the ability to access information.

Mr. Speaker, through all the deliberations and the discussions that we have had tonight and the consideration of the number of recommendations that have been made by Mr. Cummings, and as I mentioned earlier all thirty-three of them, and in particular section 18 of the act in terms of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion. I want to go back and spend just a few more minutes before I finalize my comments on where we are on section 18 and the amendments that we will see in this section as it addresses the Cabinet confidences.

Mr. Speaker, section 18, this is the area that we will see, as I said, significant changes where we will get the Management of Information Act, the additions to this section as well. One of the things I think that is noticeably changed in this act is that the information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet. That is a significant change, Mr. Speaker, that it is no longer required to determine whether this would mean that this would pass this test, in terms of this information being exempted so that people could not easily access the information. Section 18, as we move into Committee, is one area that you will see, I think, a fair amount of focus from the Opposition and will lead to significant questions when you look at the exemptions and how we access the information, Mr. Speaker, for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, of the thirty-three recommendations we know that there are sixteen that have already been recommended. There are a few more here, four or five that will not require a legislative amendment, that it requires further review. Mr. Speaker, we spoke of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and how we feel that this particular office right now certainly is seen as being diluted or watered down. The authority and the ability to provide the day-to-day work of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, as a result of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, we feel are substantially reduced.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments. My twenty minutes indeed are up. I know I could go on a bit longer, but we have a few more speakers left before we move into the Committee. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will conclude my comments and look forward to the debate in Committee.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I speak to Bill 29, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the amendments here to the act today. I will follow along with my past colleague, the Member for St. John's North, who spoke about some of the top ten things we certainly do not like about this bill. Bill 29 appears to be very misnamed. It is more like denying access to information because it is putting extra restrictions into this bill.

If we look at what the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner's purpose is, it is about giving the public the right to have access to records and giving that individual the absolute right to access and request personal information about themselves. We see some attempts from information that was put forward by other members here of the Opposition parties that sometimes people are not able to easily access their own personal information when they are making that request and that it can cost a significant amount.

We have to go back and we have to look at the purpose of ATIPPA. Several years ago, as I stated before, there was a spending scandal here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when all three parties of this House learned some very valuable lessons. Too much in this House of Assembly was kept away from public scrutiny. We look at things like some of the protocols that were put into play and the barring of the Auditor General. The Green report that was commissioned had expanded the right to access information in the House of Assembly.

There is more information and there is greater accountability right now here in the House of Assembly. Government promised that right of access would be protected and enhanced in all of the government and that there would be greater accountability. Now we are seeing, with the proposed recommendations, there is the ability to make those changes and to regress and not really look at making things more accountable.

The spending scandal certainly taught us all that some important independent oversight, when it comes to a public body, is refusing access to information and hiding those records accordingly. Government is now are removing a large part of the right to access information because we have seen the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner where they have been able to request information and determine that this is not client-solicitor privilege, or this is not something that cannot be provided, it is not detrimental, so they are able to do that review and that test.

If you look at the core values of the OIPC, it is about independence. The staff will conduct independent investigations of any influence. So there is no political influence in looking at that office, and also looking at integrity. The staff will provide the accurate, unbiased advice and recommendations. They are there as an independent and protecting the integrity of the public documents that are there, the information, and they are they governed under this act, ATIPPA. They are there for confidentiality reasons. They will adhere to the standard of absolute confidentiality. We have seen that where there have been times when information has been held back because of confidentiality, it could not be released, and we have to abide by that. They have the ability for judgement where they have a suite of staff which has expert knowledge and judgement to be able to interpret these policies, these practices, the procedures, to ensure that we are complying with ATIPPA. Their last core value is about respect so that they will listen and consider the ideas and opinions of others, and that is really important.

We look at, when we do this evaluation, when Commissioner Cummings had done the review, where he had public hearings in eight locations with very little time from the announcement to the commencement of the first hearing, and only ten people in Newfoundland and Labrador attended these public functions. That sends a message there that some things were certainly missing.

What we need to see is: Was this office actually consulted? Was there a good documentation provided? After their review and they put forward their recommendations and they see that there are thirty-three recommendations put forward – some of them have been accepted and some of them have not – it does not seem like there has been any input after the fact, after the report, which was completed about a year ago, I believe. The Commissioner had issued a release saying that he is not in a position to engage discussion to the amendments and is waiting to be briefed in and do in-house consultation on these changes before he is able to speak to them.

You would think the independent body here that is governed under this act, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, would have been consulted after the fact of these recommendations and had some input on it so that we can make sure we can facilitate the best possible legislation here in Newfoundland and Labrador. If we are not doing that, I do not know if we are doing the best job as legislators. We need to see that level of consultation because they are impacted. Right now, a number of the recommendations being put forward are taking away the authority of that independent body of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, that office, that independent body, which has the five core values I have listed.

Anyone who wants to appeal a decision a Cabinet minister makes now on anything that is termed as vexatious or frivolous will have to take it to court. Who can afford that? Who can afford the time and the money? It is justice, basically, for the people who have the resources and people who have the money, and the large corporations. For the everyday person in Newfoundland and Labrador, when it comes to getting information, they should have a right to and they should have access to, there is not that second independent assessment where the Information and Privacy Commissioner can make that determination if it meets those standards that it can be released. Now it has to go through the court system.

That is going to cost the individual, but it is also going to cost the Province, the taxpayers – all of us – more money. When you start putting things off into the courts and you start putting things through litigation, and the Province gets tied into having to litigate these matters, then it is going to add more and more burdens to the public purse string. That is something that is quite unacceptable.

Having final decision at a Cabinet level without any additional review before it has to go through a court process seems a bit flawed. The government here in Newfoundland and Labrador used to brag about having the best access to information in Canada, but it certainly seems that the bill and its amendments here will give us some of the most restrictive legislation in the country when it comes to some of the changes that are being proposed. We need to look at having very progressive, very open and transparent public policy. When it comes to being able to provide information that can be provided to the public, then they should have right to do so. There should not be a delay in that information being provided; it should be a given.

Bill 29 strips the Auditor General of the right to access certain information and documents. We have to put in question that if the Office of the Auditor General is placed under greater restrictions, is that not turning the clock back, or does this government have something to hide, something that is embarrassing that they do not want out. Because there is some information there that says, well, if reports are not complete, as long as they are being worked on within a three-year period, they do not need to be released.

So, if they are constantly being updated or modified, then that is something that never gets released. Or, if they commission a report and then they want to do further work to it, then it is something that will not become available to the general public that is looking for information with how this government, or how any government from this point on, based on this legislation as it moves forward, that is how we will have to live by. That is something that I think there is great concerns, because we have seen scandals in this Province. We have seen our share of them, and we need to protect the integrity of the public purse and the taxpayer – the people, the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think some of the proposed amendments go a little bit far and is going to be very restrictive. When it comes to the role of the Auditor General in the future, I think we have turned back the clock. I think that is quite clear in the January 2012 Auditor General's report that was listed – the first number of pages that were put there, is there. So, I certainly encourage people to read that documentation.

Bill 29 expands the scope of documents protected by Cabinet secrecy. We all know and we have seen the examples of documents that have been redacted and getting very little value for information for dollars that have been spent. If you are able to expand that without somebody having a review or any accreditation to say well, this can or cannot be released to an individual, the media or political party, you do need to have that independent body, that intermediary there to make that determination because that is true democracy.

These amendments make decisions of government more secretive than ever before. This government has been able to tout itself on making good, progressive legislation as they move forward saying we have been providing, we have been doing more; but, with these changes, they are certainly doing less. They are making less available when it comes to your own information, when it comes to privacy, because it opens up and it sets a precedent for all of the other documentation, all of the other pieces, and not only for this government but for future governments that will be will in office. That is not something that is open and transparent as a government should be.

It is really hard to find changes in this amendment where you are able to actually get information. I wanted to go back to section 39(1) on page 19 of Bill 29. "Section 39(1) of the Act is amended by deleting the word ‘or'…". If you look at subsection (u), it says, "to an officer or employee of a public body or to a minister, where the information is necessary for the delivery of a common or integrated program or service and for the performance of the duties of the officer or employee or minister to whom the information is disclosed".

This certainly seems, based on my interpretation, that this could be a loophole. It could be an opportunity for sharing information between public bodies about you, about myself or about anybody who is an individual in Newfoundland and Labrador. It can be a way to have public information going out here throughout public bodies, throughout ministers, throughout various areas, where they could be sharing your information and you do not have to be told. That should not be. You should have to be told if there is information that is being researched or requested, that is your private information, that is about you, if it impacts you, it impacts your daily living, you should be notified and there should not be a loophole there in the system if that is the case.

Also, it further goes, in section (v), "to the surviving spouse or relative of a deceased individual where, in the opinion of the head of the public body, the disclosure is not an unreasonable invasion of the deceased's personal privacy". Here, we have to look at a number of factors when you are talking about disclosing information to a surviving spouse. It is certainly up to the opinion now of a public body to determine that. There are no criteria given. I would imagine that these criteria may be given in regulations. There could be situations where it would be better not to disclose some of this information, but if we are not putting in the protocols, we are not putting in the clear criteria for everyone to be able to interpret it in a clear and concise manner, then we certainly need to make sure that the training that is being provided to people in all of these public bodies is very clear because there could be situations where documentation from a deceased person could be provided. I do feel that such a provision should have a list when it comes to making that available.

I want to briefly talk about the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner because if we look at access requests and we look at the number of investigations that have been able to produce reports, if we go from 2007, there were 131 active files; the following year, 164; in 2009, 164; in 2010-2011, 175. They are staying around the same amount when it goes to an investigation and produced reports, when a longer period of time is required. That is for the access requests based on performance. The privacy requests are growing in numbers: six, twenty-three, twenty-six, and thirty-six from 2007 to 2011. There may be a greater concern when it comes to looking at privacy information that is being put forward. I think those two statements there address that there could be some serious loopholes that could be problematic in this case.

I do have some concerns with the legislation when it comes to government looking at rejecting Commissioner Cummings report to have a five-year term for the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to just maintain a two-year term. This does not provide a lot of continuity or consistency when it comes to being able to do one's job in a manner where they are able to continue that continuity, because there would be a significant amount of training. They have a number of roles out there to allow people in the general public that this act is there and you have the ability to go and find out information, to access information and documents that pertain to yourself. That is something that can be and should be provided.

I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of amendments, thirty-three of them; sixteen are accepted in full, and a number of them are modified and it has been very selective in what is being provided. If we look at the time when the hearings were advertised and stated that this consultation was going to occur, as the Member for St. John's North highlighted earlier in debate, this time frame does not allow for people to travel, to make the appropriate arrangements, to attend those sessions in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lab West. Some of the geography in Labrador is quite far to be able to get in there. There were no rural consultations, Mr. Speaker, and no consultations apparently after the fact with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to put forward a reasoned amendment (a): I move that the words after "that" be deleted and that the following substituted: Therefore this House declines to give second reading to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act because additional time should be provided for the public to consider and provide input on the amendments.

That is seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi has already spoken to the motion and cannot second it.

The hon. the Member for The Straits –White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Based on that then, Mr. Speaker, all of our members in caucus have spoken to this. I will conclude my remarks with discontent.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure again to rise to speak to Bill 29. There are a couple of issues that arise. I was looking at the home page on the government Web site, Mr. Speaker, and one of the headlines right on that site says: all inquires are welcome. What a contradiction that is when you look at what this bill imposes upon the people of this Province. I guess we can only assume that this category on their Web page that says all inquires are welcome will be removed because it certainly has no place in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard members on the government side of this hon. House talk about how these new amendments to Bill 29 will make government more accountable and will create more transparency within government, yet the very changes proposed are the complete opposite of what members have been saying across the floor. The fact is that they are laid out in section 18 and section 22 of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, and written so they cannot be interpreted in good faith as openness and transparency, Mr. Speaker. The facts are there as they are listed. Once you go through the amendments, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that, if anything, it restricts access to information and it suppresses transparency by the very wording that is written in the proposed changes.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if I was selfish and I was above the rights of the people of this Province, I would take this information forward and I would apply it to projects. Projects like Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, and to corporations like Nalcor, where new information that could come forward need not be made available; information like project costs, potential cost overruns, any other allocations of public monies surrounding major government projects; progress reports, Mr. Speaker, from corporations to the government, with respect to how public trust is protected on behalf of the people of this Province. All this information, Mr. Speaker, with this new bill, has the potential to be withheld, and is certainly at the discretion of the head of the public body or the minister. With these new changes, these new amendments, this information now need not be put forward, and it certainly leaves interpretation or decision by the minister very broad and very open, and certainly all encompassing to find a way to deny access to information, Mr. Speaker. It is an uncomfortable feeling when you are talking about openness and transparency.

I go through some of the sections, Mr. Speaker, and section 18 states, "The commissioner may review the refusal of a Cabinet record by the head of a public body under subsection (2)...". Mr. Speaker, when you follow through the very next paragraph, it then states, "except where the decision relates to a Cabinet record which has been certified as an official Cabinet record…". The question is: If the commissioner has already been overruled, Mr. Speaker, why is this contradictory clause even in this amendment? It very boldly states one thing and then contradicts its own self in the very next paragraph.

Section 18.(2), "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant a Cabinet record…", and there is a list of sections that they can refer to. Section 20.(1), "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information…", and again there is a list of information on this section where the minister has the right to refuse information. Mr. Speaker, section 22.1, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant personal information that is evaluative…". I think there are four clauses or five following this that the minister can use his discretion in refusing access to information. Section 22.2(2), "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information…". Section 24.(1), "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information…".

Section 26.1(1), "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information what would reveal…". If you look at section 26.1, again it gives three to four reasons of discretion that the minister can use in not granting access to information.

Section 30.(1), "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information…" or shall act. Section 30, Mr. Speaker, is the exception. This one is in the interest of the people of this Province and certainly one that I would find applicable.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on again, section 43.1(1), "The head of a public body may disregard one or more requests…" – again, a whole list of subsections on how the minister can use discretion on denial of access to information.

