April 23, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 3
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
I am
pleased to welcome today to the Speaker's gallery Dr. Atul Gurtu, an Adjunct
Professor of Physics in Delhi University in India.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I am also pleased to
welcome to the public gallery today Her Worship Wanita Stone, the Mayor of
Red Bay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear
members' statements from the Member of the District of Mount Pearl South,
the District of Kilbride, the District of Torngat Mountains, the District of
Humber East, the District of Exploits, and the District of Baie Verte
Springdale.
The
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to rise in this hon. House to offer congratulations to a group of
individuals who have made a significant contribution to sport in my
community.
Once
again, this year's Mount Pearl Athletic Awards was a tremendous success,
which highlighted the achievements and emphasized the important role that
sport has played and continues to play in the development of youth and
adults alike within our great city.
There were a number of worthy nominees again this year nominated in five
categories. Congratulations to
this year's winners: Peter Halliday Executive of the Year Award winner, Ms
Melanie Hallett of Campia Gymnastics; Coach of the Year, Mr. Travis Maher of
the Mount Pearl Special Olympics; Female Athlete of the Year, Hannah
Noseworthy for her accomplishments in the sport of soccer; Male Athlete of
the Year and track and field sensation, Daniel Kelloway; and Team of the
Year, the Mount Pearl Special Olympics Canadian Silver Medal Soccer Team.
Mr.
Speaker, I would ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating these individuals on this significant accomplishment and wish
them all the very best in their future sporting endeavours.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, on March 7,
the Harness Horse Owners Association held its Dinner, Dance, and Awards
Presentation at St. John's Racing and Entertainment Centre with
approximately 100 people attending.
After a fine meal, a total of twenty-three awards were presented.
The top award winner was Danny Williams not the ex-Premier with
four awards. Brad Forward walked
away with three awards. Danny
was the top trainer with a .460UDR rating.
He was also recognized as the Standardbred Canada Owner of the year,
rookie driver of the year, and the Top Driver in the 20-39 starts category.
Brad Forward was the Driver of the Year, the Driver with the Most
Money earned, and the Top Driver in the 40-plus starts category.
The
Most Gentlemanly Driver was awarded to Bill Taylor.
Colin Sheppard had the most wins in the 10-19 starts category and
received an award for the Most Improved Driver.
Scott Forward was the trainer with the most wins.
Nine
awards were presented for the horses.
The Horse of the Year award went to Inspired Art, and the horse with
the fastest time of two minutes and two seconds was Dusty Lane Wild Bill.
I
ask all hon. members to join me and my colleague, the Member for Ferryland
District, in congratulating all the award winners.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to congratulate Catharyn Andersen of Makkovik, who was
recently appointed special advisor on Aboriginal Affairs to the President of
Memorial University. In her new
role, Catharyn will be responsible for the management of the university's
Aboriginal office, and helping with the recruitment of Aboriginal students.
Catharyn is a former director and Inuktitut language program coordinator
with the Torngasok Cultural Centre in Nunatsiavut where she helped develop
and deliver various language, cultural, and heritage initiatives.
She is very passionate about her history and culture, and dedicated
to the preservation of the Inuktitut language.
Catharyn brings to her new role a strong educational background, having
earned a Masters of Arts in Linguistics and Business Administration from
Memorial University. Her past
work experience with Nunatsiavut will also enhance her efforts with
Aboriginal affairs at the university.
Catharyn will be a tremendous asset to Memorial University in building
stronger relations with the Aboriginal community throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Catharyn on her
new appointment and wish her success in her new role at Memorial University.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, after nearly
six years of planning, the Rotary Arts Centre in Corner Brook is set to
officially open on May 9, 2015.
This beautiful facility, which includes a ninety-three seat theatre, the
Tina Dolter Art Gallery and six studios designed to house emerging artists,
will become a focal gathering place for the arts in Corner Brook and
surrounding area.
While the objectives of the Rotary Arts Centre are varied, the primary focus
is to present a venue for the work of artists in the community, and also
provide the opportunity for emerging artists to hone their skills and
develop their talents. The
centre is governed by a volunteer board of directors, a volunteer staff who
manage the facility on a day-to-day basis.