My point here, Mr. Speaker, is of the nine repeals that have been implemented and replace existing legislation, eight of these new submissions allows the minister the right to refuse access to the information if they so choose. After hearing comments from the government side on accessibility and transparency, and how it would create easier access to information and more transparency, again, Mr. Speaker, I question the comments on the government's side as they try and portray increases to access to information through this act and to transparency.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if he now speaks he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I could use my full twenty minutes, and twenty minutes more and twenty minutes more, to respond to some of the comments that have been made in the debate. I have listened intently since yesterday afternoon and certainly there is a need to set the matter straight on a lot of these issues, but when we go into committee, Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity to do that there. So I am not going to take my full time because there are too many issues to respond to.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware there will be lots of questions, but I am also somewhat amused by the spin that both parties have put on this act. They have been really creative, Mr. Speaker, in doing so. It is really interesting to hear what they have to say. They create the worst possible scenarios that could possibly happen and been very creative in doing so; shutting the doors and the windows on people's rights in this Province, for example, Mr. Speaker. Closing the shop, complete secrecy, taking away everyone's right. If you listened to the people on the other side, there is no right whatsoever to any information after the coming into force of this act. It is absolutely amusing, Mr. Speaker, to hear that spin.

Mr. Speaker, they are suggesting we are going to shut down the Privacy Commissioner's office, no more roles to play. We will shut down the AG's office, no more roles to play. It is absolutely amusing that you put such a spin on this stuff in order to get political points. I realize it is a great piece of legislation for the Opposition to do that with. We were fully aware of that fact when we brought this to the House, that this was not going to be a love-in on ATIPPA.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hear the way that – I think one member referred to it as draconian. I think some other people said complete secrecy, regressive, and everything sinister, I think was the word the Minister of Municipal Affairs used. It was really amusing to hear that, but I also heard him say all kinds of good things about the current act. The act as it stands today is a great act. It does not need to be changed, working very well, nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Speaker, these are the same people who constantly criticize us day after day after day for our implementation of the current act, and the way we operate under the current act. Now all of a sudden that act is fine. It is the new act, the amendments that are so regressive.

Mr. Speaker, I venture to bet that if we had brought a new bill into this House and said, look, what we are doing with ATIPPA is nothing. We are leaving it as it is, it is good enough. We are going to leave it as it is; we are not going to change it. We would get the same response, Mr. Speaker, from the other side if we had gone with this act. It would all of a sudden be regressive. We had been operating under a sinister act for the last three or four years.

It is wonderful grounds for the Opposition, and I do not blame them. It is a great opportunity for them to dig in and make political brownie points and create fear mongering and whatnot. Somebody mentioned in the public consultation we had ten people show up at eight hearings. I think someone mentioned you would not find a hall big enough to fill if you went out and had it now. I dear say he is right. We would not find an arena big enough to fill, based on the fear mongering and whatnot that the Opposition have put forth.

Mr. Speaker, we will get a chance to speak to these issues in committee, so I now move that the bill move to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Summon the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Verge, Ms Johnson, Mr. Davis, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Ball, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Bennett, Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: eighteen; the nays: eleven.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

Can the Clerk read the bill – the long title?

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: The Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 29.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will be debating Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act". (Bill 29).

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to stand and certainly speak to clause 1 of this particular bill. Mr. Chair, this bill, we have been debating in the House of Assembly now for the past twenty hours, or very close to twenty hours; in fact, Mr. Chair, the bill itself which is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act has been brought to the House after a review of the access to information within the Province. Mr. Chair, the actual review process itself made a number of recommendations to government and, in all, I think there were thirty-three recommendations. What we are dealing with under section 1 is one of these particular recommendations. That is Recommendation 14.

Mr. Chair, what the actual report recommended, when the review was done, is that the definition of law enforcement found in subsection 2(i)(ii) should be amended to include only investigations, inspections or proceedings that would be conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment that leads or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under an enactment.

Mr. Chair, how does that differentiate from what was contained within the old act? That is what we need to go back to and look at, because there were a lot of things in the old act that certainly provided for greater certainty and strength, far greater accessibility of the information than what we are seeing proposed under this particular bill. As we get into the clause by clause debate, what we intend to do, Mr. Chair, is to point out where those differences are. For example, under the original act, subsection 2(i)(ii) read like this: investigations, inspections or proceedings that lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed. It also said, Mr. Chair, the individual's personal views or opinions.

What does all of that mean in terms of what is being proposed today? Because if you were to sit down and read clause 1 in this bill right now, what clause 1 actually says, Mr. Chair, is that the old act that I just read, those sections be repealed and that the following would be substituted, "(ii) investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment".

It actually takes it a bit further, Mr. Chair, to ensure for greater secrecy within government. It also states, "the individual's personal views or opinions, except where they are about someone else". What we are actually repealing now is to say that the individual's personal views or opinions and we are going to substitute that to say "the individual's personal views or opinions, except where they are about someone else".

So that is the change that is being made. Why would they recommend that particular change in this particular bill? Mr. Chair, I guess there were a number of reasons why they recommended that particular change. I am just going to outline for you what some of those reasons actually were under section 14 of the original document that was tabled. I am just trying to find it here. Basically, Mr. Chair, the rationale they are using at this particular time for making that particular change, they are saying it is a discretionary exception to disclosure where the requested information could reasonably be expected to be harmful to law enforcement. The provisions describe the types of information to and the circumstances in which the exception applies.

Mr. Chair, it also outlined in the document that access to information legislation in all jurisdictions contains specific exceptions covering information relating to law enforcement, investigations, and penal institutions. In addition to a law enforcement exception, our ATIPPA also excludes from its application records relating to a prosecution if all proceedings in respect of the prosecution have not been completed.

Now, Mr. Chair, a number of members spoke to that today in second reading when government members were speaking to the bill, and they spoke to that for a very simple reason. It is one of the more positive pieces to this particular piece of legislation. Where it came from, Mr. Chair, it came as a result of consultations they did at the time with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. They raised concerns about certain standards of protection that was being offered under ATIPP legislation in other provinces that was not being offered in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was done, Mr. Chair, directly pertaining to files that were currently under investigation. Basically, what will happen is that active investigations that are being conducted by the RNC, for example, will be protected by the discretionary exceptions contained in this section, Mr. Chair, and also in other sections as it relates to this particular act.

Mr. Chair, if we were to go to the original bill – just bear with me for a second, Mr. Chair, I think it is under section 22 in the original bill. In the original bill, what we are actually looking at falls under section 22; therefore, basically what this is, it is giving more protection to the RNC in particular, where they are dealing with investigations in various cases. It would be done to protect information that might be in police files that would reveal who victims are, for example, or identifying victims, providing information or intelligence, as they would normally call it, Mr. Chair, that would be used in a court case or in some other particular investigation, in a case where they feel disclosure of that information could be harmful to the case they are investigating, or it would hinder in any way the work they are currently doing on that particular investigation.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is it also deals with the commissioner's office. They did express some concern about the language that was used and they wanted it broadened to a certain extent when it came to disclosure of information. Basically, this is where this entire piece is coming from and the reason it was brought forward under this particular act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: It is getting late. We are heading into twenty-one hours here now, Mr. Chair. I am just looking because I have three pieces of legislation in front of me. I have the old act, I have the new act, and I have the actual review that was done to the access to information.

Mr. Chair, I have only been up now for probably thirty hours or something, so I think I may have inadvertently missed a piece here. I think it has to do –

AN HON. MEMBER: Andrew will pick up (inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, Andrew will pick up on it, I am sure. I think, Andrew, it has to do with section 24, where discretionary -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the member not to refer to members by their name.

MS JONES: I do apologize, Mr. Chair, but I am sure the critic for Justice, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, will certainly pick up on anything that I miss under this legislation.

I think the important thing here is to point out that Recommendation 14, which I have to double-check, because I think it is actually section 24 in the old act -

MR. F. COLLINS: It is.

MS JONES: Yes, it is actually section 24 in the old act. I have it in front of me now. Thank you, Minister, for pointing that out. It is important; I would not want to get the sections mixed up. I know there are a lot of them here.

Mr. Chair, what we are amending is going to be the actual section 24 of the act. Mr. Chair, the reason we are going to be amending it is because section 24 is a discretionary exception according to which a public body may refuse to disclose information which could reasonably be expected to be harmful to the financial or economic interest of a public body or the government of the Province or the ability of the government to manage the economy. The provision lists five examples of the types of information that were contemplated. Several provinces have protection for the financial or economic interest of public bodies in a manner similar to that which is being proposed here.

Mr. Chair, a review that was done of the access to information and privacy act back in January of 2011, looked at New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and how they supplemented protection provided to government negotiations in this particular section of the act by protecting it from the disclosure of information that would result in financial loss or a prejudice, the competitive position of the jurisdiction in question or several jurisdictions.

Mr. Chair, as was pointed out when we did second reading, what the government did is they cherry-picked sections of legislation from provinces all across Canada. This is a perfect example of what they have done, because under this particular section, Mr. Chair, they have adapted to things like what Saskatchewan has done because it provided for greater protection. When I say protection I mean protecting government, I mean protecting Nalcor, I mean protecting agencies of government when they do not want to disclose information.

Mr. Chair, in order for a record to qualify for an exception to disclose under section 24, the public body must prove that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to harm the financial or economic interests of a public body or the government of the Province or the ability of the government to manage the economy. Relatively few disclosures will result in such grave consequences, according to the recommendations that were written here.

Mr. Chair, during the public consultations, stakeholders expressed uncertainty regarding the scope of protection that was afforded to public bodies, including the period of time during which the protection would apply. Some public bodies submitted that the section may not adequately protect the details of their negotiating positions, their strategies, and their tactics of public bodies, all of those things –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that her speaking time has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will pick up where I left off under section 1.

CHAIR: Before I recognize the next speaker, I did not interrupt the Opposition House Leader, but we have called clause 1 and it is our intent, I do believe, to call this bill clause by clause. In Committee, the clause that we are calling is the clause that we would expect speakers to speak to.

While the member was speaking to clause 11 in section 24, I would ask future speakers if they would stick to the clause that we are debating. Clause 1 is the clause that we have currently called.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand here now and speak to this first clause of this Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I will beg you in advance to feel free to steer me in the right direction. This is a very comprehensive piece of legislation. We have an abundance of information on it. We have the recommendations, we have the legislation, and this is something that we have not had an abundance of time to deal with, given that this was something that has been really jammed at us. We have been in this House since 1:30 p.m. yesterday and we have been debating this for hours. I think some leeway will be necessary to make sure that we cover off the right areas. Sometimes it is easy with legislation to get confused, and that is the point here.

When you have an opportunity to debate legislation, especially in the Committee stage, this is where we need to make sure that we are covering all the bases. We need to make sure that the legislation – that the intent is covered off correctly.

If I am correct, Mr. Chair, what we are looking at now is subparagraph 2(i)(ii). What we are asking here is that the original clause which says that investigations, inspections or proceedings that lead or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed, or the individual's personal views or opinions, we are asking that be repealed and the following section be substituted, "investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment".

The important part to remember here, Mr. Chair, is that the new wording here starts after "proceedings" and begins with the words "conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty". I think it is important that we be clear here and have clarity as to why we are doing this. This again comes from the Cummings report which was used to justify this legislation being amended.

Under Recommendation 14, Mr. Cummings says that when we talk about the definition of law enforcement we need to clarify that or amend that to make sure that this is conducted under legislative authority. I have some questions as to that.

If we are talking about the RNC or the RCMP, then those agencies conduct criminal investigations. I am not sure as to whether that is something that should have been inserted into this sub 2 here because it just says investigations, inspections or proceedings.

When you read that, it does not give you any clarity as to whether we are dealing with a criminal matter or not. My understanding from the recommendations is that is the purpose of what we are dealing with here. When you talk about an investigation, you could be talking about any kind of investigation. You could be talking about workplace health and safety. I am sure the Department of Service NL does investigations. There is a whole abundance, a whole number, of government agencies, bodies, public bodies – we cover public bodies here. Their purpose is to conduct investigations into whatever matter falls under their jurisdiction.

What I would say is that if this is for the purpose of criminal law, whether it be the RNC or the RCMP – and that is what Mr. Cummings refers to in this nice little review here that was forwarded out in January 2011. He says that there was concern amongst the RNC and RCMP, and that we talked about changing that. That was his recommendation after meeting with these interested groups.

The second part I would move to under this section – I think we need to be clear with what we are getting into here. It says under sub (ix): the individual's personal views or opinions. What we are changing it to is "the individual's personal views or opinions, except where they are about someone else." That is the change here.

I would ask the minister – and I apologize, given that we have been at this for hours now. I want to make sure that I know exactly what it is we are trying to do here. Perhaps if he may wish to answer this question, to stand and clarify exactly what it is that we will be voting on here. Are we saying that the individual's personal views or opinions are exempt or not exempt, except where they are about someone else. I think the way I understand it is that if somebody has a view about me and that view or opinion is part of a file, then I believe that I have access to that view or opinion because that could affect me, just say, in the course of my employment.

When we talk about one of the main cases that helped get us here, which was the Court of Appeal case that the decision came down in January – sorry, October; it was heard in June, and came down in October - that was involving an employee who asked for their file, and in that case they were denied their entire file. I would presume that under that blanket exclusion that one of the parts there were that there were opinions expressed about that employee by their superiors in the Department of Justice. Perhaps it could have been the minister, it could have been the deputy minister, or it could have been the ADM. I want to make sure that is exactly what we are trying to do here. Are we still entitled to know what our superior's views or opinions are of us? If I just want their opinion on something that is not related to me, then that is a different story altogether.

I would suggest that we get it on the record here now in Hansard to make sure that is exactly what we are getting at. I would stress now at the beginning of this Committee stage and being a new member, it is my understanding that we need to ensure clarity here before we vote on something. God forbid we vote on something that is not what we thought it was and gets us in trouble down the road, especially when we are talking about people's personal information. It has been talked about a number of times tonight, on both sides, private information and privacy. We obviously respect the right to an individual's privacy and we need to make sure that is where we are going with this.

That is one of the questions that I would have, Mr. Chair, I would put out there, and hopefully we can get some clarification asked to that. I will sit down at this point. I will put that out there and hopefully we can get it on the record.

CHAIR: The Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, if I may make a suggestion, if we rise up and down every time that a question is asked on a particular clause, then there will be a lot of movement going on here. If other members of the other side have questions or comments regarding these particular clauses, I would like to get them all on the record, Mr. Chair, before I respond, instead of having to respond to each one in turn.

CHAIR: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just in response to the minister, I do not have anything to add to one but I do want to echo what has been asked for by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, especially in section (i)(ii), on investigations, inspections, et cetera. The lack of clarity that has been expressed by him is also what I see there and would want to have the clarity that has been asked for by him. I will not go into the detail, just to say that so that the minister knows that we also would be looking for that.

I think subsection (2) is fairly clear, but I would want to know why this addition is being made: except where they are about someone else. I would like to know the rationale for the addition that is being made in the subsection (ix).

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, in response to clause 1 and the definition of law enforcement, the current act provides the definition for law enforcement as the investigation, inspection or proceedings that lead or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed. Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify the term law enforcement.

When we think about law enforcement, Mr. Chair, we think in terms of an investigation, inspection or proceeding conducted under the authority of an enactment or of a law for the purpose of enforcing that law or enactment, and if that law or enactment could lead to a penalty under that law. The definition of law enforcement then has been amended to clarify that law enforcement does not include investigations that are not conducted under the authority of legislation. For example, harassment and workplace disputes, these are not covered under the definition of law enforcement.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this definition is to amend the law, that law enforcement means exactly that. It means enforcement of a law, or enactment of a law under which the penalty could be imposed and it does not apply to other kinds of disputes.

CHAIR: Are there any other speakers to clause 1?

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am speaking to clause 1 of the bill as well. Mr. Chair, just to point out I know the minister is saying that there is a broader term associated with this. We certainly feel that the act should have been more defined in this context.

We find that the clause is vague because it addresses the secrecy of all records of any investigations, inspections or proceedings. If the intent is to limit the clause to police investigations and criminal law enforcement, then the language should explicitly limit this clause to police investigations and criminal law enforcement. We are finding, Mr. Chair, that it does not do that. We really question what the motivation is of government if they want to leave it as vague as what it is, without clearly defining what the intent that was being proposed was and what they claim their intent is.

Mr. Chair, in this particular case we would move an amendment to the original clause. Mr. Chair, we would move that section 1.(1) subparagraph 2(i)(ii) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is repealed and the following substituted. We would ask that the original clause, Mr. Chair, would be replaced and we would move to replace clause 1 of the bill with the following: Section 1.(1) subparagraph 2(i)(ii) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is repealed and the following is substituted: (ii) criminal investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which leads or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment. Subsection (2) subparagraph 2(o)(ix) of the act is repealed and the following is substituted: (ix) the individual's personal views or opinions, except where they are about someone else.

Mr. Chair, we would propose the amendment, as I said, to clause 1 of the bill under section 1.(1) subparagraph. That is the amendment that we are proposing. We have copies of it here, if you would like to have a copy of it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the Opposition House Leader if she could reread the amendment that she proposed.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Chair, I will reread the amendment.

The amendment, of course, is to section 1 of the bill that we are debating right now, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The amendment under clause 1 would read, "Clause 1 of the Bill is amended by deleting the proposed subparagraph 2(i)(ii) substituting the following: (ii) criminal investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment".

That is the amendment, Mr. Chair. As I said, we are proposing that to more clearly define the intent of the bill and to not leave it as vague as what we feel it is right now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We have looked at the amendment, and the amendment is in order.

Are there speakers to the amendment?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, we cannot support this amendment, for obvious reasons. What the amendment does is it narrows the complaint about the amendment being too vague, but it narrows this amendment to criminal investigations only.

Mr. Chair, the intent of the amendment, the definition is indeed to limit this clause to investigations, inspections or proceedings that are conducted under some authority or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment or law, and a law that which has a penalty or sanction associated with it. Mr. Chair, there are more than criminal laws involved here. There are laws, for example, that govern wildlife and enforcement. There are all kinds of laws and regulations which have penalties attached to it.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of this definition is to make this law, amend it so it includes investigations that are conducted under the authority of some legislation. That could be criminal law, but that is only one. There are wildlife laws; there are important laws of all kinds on the books that have penalties with it that you have to obey. So the definition of law enforcement is put for this purpose.

If we follow this amendment, Mr. Chair, then we are stuck with criminal investigations only, and that was not the intent. The intent of this definition would include law enforcement and to eliminate the possibility of investigations in such things as harassment or workplace disputes which are not done under legislative authority.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, I am happy to stand and speak to this amendment which we have submitted.

Just for the sake of clarity for people who are listening or tuning in here, what we have done in our amendment is we have added the word "criminal" in front of "investigations" in subsection (ii). Instead of just saying investigations, inspections or proceedings, we have now changed it to say "criminal investigations, inspections or proceedings…" and the rest carries on exactly the same.

The reason we do that is that Mr. Cummings, specifically in his recommendations, references law enforcement. He had consultations with the RNC and RCMP, and my understanding of that is the RNC and the RCMP deal with criminal matters. They do not deal with wildlife matters; they do not deal with other investigatory matters. We will say criminal, of that type of nature.

Perhaps the Minister of ServiceNL can stand up and enlighten us because I know he had a distinguished career in that field. What I am saying is that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I am not going to repeat the comments I am hearing.

Again, I say this with all sincerity. That is my understanding. In the recommendation filed by Mr. Cummings, he talks about the RNC raised concerns about different standards of protection, the RCMP, and it goes back and forth. My understanding of those two bodies is that they do mainly criminal investigation work. That is why the recommendation came out like it was.

It says there, the definition of law enforcement benefit, subsection (ii), should be amended to include investigations. That is the reason we put it in, for clarity, but if the minister is saying, no, that is not the intent, then by all means, I guess we are going to have a vote against the amendment that we have suggested. What we are saying here, and what we have been saying all along is that this law – obviously, you know our opinion on this law, but even the subsections of this law are only going to be as good depending on the clarity of that.

This is our way of saying, look, we need to find out what the intent is and what the purpose of this is; therefore, if I understand the minister correctly, there is a specific reason. Any investigation, inspection or proceeding for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which could lead to penalty or sanction. We have expanded that, which encompasses a wide range of public bodies. Any public body that conducts an investigation, this is what it is going to fall under. Penalty or sanction does not necessarily apply to just criminal law. Depending on what field it is, there are all kinds – whether it is civil penalties as well. That is why we put that out there.

I do not intend to belabour that point much longer, Mr. Chair. We put the amendment there to that section.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I would like to speak to the amendment put forward which talks about adding criminal, which clearly defines what the section is lacking in section 1.(2)(ii) "investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment".

This definition, as it is put forward in the bill, is very broad. It can be placed on any individual basically for almost any reason because if it will lead to or could lead to, it is a very open interpretation and we could see a lot of investigations, proceedings or inspections occurring based on that. The amendment put forward by adding the terminology, the term "criminal" in front, gives it greater clarity and a refined definition.

Maybe there needs to be some look at having this one – if there are some exemptions to look at refining this subparagraph, to maybe make an additional clause with further clarity so that people actually know they are not going to be investigated and there would be inspections happening because of a possibility of an or and may lead to – I do think this has merit, as mentioned. There was some reference in Cummings' recommendation when it comes to the RCMP and the police bodies we have in the Province when it comes to looking at that.

I would like further clarification from the Minister of Justice as to why this would not be considered as to maybe looking at the "criminal" added but also some further clarifications, so maybe another subsection into the act.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, speaking to the amendment.

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, speaking to this amendment and to this section, one of the things I want to make sure is covered off here is, we are looking at investigations, inspections or proceedings. One of the things that has been talked about a lot is restaurant inspections, the findings from those restaurant inspections, and whether that information is now going to be public or not. My understanding is that the amendment will allow the public to obtain these records of restaurant inspections, which is a –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Okay. So by voting against it, we are going to make sure that restaurant inspections are public information. The public has a right to know, for instance, that these inspections –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes. So by voting against it, will you confirm, will you answer my question, that things like restaurant inspections, specifically, will be put out to the public and made public knowledge to everybody?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I would just like to clarify. This is not limited to criminal investigations. We do not want to limit the definition of law enforcement to criminal investigations under the Criminal Code of Canada.

There are other laws that have penalties attached to them, legislative laws that have penalties attached to them. These are what are covered in the definition of law enforcement. We do not want to restrict it to criminal investigations, which is what the amendment is doing. We want law enforcement to mean any kind of an enactment or a regulatory authority or a law that has a penalty or sanction attached to it. Subsequently, that would be a definition with (inaudible).

Mr. Chair, in relation to the discussion with the RNC, the discussion with the RNC had to do with their investigative files. They wanted their investigative files covered, and that is already done, Mr. Chair, in section 5.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to make it clear for the question from the hon. member opposite, this will not eliminate restaurant inspections from being made public or being available to the public; however, their amendment will. Their amendment could very well remove the possibility of restaurant inspections being disclosed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, speaking to the amendment.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just stand very briefly on this, Mr. Chair. For the general public, Mr. Chair, as we all know, we went into the clauses all night, the second reading all night now. We are into what they call a committee. I will just explain to people that we go through it clause by clause. I will just read out the first clause that we are going through, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Bay of Islands to speak to the amendment to clause 1 that is now up for discussion. After we vote on the amendment, we will go back and talk about clause 1.

MR. JOYCE: Yes. Mr. Chair, we put the amendment in there because most of this discussion that they are having is with the RNC. We want to ensure the criminal part of the investigation by the RNC was encompassed.

If there are assurances from the minister, and I heard also the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador that "criminal" is included. That would exclude investigations in restaurants and making the information known. That is part of the information we are looking for, is that with this amendment we are including criminal investigations.

From what I have been told here, Mr. Chair, is that if this is included, and this is voted upon and approved, this would exclude our ability to get the records from the inspections to the restaurants anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am just wondering if the Minister of Justice can explain that later because it is a big issue, Mr. Chair. As we all know, it was an issue that was brought to the forefront a number of times in the media, and here in St. John's especially, Mr. Chair, and I am sure all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will just ask the minister for some clarification on it, Mr. Chair, because when you read the report itself, all throughout Mr. Cummings, it is all about the RNC investigation. I ask the minister for clarification, when the Minister of Service NL said if we include "criminal" that the inspections were made public for the restaurants in Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: The Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a good point to bring up. I want to be very clear here that the intention of the amendment to the bill is not to prevent the disclosure or openness of any type of restaurant inspection. We fully intend to make those available. As a matter of fact, we are working on manners to try and make them more accessible to the public as we speak. Our department is working on it as we speak to make them more available to the public.

They are not criminal investigations or police investigations. Police investigations are not always subject of the Criminal Code of Canada. They may be subject to the Food and Drug Act. They may be subject to Customs and Excise and other federal statutes, other federal laws, or some provincial laws as well in which they may conduct complex investigations that may take some time to do. That is what this is geared towards, not just criminal. To focus only on criminal would eliminate the rest of those types of investigations.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the answer from the minister. I was hoping I could get some clarification as to the answer he just gave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS: I hope we are not intruding on conversations here in this debate.

What I would say is: Can you please provide us with some details on what you are doing to make this more accessible to the public? Obviously, the public is very interested in knowing that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In section 1, subparagraph 2(i)(ii) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is repealed and substituted with the following, "(ii) investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment". Mr. Chair, the original clause, subsection (ii), in section 1, Mr. Chair, states that it applies to investigations, inspections or proceedings that lead or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed. Now, Mr. Chair, the addition on here is that it be conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the member, are you speaking to clause 1 or are you speaking to the amendment to clause 1?

MR. EDMUNDS: To clause 1, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay. We are now debating the amendment to clause 1. Once we have voted on the amendment, we can back to clause 1. So, if there are no further speakers to the amendment, we can vote on the amendment and then we can go back and debate clause 1.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Chair, I will speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chair, having just defined the original clause, we move to replace the clause 1 of the bill with the following sections: section 1, subparagraph 2(i)(ii) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is repealed and the following is substituted: (ii) criminal investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment. Mr. Chair, section 1.(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted: the individual personal views or opinions, except where they are about someone else, Mr. Chair.

As many of the speakers have said – and we have had certainly some clarification – it is vague, because it raises doubt as to whom exactly this law applies to. If you look at Mr. Cummings recommendation, the definition was geared toward law enforcement officers, Mr. Chair. We have had two hon. ministers talk about the different laws that this is designed to affect, Mr. Chair. There is a broad range of laws that this could be applied to, but again there is a certain level of doubt.

They talk about wildlife laws, Mr. Chair, criminal law. My colleague mentioned: Does this apply to civil law, Mr. Chair? The subsection is only as good as what is defined, and there is room for clarification here. It needs new wording to be all-encompassing, Mr. Chair, as no doubt the intent was. Mr. Chair, reading it as how it was and the proposed amendment would help clarify the content of this section.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Minister of Justice and Attorney General I would like to remind all members that the Speaker's rulings in the past have indicated that Blackberrys, cellphones, et cetera, are to be in silent mode at all times while in the Chamber. As well, in terms of telephone calls or anything, obviously they are not to be answered while in the Chamber.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Chair, this is my final point on this amendment.

The clause in the current act, the definition of law enforcement – investigations, inspections or proceedings that lead or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed. Mr. Chair, a wide sweeping, broad definition that includes everything including for example, workplace disputes, workplace harassment disputes and so on.

Mr. Chair, if that were left in there, then if we jump to paragraph 22, as the hon. Opposition House Leader did in her opening remarks, that particular clause says that you cannot disclose information that will interfere with law enforcement. If we include law enforcement to include all of these things, then we are restricting their information. We are not disclosing information; we are withholding information with regard to all those disputes and investigations.

By narrowing and leaving out the workplace disputes and harassment disputes for example, we restrict it to laws and enactments that have penalties to it. Then, paragraph 22 will allow us not to disclose information that will interfere with law enforcement, law enforcement then with the proper definition. Mr. Chair, it is in the interest of the Province, interest of the public, and interest of disclosure of information not to make that amendment.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: We are now going back to debate clause 1.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to stand up and speak to this clause again. One of the issues that I raised – which I was very appreciative of the answer from the Minister of Service NL. I think that the question I asked previously, which was not answered, is certainly relevant to this specific section where we talk about the fact that the investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which could lead to a penalty – this is the section that we are trying to insert.

So what I would say is my question to the minister as to restaurant inspection reports and what is the department doing to ensure that we have access to that information, I think that warrants an answer. What is the department doing to address this issue? Because it was something that there was a lot of public feedback on that recently – we had a restaurant here in the metro area that closed down, and people were very concerned that they are not seeing these reports. So obviously, I am very interested in hearing what the department is going to do to address this issue. Again, as I have done on numerous occasions, if we like it, we will support, as we did just recently with the personal services legislation. We are not adverse to supporting government – I was just looking at the clock, Mr. Chair. I am fine with going unlimited, but again, I feel that in the interests of…. Again, what I would say is I am not adverse to supporting legislation. We support the intent of access to information legislation; that is why a Liberal government started this process some ten years ago or more.

Obviously, we are fine with that. Back in those days, we had to hear the now government, many of the members that are now in government, campaign on the promise of, oh we need to make sure information is out there – actually, there are a few of them still sitting here – we need to make sure that that information is out there to the public. So, when I ask these things, I am only asking for the purpose of ensuring that this government is going to live up that promise. Some promises have not been lived up to in the past.

So, again, my question is to investigations, inspections, or proceedings, and I am hoping that the minister can give us some enlightenment or some clarity on what they intend to do here to ensure, and I guess to make sure that these types of reports are going to be out there and available.

We know another area that is very important is workplace, health and safety. It is obviously a huge issue and we know investigations are done on that. We saw that in the news recently as well. We have seen unfortunate cases of people being injured on the job and the investigations being done.

I am going to leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I think I have said my piece as to this first section of the bill and I am looking forward to hearing what the minister has to say.

CHAIR: The Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try and make this clear for the hon. member one more time. Restaurant inspections, as he mentioned across the way, has been a matter of some interest, primarily with the media in months gone by. I mentioned in debate that we have made it quite clear that restaurant inspection reports are available to the general public by visiting a local government service centre and that our staff would work with a member of the general public who is looking to inquire about a particular restaurant. If they were thinking of attending the restaurant and want to know, what is the most recent inspection report? So they can get an understanding of the status of the restaurant at that time, and we would make it available.

We have no intention at all of changing that or removing that openness and transparency of making those reports available to the general public. Again, as I said, we are always looking at ways in our department to make improvements, to make information more accessible to the public. One of the things we are considering is ways to make restaurant inspections more open and transparent to the general public as well.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will rise again just to go through this very briefly. The understanding here is that we are changing it to "investigations, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to or could lead to a penalty or sanction being imposed under the enactment".

Mr. Chair, I will ask the minister a question, and we mentioned the issue about restaurants. How about some industrial site? Would there be investigations done in some way to some industrial sites? This is a question that when you actually read Mr. Cummings' recommendations on law enforcement, Mr. Cummings recommended the definition of law enforcement be amended to clarify that an investigation, inspection or proceedings and correspondent penalty or sanctions must be conducted under the legislative authority.

I ask the minister: Industrial sites, would this also be included in any type of investigation? If it is not a criminal investigation, could it be work, health and safety, for example, if there is an accident?

I will use Nalcor, for example, somewhere in the Nalcor site, would this legislation enable that the information provided on such a site, will that be made public and be able to be public if there was an investigation done at an industrial site or some other workplace where there is an investigation by RNC or some other enforcement agency?

CHAIR (Kent): The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, as long as the investigation or proceedings are carried out pursuant to a law or an authority that has a penalty attached to it, then it is covered. That is what the definition is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: All right, just to make it clear, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) already.

MR. A. PARSONS: Well, we have a lot more here because I have a lot of issues with this official secrets act. We suggested putting in the criminal part, "criminal" in front of the investigation. We already know, and it has already been stated, that RNC files are ones that are already covered. The intent now is to remove criminal so we cover off any type of law that has an investigation.

Am I right in saying, what this means is that any type of law that has an investigation or penalty is now allowed to be covered? By covered, I mean hidden or not disclosed to the public. If that is the case, can you confirm, Minister, when we talk about something like parking ticket statistics – again, that is obviously an issue because we have a lot of people who go around with a lot of money owed to this Province, a lot of money. Can you confirm that this is one area of the law that will now become secret and not disclosed to the public?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, you can take this ad nauseam and you can carry it on forever. Obviously, that is the intention of people on the other side.

Mr. Chair, this provision is clear. It has been explained a dozen and one times. If the people opposite want to carry on and bring it to all kinds of possible ramifications, then we will sit here and let you do it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, my question will now be referred to as a yes or no question. Will parking ticket statistics be hidden under this new law? Yes or no?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, information will not be disclosed if it will interfere with law enforcement. I cannot be any clearer than that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just spend another minute on it, especially as this legislation, Mr. Chair, as we all know, is being rammed through the House of Assembly. When we look at this amendment, when it gets rammed through – and the minister already is losing his patience, we are only at clause 1 – that the Official Opposition cannot ask questions in here. I say it is time for the minister now to just take your time, take your Valium if you need to because there are a lot more questions coming. Let me tell you, there are a lot more questions coming.

Mr. Chair, I ask the minister once again, on several occasions – and you mentioned that you could take it to any extent. Some of us are not lawyers; some of us do not understand it. When you read a section of the act which is legal, and I am sure the minister can understand it. The Member for Humber East can understand it because he is a trained lawyer. The Member for Burgeo – La Poile is a lawyer. I am not sure who else is a lawyer here. If you think we are asking questions, Mr. Chair, because we do not understand it, you are correct. We do not understand it. That is why we are here in clause 1 going through it.

If you look at some of the information that is here, the Submissions and Consultations, "During consultations, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) raised concerns about the different standards of protection afforded by the ATIPPA to investigate files. Specifically, active investigations are protected by the discretionary exceptions contained in section 22, however, a higher standard of protection is given to active prosecution files which are excluded from the application of the Act under section 5.

"The RNC requests that consideration be given to broadening section 5 to include active investigations as well. In addition, the RNC questioned whether the Commissioner was the appropriate authority to review sensitive police files…"

Mr. Chair, I will ask the minister, because obviously he feels a bit tired to answer the questions. Some of us lay people do not understand if it includes all investigations, if it is just criminal investigations, if it is just investigations of a civil matter, we just do not understand it. That is why we have to ask the questions, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I will go on. "The RNC also raises the possibility of granting section 60 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act priority over the ATIPPA." I ask the minister again: If this was a part of the recommendation of the RNC, will this override any part of the act? That is one of the questions. Will there be regulations brought in to suffice what the RNC has asked?

I read it again, Mr. Chair, "The RNC also raises the possibility of granting section 60 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act priority over the ATIPPA. This section requires all employees of the RNC to maintain confidentiality or secrecy of information.

"The RNC is also concerned that federal bodies, such as the RCMP, may be hesitant to share information with the RNC, if the RNC cannot guarantee that the information they receive will remain confidential."

I ask the minister: Is there any legislation being brought forward in section 60 to override ATIPPA, which the RNC requested in their proposal, in their request, when they made this submission here, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

The RNC in their consultations with the commissioner, with Mr. Cummings, were concerned with the disclosure of information with respect to files that are in the process of investigation. Ongoing prosecution files that are not yet completed are already covered under section 5. The RNC were concerned the investigation of files still on the go. Mr. Chair, that was their concern, and that has been covered and addressed in other sections of this act, so that has been covered off.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I go back to the amendment, Mr. Chair, which outlines criminal investigations. In subsection (ii), Mr. Chair, inspections or proceedings conducted under the authority of or for the purpose of enforcing an enactment which lead to –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that the amendment was in fact defeated, and we have resumed debate on clause 1.

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Chair.

Just going through the discussions and the questions that have been asked on clause 1, Mr. Chair, a wealth of information is coming forward. It certainly portrays the need for work to be done. On just this clause alone, we have gone from criminal laws, sharing of information, and possible impact with the RCMP and with the RNC. We are gone into workplace, health and safety enforcement and civil law enforcement.

The subsection is only as good as what is defined. Mr. Chair, we have gone into wildlife laws and how provincial wildlife officers are dragged into this. The amount of time that we spend on this, the information that is coming forward from the questions that are being asked, and, no doubt, from the responses that we have been getting from the hon. members opposite, just shows to me that there is more need of clarification. I am hopeful that Mr. Cummings' recommendation was certainly defined well (inaudible) an investigation, Mr. Chair. I think what we are seeing here now, in all fairness, there was an attempt to amend this act, this clause, and what would come forward certainly opens the eyes of the people in this Province in terms of further clarification that is needed.

Mr. Chair, I am hopeful that the minister can come forward with something that is iron clad, that would be implemented and would be for the protection of all levels of enforcement, all levels of authority, and certainly define what could lead to a penalty or sanction imposed under this enactment, what level of enforcement would be required. Certainly, there are questions that have been put out there that find fault in this clause, Mr. Chair. The questions that we have asked certainly lead to more questions. I think it is early on in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and I think this clause is probably one of the minor ones, Mr. Chair. It leaves room for improvement. I am hoping that an act could be brought forward that would be for the protection of the people of this Province, and not to connect any more doubt on that, Mr. Chair.

These are my comments on that, Mr. Chair. I am looking forward to more clarification on clause 1 in this amendment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are moving into a section now that was discussed by Mr. Cummings in his report. To start this section off, I want to get it out there exactly what is being attempted here or what the intent is.

Section 5.(1) says, "This Act applies to all records in the custody of or under the control of a public body but does not apply to" – so these are the things that do not apply, and that would be, "(a) a record in a court file, a record of a judge of the Trial Division, Court of Appeal, or Provincial Court, a judicial administration record or a record relating to support services provided to the judges of those courts; (b) a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity; (c) a personal or constituency record of a member of the House of Assembly, that is in the possession or control of the member". That is certainly one that is relevant and we should all be aware of here as members of this House of Assembly. "(c.1) records of a registered political party or caucus as defined in the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act; (d) a personal or constituency record of a minister". Paragraph (e) and (f), Mr. Chair, have been repealed previously; "(g) a record of a question that is to be used on an examination or test" – and just for the clarity here, we are talking about clause 2 but it is actually subsection 5.(1) of the act.

That is the problem sometimes; it is easy to slip over this stuff as we are going through it. Sub (h) of 5.(1), "a record containing teaching materials or research information of an employee of a post-secondary educational institution; (i) material placed in the custody of the Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador by or for a person, agency or organization other than a public body; (j) material placed in the archives of a public body by or for a person, agency or other organization other than the public body; (k) a record relating to a prosecution if all proceedings in respect of the prosecution have not been completed". I believe that this is one of the ones that may have been of some issue.

What we are asking here is that subsection 5(1) be amended. What we are doing is we are deleting the word "or" at the end of paragraph (j), and then we are deleting the period at the end of paragraph (k) and putting in a semi-colon.

We are inserting two new sections, "(l) a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary if all matters in respect of the investigation have not been completed; or (m) a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information or reveal information provided by that source with respect to a law enforcement matter." This is something that is certainly serious, when we are talking about law enforcement and the ability to protect disclosure provisions when it comes to law enforcement.

I noticed that Mr. Cummings recommended limiting the records in section 5 to judicial records, records related to a prosecution, or records of a person acting in a judicial capacity. What this will do as a result in a dispute relating to these categories of records being taken before the courts for resolution, which seems to be a common activity in this legislation, is let's bring everything to court. Mr. Cummings further recommended all other categories of records in section 5 be reviewable by the Privacy Commissioner, by the OIPC.

In this case, we are saying – it is my understanding, and perhaps the minister will clarity this, the current law is being maintained with section 5 records being referred directly to court when in dispute. What we are doing is adding these two other sections, these RNC sections to those that will have to go directly to court.

When we look at the actual recommendations that were made by Mr. Cummings, a lot of this came out of another – this was not a Court of Appeal decision, but this was a Trial Division decision from our Provincial Supreme Court. They were asked to consider whether or not the commissioner had the power to compel production of a record from a public body for review by the commissioner.

Could the commissioner ask this public body to give him the information so he could sit down – and I say he, because currently there is a he there, but he or she, whoever the commissioner happens to be in the near future. This is in the case where a public body alleges that the ATIPPA does not apply to the record pursuant to section 5. Again, this is the common thing here. If you ask a public body for information, the public body says no, does the Privacy Commissioner have the right to ask for this?

In its decision, which was done by Justice Fowler, he held that the commissioner had no power to compel the production of the records for the purposes of determining whether section 5 was applied properly. This specific case that was decided, dealt with an RNC officer on the West Coast who was being prosecuted. In that case he ruled against the production of those records, but he also notes that the records enumerated in section 5.

All those sections that I read out, they do not all carry the same level of security or restrictiveness to warrant the same exclusion from the public. That is an overarching theme to this legislation, which is we are seeing more of an attempt to have blanket coverage so that we do not have to differentiate between the different pieces of information we want. We are saying we are just going to cover it all. Why is that?

Well, it is much easier for government to do that, just cover the works of it instead of having to pick through it and figure out what should be disclosed and what should not be disclosed. I have heard commentary here today saying that it is a waste of time. That is an unfortunate mindset to have, but government will have that. What the commissioner did, or Mr. Cummings did in this case, is he went to the different crowds that had concerns on this.

The Department of Justice, Mr. Chair, requested amendments to clarify ATIPPA. They wanted to clarify the state of the law. They wanted to make sure: Did the Privacy Commissioner have the right to compel the production of these section 5 documents? There is a big difference, Mr. Chair, when you discuss these different documents. You have some who talk about material placed in the Provincial Archives and comparing that to a record in a court file. That is a huge discrepancy in the type of information, and that is the question here. The types of information need to be distinguished here because not all of it is worthy of protection. Not all of it is necessarily needed to be protected.

That was what the Department of Justice asked for, for this clarification, because obviously the judge had stated in his decision: Look, we cannot be covering all this off. The commissioner's office in their recommendation, just so it is out there, recommended the act be amended to clarify that the commissioner did have the authority to compel the production of section 5 records for determining whether or not he actually had the jurisdiction over the records.

That is what we are talking about here. We have an independent officer of the House who just wants a look. He wants to look at it, and they will make that decision. By placing that person in this position we are assuming they have that ability. We have that level of trust, that mutual trust that they are going to look at this information, which could be sensitive, and say: Should it be disclosed or not disclosed?

In fact, Justice Fowler made a comment which I thought was very informative. How can the commissioner determine his own jurisdictional boundaries without having the power to examine a section 5.1 record to determine for himself whether or not the record properly falls under section 5.1? So really, how do you make that decision without being allowed to look at the information in the first place? That is what Justice Fowler wanted, and that is one of the things that was discussed when we talk about this piece of legislation and what we are trying to do. We do need clarification.

In some cases I do not agree with the clarification that is being provided to me, but it is better to have a bad clarification than no clarification at all. That is what I would say. It is better that we have an understanding – I might not agree with it, but I need to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is like our debates.

MR. A. PARSONS: That is right. It is just like our debates, Mr. Chair. There is lots of stuff that I have said over the last twenty, twenty-one hours that has not been agreed to by the members of the government, but it goes the other way as well. There is certainly a lot that has been discussed by the members of government that I do not agree with. I will agree with certain things though if it is relevant and if it is indeed for the best interests of the people of this Province. Some of this is; some of this is not.

Again, the commissioner – what I am going to do to make sure that when we read Hansard that it is not hard to determine, I am just going to say Cummings from this point onwards, because Cummings is one commissioner, and I will say the commissioner when I talk about the Privacy Commissioner.

It looks like my time is running out. What I am going to do is I will stop now and then perhaps I will stand up again on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just – as the member just said, but I have to clarify something. Most things I say, most people do agree with. I will just thank the members opposite for agreeing with me in the debate last night, Mr. Chair. I thank them all for agreeing with me, because they know at least I will be upfront with it.

Mr. Chair, as the Member for Burgeo – La Poile mentioned, the majority of things we are looking for in a lot of this legislation is clarity. Once you get information and you put it into an act, there are a lot of questions that arise, a lot of questions. The Member for Burgeo – La Poile just brought up a great point, and I will just go on with it, Mr. Chair, and talk about the discussions and the recommendations.

When we discuss this, and I know the Minister of Fisheries mentioned it, there are times – I must say, I am not a legal beagle, but there are times when I ask for clarity so I can try to understand it a bit better. I say to the minister, if there are things that you think are a bit tedious, I am sorry, I will apologize upfront, but I will ask the questions to make sure that I do know it. If you think it is a bit tedious, I apologize upfront. It is just the new me, Mr. Chair. When I am a bit tired, I am a bit nicer than usual.

Mr. Chair, in the discussion, it says: "I am of the view that disputes relating to whether records are judicial records or records related to a prosecution, which are classes of information to which the ATIPPA does not apply pursuant to section 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(k) respectively, should be taken before the Supreme Court, Trial Division for determination of the issue. In addition, any disputes relating to a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a judicial capacity, as referenced in subsection 5(1)(b), should be taken before the Supreme Court, Trial Division.

"I am of the opinion that the remaining categories of information under section 5, namely subsection 5(1)(b)" – and we read them out just then, Mr. Chair, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile – "as it related to notes, communications and draft decisions of persons acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and subsections 5(1)(c) to 5(1)(j), do not require the same level of protection".

I will just stop there for a second, Mr. Chair. How many people out there, like me, can understand that if you do not ask for clarification? When you look at this whole ATIPP being brought forth, Mr. Chair, look at some of the briefings that were put forth and some of the recommendations, then I have to wonder why are we taking this, putting this all in and trying to get it all done in one or two days. Just reading that section alone, Mr. Chair, there are going to be more questions here today, more clarifications that we are going to asking for.

It has to be brought to the attention of the people out there, Mr. Chair, who are listening or watching. Here we have documents, Mr. Chair, put in there – and there are a lot of legal documents, a lot of legal jargon, Mr. Chair, from a layperson saying that. Yet, we have to take this, we have to rush this through, we have to get all of this in today or tomorrow, we have to stay here all night, have to stay here all day today, get this in, Mr. Chair, because people like me, who I associate myself with the common Joe out in Newfoundland and Labrador, do not understand it. I am asking questions, Mr. Chair, to find out why this is being put forth.

Mr. Chair, I apologize sometimes, but I am speaking on behalf of the common Joe and I am going to go through it until I can – I know you find it a bit difficult to understand too, because I am sure you do not have the legal background also. That is why constituents in your district, Mr. Chair, are going to be asking the same questions.

"The Commissioner should be granted express authority to review these records to determine whether they are within his jurisdiction. I recognize that this may not be an entirely satisfying conclusion to a difficult issue but it is pragmatic and workable, and one with which the Commissioner's Office agrees."

Now, Mr. Chair, on top of that, there were some recommendations that were made. There were three recommendations made on this. The first recommendation, "Disputes relating to whether records are judicial records or records related to a prosecution pursuant to subsections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(k) respectively should be taken before the Supreme Court, Trial Division for determination of the issue." Now, Mr. Chair, I ask you: When you read that recommendation, does that sound like something you can handle, that the commissioner himself could take and handle?

The first recommendation is take it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the first recommendation made on this section: Take it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just say to all the people out there in Newfoundland and Labrador who is watching this now, Mr. Chair, when you talk about this ATIPP legislation, taking it and putting it on the table, saying we are bringing this in today, we are going to have it in the next day or two because we want it done, you are going to stay all night, stay all the next day, but the first recommendation: Bring it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Relax, we are going to take care of you; big brother over there is going to take care of you. We are talking about just shoving things right through, get it through without proper discussion and debate, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: I know they are getting all excited over there again, but I am sorry I just do not understand it. This is why I am asking – I am asking on behalf of the other 490,000 common Joes out there who do not understand it, Mr. Chair. I am sure I am not the only one in this Province who does not understand it.

The second recommendation, Mr. Chair, "Disputes relating to a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a judicial capacity, as referenced in subsection 5(1)(b), should be taken before the Supreme Court, Trial Division for determination of the issue. The first one, we went to the Supreme Court, Trial Division and the second one, we are going to the Supreme Court, Trial Division. Yet, up there in part of the discussion it is saying that they should be able to sit down and work this out, Mr. Chair. The ATIPP co-ordinator should be able to determine what information and what he can do with it. The first two recommendations are bringing it to the trial court.

The third recommendation, "The Information and Privacy Commissioner should be granted express authority to examine records relating to disputes of a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, as referenced in subsection 5(1)(b), and disputes regarding subsections 5(1)(c) to 5(1)(j), to determine whether these records fall within his jurisdiction."

What we have now, we have the first two recommendations. If there is a dispute relating to records that are judicial or records related to the prosecution, you have to go to the Supreme Court, Trial Division. Disputes relating to a note, communication or draft decision of a person have to go to the Supreme Court, Trial Division. Now, Mr. Chair, "The Information and Privacy Commissioner should be granted express authority to examine records relating to disputes of a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity...". We are into a position now that we have to give it to the commissioner and let him decide if he feels that it is within his domain that he can make a decision on it.

I know the minister is going to stand up and clarify a lot of this legal jargon. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, when you see the first two recommendations to bring them to the trial court in Newfoundland, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the third recommendation is give the commissioner the opportunity to go look at all the information in front of him, let him decide what he thinks is in his purview to do and then he will decide what he can look at, Mr. Chair, you can see the complications that you are running into.

This is not as simple as when the minister said that this is just changing the legislation. This is not as simple. I can say tell you there are three or four lawyers here. There are three I know of; I do not know if anybody else here is a lawyer. There are three I know here. They could sit down here and they could make $1 million each arguing this in court, either which way. Here we are, Mr. Chair, just a layperson just trying to get some answers on this.

I see my time is up. I am sure I am going to be back, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: I have been listening with interest to some of the discussion that has taken place here during this procedure, which I believe is referred to as a filibuster, where the Opposition just simply asks question after question after question over the same thing merely to try to delay the government in seeing that its legislation is passed. I think this is good. It is good that Joe Chesterfield and the other people who are watching this today get a chance to see what is happening here today and what happened last night. They will make their judgement accordingly, and I look forward to that.

Mr. Chair, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation does not provide absolute rights to information. As a matter of fact, even our most fundamental and important constitutional documents do not provide absolute rights. All of our rights, even those under our cherished Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all of the rights that we have are subject to reasonable limitations that are justifiable in a free and democratic society. So rights are not absolute.

For example, we have the right to freedom of expression in our Constitution, in the Charter, but that does not give us the right to slander someone or to defame someone. The right of freedom of expression is subject to limitation. It is subject to a limitation that is reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. I have the right to freedom of expression, but I cannot go into a movie theatre and yell fire when there is no fire. We all know that, and it is the same in this particular legislation. We are providing access to information more so than it was ever provided in the past.

The legislation was brought in by the Liberal Party when they were in government, but they did not proclaim it. While they were in government they did not have to live under it. They did not have to abide by its terms and provisions. Of course, when we got into government, one of the first things they asked for when called upon was to do a proclamation of that legislation. I remember it very well because I was the Justice Minister at the time.

I remember when the predecessor to the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, I think one of the first questions he asked me is: When are you proclaiming ATIPPA? Of course, I did not know at the time if it was fit to eat. Anyway, I have since learned.

What we have in this legislation is legislation that provides a right of access to information, but it is not absolute. If you look at, I think it is section 3 which sets out the purpose of the act; it talks about what the legislation will do. It will give people rights to access to information, but then it put restrictions on it.

It talks about specifying limited exceptions to the right of access. The right of access, the right to information, is not absolute. What the act says is people have the right to information subject to the terms and conditions in the legislation, which the Opposition brought in, that say you cannot have certain information.

Section 5 says the act does not apply to the following items. The act simply does not apply to certain types of information. That was their legislation. There is no point in criticizing this government for what they brought in themselves.

The legislation in section 5 says, "This Act applies to all records in the custody of or under the control of a public body but does not apply to…" Then it lists a number of things, which the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile read out in some detail.

For example, the personal records of a minister, the constituency records of a minister, the act does not even apply. The argument is if the act does not apply, the commissioner has no right to look. He has no right to look at that information, at those records. Obviously, the commissioner would come in and say: Well, I want to satisfy myself that that record is one of the records that comes under section 5.(1). He has no right to do so if the act does not apply to that record. That was the difficulty in the case the hon. member mentioned.

In addition, if you look at other sections of the legislation, and this is very important. I hesitate to use the word spin, but the interpretation that colleagues opposite have placed on this legislation is the fact that our government is trying to deny people with access to information. When in reality, the legislation itself specifies certain situations where you shall not disclose the information. The law says that information cannot be disclosed. The government would be committing an offence if they released that information.

In addition, the third area is there are sections of the legislation that says the government may, which means they may not release information. The fact is that government, in certain cases, cannot release the information. Government in other cases may or may not release the information. That is a judgment call they have to make. There is the other section that we are talking about now, section 5, which says the act does not even apply to the information, to these particular records.

If we can look at section 5, what is happening here is that section 5 says, "This Act applies to all records in the custody of or under the control of a public body but does not apply to…" and then there is a lengthy list of things that it does not apply to. What government is doing here is bringing in two amendments, two new items under section 5.(1), so that the act does not apply to these things.

One of the things is a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary of all matters in respect to the investigation that have not been completed. This would prevent people from asking the RNC, who are conducting some criminal investigation, from making an application to the commissioner to say we want to see what is in that police file. I do not know why they would want to see what is in that police file, but this prevents them from doing so as long as the investigation has not been completed.

Secondly, the act will not apply to a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information or reveal information provided by that source. So as you can see, you can have a criminal file where somebody in the general public says, I want to see the information in that file. That file may contain the name, for example, of a police informant and that information would then get out. You can imagine what the life expectancy of that police informant is going to be, not very long.

This is obviously a situation where the act should not apply. That information should not become available to members of the general public. I would suggest, given the fact that the previous government had a list of things to which the act would not apply, that these two amendments are obviously additional things where it would be in the public interest and reasonable for the act not to apply to that information and it should stay confidential.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I enjoyed the answer from the Minister of Finance. What I am trying to do here and the purpose of this is to make sure we are all on the same page here, because if I do not fully understand this then there is a good possibility there are other people out there who do not fully understand this. I am asking these questions with all sincerity.

What we are saying is that section 5 covers off a number of different areas or pieces of information that the act does not apply to and therefore, what that means is the commissioner does not have access to them. Am I correct in making that statement? If that is the case, if you want access to this information you must go directly to court. Am I correct in making that statement?

I can sit down and you can answer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, that direction has already been established through court decisions. In the event of a dispute over whether or not the commissioner, in this case, could review a file under section 5, it was the court's interpretation – it was the Department of Justice interpretation first that he could not, and it was verified by the court. In a dispute of any of the provisions under section 5, if it is a dispute between a public body and the commissioner, then the court makes a decision.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: When we talk about that, when there is a dispute – from my reading of this, there are certain sections where it is an automatic first instance where it goes directly to court if there is a dispute. It is not a case of the commissioner has a chance to review these documents. He is not going to get the right to review these documents –

MR. MARSHALL: Under section 5.

MR. A. PARSONS: Under section 5.

What I would say is that in certain aspects here, I agree. I agree with sections (l) and (m) that are being proposed here, Mr. Chair. God forbid that we have a confidential source of information in a police matter disclosed. I am fine with that, I agree with that. In some cases it could be of life and death, when you think about it.

Why should the public have access to that information while the file is ongoing? I know when the files close that is a different story. Then we have a right to have that information. There are some things there – I am just wondering why a commissioner would not have an automatic right to have this information to make that decision himself. When we talk about material placed in the custody of the archives, why isn't the commissioner allowed to have a look at that? Is there any reason for that, why that has to go directly to court? Let's keep in mind, at the highest point here, is there is a cost involved to go to court.

I have heard on numerous occasions tonight, and nothing could be further from the truth – we talk about this money, $5 to make an application. Five dollars is not the cost. If I have to go to court, it is a lot more than $5 for the retainer to get a lawyer to even do one of these applications.

The commissioner has to go to court, but what I am saying is why wouldn't the commissioner be allowed to have a look at it in the first place? I am not talking about police matters. I am talking about a matter that is in the archives. Why is that exempted from the act, I would ask?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Liberal government.

MR. A. PARSONS: Well, there are lots of things we have done that you have changed, I would say. Just because something is there you are not going to change it. I am just putting that out there, and inform me. To use that excuse because it was there or because you guys did it. I did not do it. I was not around, and because it was there before does not mean it is good enough.

What I am saying, and keep this in mind, I agree with aspects of this. There are two different things, there are materials placed in the custody of the Provincial Archives and then "material placed in the archives of a public body by or for a person, agency or other organization..." I am not sure, that is not the same to me as confidential police information relevant to an ongoing investigation. That seems to me to be a bit off there.

There could be a case made, and I guess the commissioner has the right to fight this in court, but when we talk about the records of a registered political party or caucus. A caucus is one thing, that is different, but a registered political party is different. That is one thing that we as elected politicians always have to deal with are questions on integrity from the general public. That is part of the deal. We all are aware of that.

Lately, in this country, there have been a lot of things done by politicians and political parties that were – and I would say specifically on the national, federal stage – reprehensible. Some of the stuff that is being done, in some cases it is almost fraudulent in nature, and some of these things are committed by political parties. We always have to be vigilant of that, I would suggest.

When we talk about records in a court file, a record of a judge of the Trial Division, Court of Appeal, I can understand that that was there. I can deal with that. I would suggest that when it is an ongoing file it is one thing, and when it is a closed file it is another thing. I am sure that would come up when you get down the road, when you have to challenge this in court.

The other problem, and keep in mind what we have said all along. Just to suggest that the commissioner can go to court, do not take that as a good thing, folks. That is not necessarily a good thing. We do not make an application to court today and get in tomorrow. That is not how this system works. Anybody who has been involved in court, whether as a practising lawyer or as somebody who had to go through the system, whether it be a criminal matter, whether it be a family matter. The fact is this stuff takes time. It takes a lot of time.

We have said all along here that delaying these things is in many cases delaying people's – or interfering with their rights. Access denied is access delayed. It is the same thing we have kept saying here. Please, when I say this to you, do not think that allowing the commissioner to go to court as being a great thing. The commissioner going to court – obviously, he has a right to go to court, but forcing him to go to court on a number of things is not doing anything to help the cause of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would suggest that when we talk about section (c) and (d) personal or constituency records of ministers or MHAs. Obviously, that is very touchy because as MHAs we deal with constituents on a daily basis. A lot of times we deal with sensitive matters, matters that we have to get consent forms signed for. We all know the process that we are dealing with there. There are oodles of different consent forms, depending on which government body or agency you are dealing with. It can be a real task sometimes to figure out which consent form we have to get signed on behalf of a constituent.

I have to be honest with you, and maybe you can clarify this for me, I am asking with all sincerity here. Section (g): "a record of a question that is to be used on an examination or test". I do not quite get that one. Is there a reason why that is something that needs to be brought to the courts right away? That the Privacy Commissioner would not have – is there something maybe that happened? Some of you were around when this was debated back in the early 2000s. Was this something that had happened before? Is there something I am not aware of? I only ask out of my own curiosity, to figure out why the laws we have are like that.

We look at the next part, a record containing teaching materials or research information of an employee or post-secondary educational institution. That one makes a bit more sense to me because that can be very classified, especially someone who is dealing with sensitive research materials that they have spent a lot of time and money looking at, I guess performing, a time in their life getting through that. I can deal with that.

Section (k): "record relating to the prosecution if all proceedings in respect to the prosecution have not been completed." I understand that. I can see why that makes sense. Why should that maybe go out to the public right away? Again, that is very sensitive information. We have all said here on numerous occasions in the last twenty-one hours or so, that there has to be that balance.

What I would say – and these are my specific questions if either of the ministers wishes to answer. In reference to the comments made by the Minister of Finance, talking about filibustering and asking questions, I would say that is my job to ask questions. That is my job to ask questions, especially when we have a piece of legislation this big and this backwards compared to what the government said they were going to do all along.

Yes, the people out there are watching. I know that anybody who is choosing to watch right now, you might think they do not want me to be asking these questions but I guarantee you they do. Given the number of e-mails I have received from government members' constituents who have cc'ed me in the last twenty-four hours, saying: I cannot believe my MHA is going to vote on this.

These are important questions. They are not just coming from my district; they are coming from your districts. They are coming from your districts. Please be aware of this, I am asking those questions so these constituents of yours can hear what you have to say to this piece of legislation that you are supporting. My question specifically on this that I would put to the ministers and some of them are out of curiosity: Why are some of these sections automatically placed in the court's jurisdiction so that the commissioner has to fight them? I am not disagreeing with (l), (m), the ones I talked about with politics, but there are some other ones there. Why are they there, and is there some reason that I am simply not aware of?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, it must have been obvious to the original drafters of this act that there was a good reason to have these in section 5, and we agree. There are a number of reasons why all of these provisions under section 5 deserve equal consideration. For example, I do not think there is any doubt with respect to judicial records, court files, and records with regard to courts and so on. I do not think anybody disputes, neither does Mr. Cummings, that this should not be accessible to anybody except to the courts.

Mr. Chair, with respect to some of the others in there, there are a number in there. For example, the personal constituency record of a member of the House of Assembly, records related to a political party, a personal constituency record of a minister. Mr. Chair, it is the strong opinion of the House of Assembly, and Judge Green in his report, that these be protected and stay under section 5. There was no doubt in his mind about that.

With respect to questions of the reuse on an examination or test, or teaching materials, for example; it is the strong opinion of the Department of Education, and Advanced Education and Skills, that these should be left in there and protected. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Chair, with regard to materials placed in the archives; it is the strong recommendation of The Rooms that these things are governed under The Rooms Act and ATIPPA should not apply. Mr. Chair, there is every reason to leave these provisions where they are. They were put in there for a good reason. We concur with that and we concur with leaving them there. In addition, we thought there should be two more. I do not think anybody has any issue with police investigative files and informant information. I think there is no issue with that.

Mr. Chair, with respect to the RCMP; somebody mentioned the RCMP is not subject to the provincial privacy act. It is subject to the federal act. My understanding is they do not release any of this information either.

Mr. Chair, the reasons why they were put there, these reasons stay valid today. We are not changing our position. We are not changing anything. The general consensus is that there is no public interest served by the commissioner having review of these files. In the event of a dispute or in the event of wanting to access these files, then the court makes the decision on that matter.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

What I am trying to get my head around – and I apologize to the minister, he thinks he has done it clearly, he very well may have, I also had to run in and out a couple of times – is the change in powers for the commissioner. I find it interesting when I look at the presentation that was made by the commissioner to Mr. Cummings. The commissioner did not make any representation with regard to section 5 of the act, which is what we are dealing with here under clause 2, subsection 5(1) of the act. From the perspective of the commissioner, things were okay. I do understand, though, what is being added on there. That seems really logical to have that added on.

I know you have spoken to it, but I want to ask again for clarification around why we are getting more happening in front of Supreme Court. It has already been spoken to. I am not going to belabour it, but I want to say it is a concern for me, too. I know that Cummings did make the recommendation. He recommended that, "Disputes relating to a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a judicial capacity, as referenced in subsection 5(1)(b), should be taken before the Supreme Court".

Then he recommended the commissioner be allowed to "examine records relating to disputes of a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, as referenced in 5(1)(b), and disputes regarding subsection 5(1)(c) to 5(1)(j), to determine whether those records fall within his jurisdiction."

It seems that things will get drawn out unnecessarily by having some parts go to the Supreme Court. I am not talking about the individual who is in the position. I am talking about the role of commissioner, that we are obviously going to have somebody in that role who has the capacities that we need.

This new legislation does seem to be removing rights from the commissioner with regard to determinations of what is legitimate in various circumstances, even though your own expert, the person who did the work recommended retention of the right. I am concerned; this is one of the first places where we see some of the commissioner's work being taken away. We find it in other places as we go on, and I will speak to them there too. I am just wondering, why is the government doing here what to me seems to be removing powers from the commissioner?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, we are not removing any powers from the commissioner. The commissioner never had a right to review section 5 provisions. They are excluded from the act. They are not covered by ATIPPA. They are not covered. The act does not apply to those provisions and subsequently, the commissioner does not have any right to review. He never had them. Not that we are taking them from him, he never had them to start with. That part remains unchanged, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to go back over the last twenty-odd hours, Mr. Chair. We have questioned this act as to where the government is going with it and how it impacts the future of access to information. We have done that on behalf of the people we represent, Mr. Chair. I think there are underlying questions as to motive, Mr. Chair, arguments on both sides. What right do we have to question it, and that we are doing something wrong.

In the last hour or so we have come down to the nitty-gritty of this act. I would be the first to admit, unlike my hon. colleague for Burgeo – La Poile, Mr. Chair, I am not a lawyer; however, the people of this Province, every person in this Province is subject to this act and how it affects them. When you look at it from the perspective of the people of this Province, Mr. Chair, and what we have highlighted as to the ramifications it could have on the people of this Province, certainly there is a lot of accountability that needs to be brought forward.

When you look at section 2 and what it covers, the first part, section 5.(1) "This Act applies to all records in the custody or under the control of a public body but does not apply to…" – and they have all been read out. If I were a lawyer in a debate in a courtroom, I could go to a lot of the clauses that are outlined in the original clause, and some of them are debatable. Like I said, I am not a lawyer. This act was proclaimed, was brought in, was ratified, my understanding, through two provincial parties, but time goes on, people's views change, and people's perception of what should be in an Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EDMUNDS: Okay, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, I have some more comments as to this piece of legislation.

I missed some of what the minister said there. What I would say when I am talking about this legislation, is when we talk about section 5.(1) "This Act applies to all records in the custody of or under the control of a public body…"

At this time, Mr. Chair, I would like to call for quorum.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair shall count the members. I determine that there –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind members that the Chair is on his feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have determined that there was, and there continues to be, quorum in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We shall continue debate in Committee of the Whole when members are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is still on his feet.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see there is a bit of testiness going on here. That is good, a bit of testiness going on here.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: You have lots of time to stand up. The Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, you never got up to speak on this yet. You will have lots of opportunity.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am sorry.

MR. DAVIS: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, rising on a point of order.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as an order of procedure here, the hon. member was rising and speaking in his place. It was unclear to me, as a member here that he had finished his comments because I was intending to respond to them. I know you have recognized the Member for Bay of Islands, but it was not clear that you were recognizing a new speaker.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile took his seat, and the next member to rise was the Member for the Bay of Islands once order was restored.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is good to see here, Mr. Chair. I will explain to the people that it is a bit of a late night. There are a few late nights happening here and the members opposite are a bit edgy. That is fine, that is all part of it.

Mr. Chair, I say to the Member for Humber East, the Minister of Finance, talking about how we are trying to go ahead and what we are trying to do is just trying to delay this here, just trying to go up and ask questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask someone to calm down the Member for Lewisporte, please. If he wants a chance to speak on this he can stand up and speak, but when he is in his seat he should be a bit impartial here.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Okay, Mr. Chair.

Anyway, the Member for Humber East was talking about me going ahead and delaying this. I say one thing to the minister, if this was good news like the hospital in Corner Brook you would announce it four or five times like you did the hospital out in Corner Brook, still not built, Mr. Chair. This is why we are asking questions, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Finance was talking about the right of access. We all have the right of access. Mr. Chair, I said it earlier, the right of access – and it is almost like this government here, it is almost like this House, Mr. Chair, because individuals should have rights guarded by government. When they are guarded by government there should be restrictions, but people should have access to the rights.

What is happening right now is the government is taking all the rights away from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are saying if you want it, you can apply for it. You can go back and get a bit here and there. That is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. That is what is happening through this bill, and we can see it more and more.

When you see all of this legislation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I ask for a bit of civility in the House. As a member, I ask for it, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation. I realize several now seem to have woken up, but I do ask members for their co-operation. Also, I remind hon. members that we are still debating clause 2.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The problem is they cannot handle the truth out of clause 2. That is the problem here. We look at clause 2, Mr. Chair, as we go through it – we asked the minister earlier, with the Submissions & Consultations, "In its written submission, the Department of Justice requests amendments to the ATIPPA to clarify the current state of the law, as described by Justice Fowler: specifically that the Commissioner cannot compel the production of the classes of records described in section 5. The Department submits that it may not be necessary to exclude all the record types described in section 5.

"In contrast, the Commissioner's Office requests that the Act be amended to clarify that the Commissioner has the authority to compel the production of section 5 records for the purpose of determining whether or not the Commissioner has jurisdiction over those records."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Once again, I ask members for their co-operation.

MR. KING: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Are you rising on a point of order?

MR. KING: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader, rising on a point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, my point of order is: A few moments ago, the Deputy House Leader for the Opposition, who happened to be the only person from the other side in the House, called quorum. Our Standing Orders, item 12, indicates that a log will be made of all members present in the House at the time quorum was called. I am asking if that is done and noted for the record. Members on this side were present and there was one present on the other side. We would like it noted for the record.

CHAIR: I acknowledge the point raised by the Deputy Government House Leader. It is obviously a rare circumstance in this House. It was very clear to me the moment that the question was raised by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile that there were indeed more than fourteen members present in the House; however, at the time I did not record names of members present, but I will certainly take that under advisement should the circumstance arise again.

The Deputy Government House Leader, arising again on a point of order.

MR. KING: (Inaudible) I accept your ruling and I appreciate it. Just if I could add to that, though, on this side we clearly understand who was and was not present. I believe we have video coverage in the House that would confirm for you who did, in fact, sit in the House and who did not.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Once again, I have considered the matter raised by the Deputy Government House Leader. Again, I will take the matter under advisement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Responding to the point raised by the Deputy Government House Leader, Standing Order 12 states, "Whenever the Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, the time of adjournment, and the names of the Members then present shall be inserted in the Journal." However, in this instance, we have not adjourned the House, so there is no requirement under our Standing Orders that names be recorded in the journal. Again, I do acknowledge the hon. Deputy Government House Leader's point, and we will once again resume debate on clause 2.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask you if you can protect me from the Deputy Speaker over there, the Member for Lewisporte, Mr. Chair, because I am here trying to discuss legislation and he is over in the peanut gallery and he has not stopped. If he wants to speak, stand up and speak. Do not go nipping –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask you again, Mr. Chair, so that I can be heard in this hon. House of Assembly.

CHAIR: Ladies and gentlemen, if the disorder continues in Committee of the Whole, I will have no choice but to rise the Committee and report to the Speaker.

I ask members for their co-operation.

Once again, I recognize the Member for Bay of Islands. I remind him that we are indeed debating clause 2, and I ask him to keep his comments pertinent to the clause in question.

MR. JOYCE: When I get the opportunity, Mr. Chair, I will.

"In support of their recommendations, the Commissioner's Office references Justice Fowler's finding that in order for the ATIPPA to achieve its purpose, the Commissioner should be entitled to determine its own jurisdiction".

The question is, "How can the Commissioner determine his own jurisdictional boundaries without having the power to examine a section 5(1) of the record to determine for himself whether or not the record probably falls under section 5(1) ……"

Mr. Chair, I will just go on –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands, by leave.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

"This is indeed a conundrum and raises the question, does the Commissioner simply accept the opinion of the head of a public body that the information being requested does not fall under the authority of the Act. If that were the case, the argument could be made that it could be seen to erode the confidence of the public and the Act by an appearance or perception that the process is not independent, transparent or accountable."

I ask the Minister of Justice, in the Recommendation 7: The Information and Privacy Commissioner should be granted "express authority to examine records relating to disputes of a note, communication or draft decision of a person acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, as referenced in subsection 5(1)(b), and disputes regarding subsection 5(1)(c) to 5(1)(j), to determine whether those records fall within his jurisdiction."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask the minister: If there is a dispute, does this automatically go to the courts or is there some other mechanism for this here to be resolved?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure now to have an opportunity. I know that the debate has been lively and vibrant in the last little while. We enjoy that on this side of the House, even though we sometimes get interrupted by procedural questions. When the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile stood up and asked for a quorum to be called, it was clear to us that there was nobody here from the NDP.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: There was only one person here from the Opposition.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that I have ruled on the previous point of order that was raised. It is also inappropriate to comment on members' presence in the House. I ask him to confine his comments to clause 2 of the bill.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: I apologize, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your ruling.

Mr. Chair, I do want to take the opportunity to comment on this amendment under clause 2, which amends subparagraphs 5(1) under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

It is very important to keep in mind, as we are debating this, that this is a bill that deals with the access to information. We as a government want to provide the public with access to information, but, while doing so, protect the privacy of individuals. That is a balance that we are trying to find here. We are trying to make improvements to that bill but while maintaining that balance.

I would like to remind the members opposite, especially the members in the Opposition, initially, this was their piece of legislation. It was us who made it happen, it was us who proclaimed it, it was us who brought it into practice, but they seem to be asking questions on a number of clauses there which were their clauses that they had in their original bill. They continue to stand up and say, why are you doing this and why are you doing that, and why is this here, when it is parts of the existing piece of legislation that they brought in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety per cent of it.

MR. DAVIS: Most of it is. Yes, by far, most of it is. They are asking questions about what they invoked and brought in on their own, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: I want to talk about the two amendments to subsection 5.(1), and there are two here. Before I do that, I would like to refer, just for a few minutes, to a gentleman from years gone by, by the name of Sir Robert Peel. Because Sir Robert Peel, in our system of law and the United Kingdom's system of law, is quite often seen as the person who is responsible for modernizing policing as we know it today.

I know anybody here with a legal background, I am sure, is familiar with Sir Robert Peel and the Sir Robert Peel principles. He developed nine principles of policing. One of the most famous sayings or philosophies that Sir Robert Peel brought into the concepts of modern-day policing is that the police are the people and the people are the police.

Even though Sir Robert Peel was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom back to 1834, he actually served two terms, 1834-1835 and 1841-1846. His modern principles, as they are even considered to be today, even though they went back to the 1800s, still exist in policing in Canada and exist in policing in Newfoundland and Labrador. He said the police are the people and the people are the police. This pertains to one of these amendments, specifically. That is, "a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information or reveal information provided by that source with respect to a law enforcement matter."

Mr. Chair, that particular section in policing and police investigations is a very fundamental process and it is a very fundamental tool used in policing today. There have been many cases through the courts, through the Provincial Court, through the Supreme Court, through the Trial Division, through the Newfoundland Supreme Court, through the Appeals Division, and also the Supreme Court of Canada, that deals with the protection of informants. Because it is quite often informants, who under the guidance of knowing they will not be disclosed, are willing to provide information to the police so that the police can act in their best regards, so that the police can ensure the protection of the public.

This was a lapse in this piece of legislation that is being addressed here, to show that the act does not have jurisdiction when it comes to those circumstances of people working with the police, or as Sir Robert Peel put it: the police are the people and the people are the police. The people are quite often seen as the eyes and ears of the police, because we cannot have a police officer on every street corner in every community in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The police depend on relationships with the people to work with the population, to work with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the best interests of themselves, in the best interests of the police. They rely on the police having confidentiality in the information they provide to them. It is a very fundamental, very important piece and part in the process of policing. Not only in policing, Mr. Chair, but I would say in successful policing. In order to be successful, quite often, this is an aspect that must be maintained.

There was one other amendment to subsection 5.(1) and that is "a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary if all matters in respect of the investigation have not been completed". Now, let's just think about that for a minute. When you think about policing, police officers do investigations every day, from the very minor to the very, very serious, the worst of crimes. To the very serious crimes that have an impact on the community, have an impact on how people feel about their community, about the safety of themselves, their family and their friends and so on, to the very minor.

A police officer routinely may see a vehicle that they believe has violated a section of the Highway Traffic Act, has not abided by the rules and regulations of the Highway Traffic Act. When a police officer sees that, then their attention now is drawn to the movement of a vehicle on the highway. It is a very simple matter. It happens routinely, dozens and dozens of times every single day. The police officer in their inquiring minds begins to wonder: Why did that person do that? Who is operating that vehicle? They look at the plate to make sure the registration is up to date. That police officer has now begun an investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: As soon as a police officer does that, they have begun to investigate. Once the police officer has been given some information to cause them to make inquiries or to think they need to look further into something, they are now engaged in an investigation. That investigation, Mr. Chair, can continue until the investigator, the officer, has exhausted all opportunities to conclude the investigation, either to say there are grounds to support a charge or there are not grounds to support a charge.

Sometimes they conclude the investigation by saying: I have not resolved it, but I will file it in case there is more information comes up in the future. That happens quite regularly on very serious investigations –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: – where a police officer can spend weeks and weeks and months and months investigating very serious matters. They can carry out interviews with numerous witnesses. They can attempt to find evidence. They may at the end of weeks and weeks of investigation and effort to conclude the investigation, either with charges laid or a belief that charges are not to be laid. They may at the end of it decide I do not have enough information to say one or the other. I cannot say with satisfaction that the investigation should be concluded, that charges are not warranted. I cannot say that I have enough evidence to support a charge; therefore, I just have not completed it, but there are no other avenues of investigation for me to follow at this time.

In a case like that, it is not unusual for some time in the future for a police officer to receive new information, it happens. It happens from time to time. Sometimes in a serious investigation it may be many years down the road. What we are saying here is while that investigation is not completed, while that investigation and all matters in respect of the investigation have not been completed, that those records should be protected, and so they should be in the best interests of that investigation.

That is generally, Mr. Chair, what these two amendments are relating to. It is relating to investigations which have not been concluded and the need to protect those. The second part of it is to protect the identity of those who provide information to the police.

I will just say to the hon. members and to the general public, generally speaking, in policing, the fact that a police officer has received information from someone that assists them in the process of their investigation, that information, generally speaking, is not evidence. It cannot be introduced as evidence. Someone told me something, strictly hearsay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DAVIS: It is generally not permitted under courts for a police officer to say, well so-and-so told me something. It can be an assisting tool in the investigation but it cannot be used as evidence. It sometimes leads police officers to evidence to assist them in an investigation but cannot be used as evidence.

The case here under this act, Mr. Chair, is that in these two circumstances where a source is providing information or an investigation is not concluded, it should be protected. That is what this amendment does. Everything else is pre-existing, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak here again to this piece of legislation now after all the excitement. I appreciate hearing the minister's response. It is obviously what I would call a first-hand response to somebody who was in the system.

I will ask a question that I think you have the background to provide me with an answer. I understand why we would not want to release information that is from an ongoing police file. My question is in some cases I have heard that ongoing police files may sit stagnant or dormant for some time where they are not closed, but there is no new information being accumulated or gathered. What I am wondering is: Is there a policy of, say, the RNC or RCMP as to how long these files can sit. Therefore, having people who are unable to get access to this information without to having to go to court, is there a policy on this here so that people have an idea as to how long they have to wait for a police file to be closed after it becomes, we will say, non-relevant?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I am not quite sure of the response to that question. I do not know if the hon. minister does; I will ask him to respond.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say to the hon. member opposite, to the Members of the House of Assembly, and to the people who may be watching at home today, in response to your inquiries of is there something that determines how long files are retained and maintained in policing, there is, and there are policies throughout government on the retention of files. There are similar kinds of policies that I know the RNC follow. I cannot tell you, with certainty, on how those policies are worded or how they are determined, but there are retention policies that they have on investigations. I would say to the member opposite, for the very serious investigations that would sometimes be involved in what this clause would affect here, is that serious investigations may be kept for a very, very long time, if they remain unresolved.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have heard the hon. the Minister for Service Newfoundland and Labrador twice now mention that they are still working on the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Chair. I think this is a living, breathing, evolving document. Certainly, when this was introduced, it has seen a lot of changes made and I think a whole bunch of new entries as the document is presented here today. Mr. Chair, it raises questions. We talk about past parties, we talk about past governments, and this was done by this government. Yes, Mr. Chair, I can understand that. Certainly, I think if there the Liberal government was in here today, they would make changes to this act, which is an evolving process, Mr. Chair, but I hope that it would not be to the degree that this government has proposed changes and restricting the access to information.

The thing that I look at, as I go through the clauses under section 5, is how debatable they could potentially be, Mr. Chair, with lawyers on each clause; whether or not things do not apply and if you wanted to get information, you would have to go to Trial Division, and the commissioner certainly would not have any say in how this process unfolds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Cummings recommended limiting the records, in section 5, to judicial records that are related to a prosecution or records of a person acting in a judicial capacity, Mr. Chair. It sheds certain room for interpretation on the clauses in section 5. I think a commissioner could be brought in to apply some of these, Mr. Chair, but certainly the ones that the hon. Member for Topsail spoke on, regarding an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and all matters, I agree that this be not applicable and access to information be protected.

Certainly, the same on subsection (m), where "a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that would reveal the identity of a confidential source…". I agree with the hon. minister; he has the experience on this. Going back through some of the clauses, I think they could be applied and I think the commissioner could certainly deal with making this information available rather than going through the court, period.

I do not have a whole lot more comments on this, Mr. Chair. The only thing is that a lot of these, in its current application, Mr. Chair, would be referred directly to court and certainly that is a long and time-consuming process, very expensive, and certainly not one that the people of this Province could probably afford to do if there is information that they would like to have access to; but, under some of the terminology here, would be denied, at the discretion of the minister.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure again to get up and take part in this Opposition filibuster. This is very interesting. I do not recall doing this previously, but every day is different.

Mr. Chair, one of the things, as I said when I spoke previously, our government is a government that proclaimed this access to information and protection of privacy legislation. When we came into office, the previous government had denied access by the Auditor General to this House and our government let the Auditor General have access –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: No, we are not.

We let the Auditor General come in and the people of the Province saw the consequences of that. We also passed legislation, transparency and accountability legislation. I know the Opposition disagrees with me when I say it, but our government is, in fact, the most open and transparent and accountable government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador because we have to be, because we are the only government that has had to live under the requirements of this legislation. We do so gladly and we do so willingly.

I have listened to some of the comments coming from members opposite and I am going to repeat what I said previously. Under the legislation, while there is a general right of access to information, the right to the information in not absolute, there are limits and the limits are set out in the legislation. Some of the clauses in the legislation actually prevent the government from being able to disclose the information. The sections say the government shall not disclose and government would be open to penalty if it did disclose; other sections of the legislation say the government may. So the government is left with the discretion as to whether or not they should release the information or whether they should not.

Of course, what the Opposition does is refer to something that comes under a clause that says the government cannot release the information, and criticize the government for not releasing the information when, in fact, government is unable to.

Section 5 is totally different. Section 5 says the act applies to all records in the custody of or under the control of a public body, but that the act does not apply to – and then there is a list of different things that are listed here, where the act does not even apply. Members opposite keep talking about the commissioner having to go to court in order to access the information in section 5, or to access one of the records in section 5. Since the act does not apply to the items in section 5, the commissioner has no authority, he has no jurisdiction, and he has no authorization to even look at any of these things. It is not a question of forcing the commissioner to go to court, to make a reference to the court. He is certainly free to do so if he wishes, but essentially the commissioner's office has no jurisdiction and no authority to even look at the records here.

That is why government is bringing in this amendment to clause 2 of the amending act. We want to add to that. We want to add to clause 5. We want to add records to clause 5 that the commissioner has no right to see, has no authority to see, and has no jurisdiction to see. It is "a record relating to an investigation by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary if all matters in respect of the investigation have not been completed". We can be having a police investigation into something that is very, very important and we can have some member of the public saying I want to see what is going on, they pay their $5 fee, and then they demand the right to know what is in that file, what information is in the file, when the investigation is not completed and it has not gone to court.

The second part of the amendment that we are seeking here in section 2 is: a record relating to an investigation by the RNC – and we are only referring to the RNC because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are governed by federal legislation – that would reveal the identity of a confidential source of information –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: – a confidential source of information, or reveal information provided by that source with respect to law enforcement matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I think we can see how ridiculous it would be if we could allow a member of the public to pay a $5 fee, to access a police investigation file, to find out who was the informant and who provided the information to the police.

As I said earlier, I would say again that any information that gets out as to who is a police informant can have very, very serious consequences for that informant. Any one who follows police matters will certainly know what I am talking about here. I have heard it from people involved in criminal prosecution and in policing, that the police must go to great steps to keep the identity of the informants confidential.

The commissioner will have no right, if somebody applies for a record, if this amendment is passed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: If a member of the public should apply to seek the name of an informant from an RNC file, we cannot have the commissioner or the commissioner's office coming in and going through those files. The purpose here is to place this in section 5, which are matters that the act does not apply to and the commissioner has no jurisdiction to deal with. It is very important that be made clear.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: I have a follow-up question, Mr. Chair, to the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. It relates to the issue as it relates to the ongoing file. I know you have said that when it relates to a serious file, those files could stay open for a very long period of time.

What I am wondering about is something that might not be considered serious. We all have our take on what is serious or not. There have been times where people have had ongoing files and not even ones where charges have been laid. They might be under investigation and it might not even be for something that is considered serious. I do not know what you would consider serious, but I would say if you are individual under investigation, especially an individual who does not have a previous criminal record, any investigation or open file is serious to you.

I have actually seen cases where people have been denied opportunities to seek employment or get clear records of conduct because there is an ongoing file that is open for which there has been nothing done for some time. That is where I was going with that. I understand there is something with the serious files, but I am wondering about the less-than-serious files, depending on the nature of the charge or the investigation. That is where I am going with this. There are people out there who have not been able to position themselves where they want to be because the police force, whether it is the RNC or RCMP, have an open file that has no movement but remains open.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe the hon. member can explain exactly what is he is looking for. I think what he is articulating is that there are people who would seek out a letter of conduct, as an example – I know there is a newer term on it now and my memory fails to tell me what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: A vulnerability check.

MR. DAVIS: A vulnerability check. There you go, now I have the new term.

You are saying because that person may be identified in an ongoing investigation they may not get that. That would be a policy of what is disclosed under that process. I am really not in a position to be able to speak to that, but as far as record retention goes, which is what you are talking about on a vulnerability check or a letter or conduct, an application is completely different from what would be disclosed here. What this is about is protecting investigations that are not yet concluded. Once an investigation is concluded and a charge is laid, then the court's rulings on disclosure apply. There is a process when a file – then it goes to the prosecution stage on the disclosure of the information in that file. There is disclosure to the accused and there is a process that is followed in those cases.

Prior to that, before a charge is laid, when a matter is still under investigation or is yet to be unresolved, and the police say we have had a crime or an offence that occurred here and they are at the end of the line as to what they can actively investigate, or they are still investigating, they are at a point in time where they are still investigating the matter, what this does is protect the integrity of that investigation.

If you were to become a victim of an offence, or if you were to file a complaint to the police that you believe that someone has committed a crime against you, as an example, or against your property, as an example – again these are hypothetical – but if that person was aware or thought they may become a suspect in that, then they can go to the police and say I want to see what is involved in that file, I want to see what you have on me. This is here to protect the integrity of those investigations and to protect the ability of the police to investigate.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Clause 3.

Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are very quick on the draw, I have to say that. There must be an urge to get these sections done and done very quickly.

CHAIR: No, it is just efficient chairmanship, actually.

MR. A. PARSONS: I am not going to respond to that. You keep up that efficient chairmanship and I look forward to that continuing. I am not going to question the Chair.

What I want to do – I am looking at clause 3 which deals with section 7 of this act. This is where we really start getting into some of the sections or provisions of the legislation that can be troublesome. What we are talking about here is the right of access. We are actually talking about people's rights. Section 7.(1) of the current legislation says, "A person who makes a request under section 8 has a right of access to a record in the custody or under the control of a public body, including a record containing personal information about the applicant." We know that lays out that the person has that right, which is fundamentally important I would say.

Section 7.(2) says, "The right of access to a record does not extend to information exempted from disclosure under this Act" – which is something else we have been discussing – "but if it is reasonable to sever that information from the record, an applicant has a right of access to the remainder of the record." That is a section that has some contention to it because we get into the issue of severance versus blanket coverage. That is one of the ones that we have a problem with because there has been a trend in the last number of years to move more and more towards blanket coverage or blanket exemptions of information that people should be entitled to.

Section 7.(3) is, "The right of access to a record is subject to the payment of a fee required under section 68." We know that there is a fee that is required. I continue on, Mr. Chair. In section 7 now, the amendment that has been suggested, we are asking that a subsection (4) be added to the existing legislation.

What it is saying here now is that the right of access does not extend, so we are saying that you are not entitled to "(a) to a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council with respect to assuming responsibility for a department, secretariat or agency; or (b) to a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the House of Assembly." Subsection (5), " Paragraph 4(a) does not apply to a record described in that paragraph if 5 years or more have elapsed since the member of the Executive Council was appointed as the minister responsible for the department, secretariat or agency." Subsection (6) says "Paragraph 4(b) does not apply to a record described in that paragraph if 5 years or more have elapsed since the beginning of the sitting with respect to which the record was prepared."

The existing section says you have a right to information. It says that right of access does not extend to certain information, but if there is information – and this is where we are getting into the theoretical side of this. What we are talking about here is the issue of information and records. We are trying to say that you cannot have your record as a whole, but what we are saying is that a record is made up of a number of pieces of information, some of which may be exempt and some of which may not be exempt. That is the issue. As we saw in the Court of Appeal case, the Department of Justice tried to withhold an entire file. They did not want to give an entire file to a private individual; actually, a former employee of that department. In this case there were other side issues, Mr. Chair. We talked about solicitor-client privilege being applied and so on and so forth.

In this case, what we are really getting at here is that we are trying to get another level of exemption here for more information so that government does not have to give it out. Government wants to hide certain pieces of information. Those being anything created for briefing a member of Executive Council, to a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member with respect to assuming the department, or to a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a person for the sitting of the House of Assembly.

So really, if we have a Cabinet minister who is taking over a department, then anything that is used to brief them is off limits. What that does is allow us to avoid situations from the past where you have ministers coming in and refused to read briefing books or just did not read briefing books for whatever reasons, just avoided that, because if there was no briefing book prepared, then no briefing book could be asked for under the access to information.

Again, we talk about briefing a person to prepare for a sitting of the House of Assembly. We are talking about more information that we are trying to exclude. Now we realize, and it has been stated on numerous occasions, that there is a balance that needs to be struck. There is a balance that needs to be struck there from information that we realize Cabinet needs to keep secret so that they can do their job. We all know that that is how good democracy is and good governments run. If everything were to be public records, then things are not going to proceed very smoothly; but, the problem is that you are trying to exclude it all, there is no discretion here, you are excluding the works of it, and that is not how this access to information should apply. This is not being done for the benefit of citizens; this is being done for the benefit of Cabinet, the benefit of government. It is being done at their discretion to make their life easier, not being done to make a citizen's life any easier.

Now, I move into the next section here where we talk about the five years. Basically once it is created, five years has to go by before that is made public. Why would we use five years? Well, there are a couple of ways you could get around us having to disclose that Cabinet information. Number one, if somebody switches portfolios, that is an easy way to reset the clock. That is why I think that is there. If we shuffle somebody around and if somebody is not carrying their load, we put them in another portfolio or put somebody new in there, reset the clock, five years from that date, we do not have to give that up. That is excluded.

The second part is when we talk about fixed election dates, which this government introduced – and it was nice to have that. We had an election in 2007 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: – and we had an election in 2011. We have four years in between elections. What this effectively does is eliminate an Opposition's ability to look at a Cabinet minister's briefing book.

Why would Opposition want to have access to that? Because Opposition's job is to hold government accountable, that is our job. Government's job is to ensure that information is disseminated to the public as widely as possible because that is how democracy is run – that is how democracy is run.

I would ask the question to the minister or maybe the Minister of CYFS if she chooses to answer this, by all means. Here is my question: Why was the five years inserted in subsections (5) and (6) of the new clause 3, section 7? Why did you put the five years in there? I would ask the Minister of CYFS if you would like to answer that; that is my question to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Chair, section 7 sets out the right of access to records in the custody and control of the public body. As the Minister of Finance pointed out earlier, right to information is not an absolute right – right to information is not an absolute right. Mr. Chair, in terms of good stewardship and good governance, and in the interest of addressing public policy, there are certain restrictions that have to be put on the availability of information.

Mr. Chair, the member opposite says that we are excluding it all. I do not know where he is coming from with that. Mr. Chair, this legislation mirrors the amendments of Alberta. Mr. Cummings recognized in his report the importance of briefing materials and the disclosure of information needs to be restricted, according to Mr. Cummings, somewhat to ensure the proper functioning of government. That is why the right cannot be absolute. Government has to function properly.

There is nothing secret, sinister or oppressive about retaining information where a minister is being briefed in a new portfolio. It stands to reason it has to be done. A five-year limit is a reasonable limit to put on that – there is a twenty-year limit on Cabinet. Mr. Chair, with respect to the non-disclosure of records created for briefing a minister for a sitting of the House of Assembly, the Opposition members certainly do not reveal their questions to us before they come to the House. They expect us to reveal the information we have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: – except, of course, in the event of the Third Party, who every now and then screw it up and get their questions out too quick.

Mr. Chair, the Opposition members do not give us their questions, so now they are looking for us to give them their information –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: I already mentioned that; the NDP every now and then inadvertently let us know.

This is perfectly reasonable information to expect. Absolute right does not exist with regard to access to information. This is reasonable information to effect good governance. That is what it is all about. This is a good piece of legislation. It is necessary in order to ensure the proper functioning of government. Ministers need to be briefed on what is happening in their department, what they are going to be facing in their new department.

I remember when I took over Justice; I was a month being briefed on what was going on in regards to what need to be done. Mr. Chair, that is necessary. People do not necessarily need to know the information that I am getting in order to become familiar with my department.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to say a few words about this part of the bill – Bill 29, I believe it is. We have been here so long now, it is buried beneath all my paper here, but Bill 29 it is. Again, as I believe the member has alluded, this is where we really start to begin the iron curtain aspect of this legislation, drawing back, putting –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) door.

MR. KIRBY: Behind the door, whichever sort of comparison you would like to make is fine with me, I say to the hon. members across the way.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: So in here in this section we have under the right of access – and I certainly agree with the minister, this cannot be absolute. I agree with him there. He is absolutely correct, but I do not think that information can be absolutely shielded in the way that he is suggesting and the way that this legislation is suggesting.

Section 7.(1) is an overreaching statement that a person has a right to access information held by a public body. As members said, it says, "A person who makes a request under section 8 has a right of access to a record in the custody or under the control of a public body, including a record containing personal information about the applicant." That is the overarching statement that provides individuals with the right of access to access information, records, and so on.

I think that it correctly says that the right does not extend to records exempted by this legislation. That is basically what is stated in 7.(2) which says, "The right of access to a record does not extend to information exempted from disclosure under this Act, but if it is reasonable to sever that information from the record, an applicant has a right of access to the remainder of the record."

I mean, really, that is a section that says it is not complete. Now we have this new clause added, which says that materials that are created to brief a member of Executive Council with respect to assuming responsibility for a department, secretariat or agency; or, a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Basically, this bill adds a clause that denies the right –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: – of access to any briefing material intended for Executive Council. In other words, it sort of explicitly, it particularly, it very definitively removes a right of access here altogether, and that is the right of access to these materials that were created for briefing a member of Executive Council. It is where you start to get into some of the aspects of secrecy or additional lack of disclosure that is really being forced by this bill.

Really, in a free and open and democratic system of government, with legislation like the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act which is designed to ensure that members of the public have access to information, have access to records, that have access to personal data that is particular to their individual situation, their business, their organization, their work, the media, this exempts them from an ability to access that information.

Then it goes on to talk about this time period: five years or more. The minister said that this is a reasonable amount of time, but I would like to hear some additional clarification on what the minister is meaning by a reasonable amount of time. Why is five years or more a reasonable amount of time versus four years or more, versus ten years or more? Why was that particular number of years selected, singled out, as a reasonable period of time for this? To me, it seems like it is a significant amount of time. Again, all of this, in this section, goes along way to denying access, or at least it explicitly lays out more particularly in the legislation additional provisions to deny access to information to individuals who are seeking it.

I think that it certainly is a diminution of the current act which I think is suitably sufficient. If you look at 7.(2), "The right of access to a record does not extend information exempted from disclosure under this Act…". This really builds in additional provisions that specifically prevent a disclosure of that information.

I ask the minister again if he could elaborate a little bit further on the time period of five years or more, because I think that is very specific and I think we are entitled to hear a little more about why it is that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would have to agree to that time period versus another one.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report progress on Bill 29 and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

Now?

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.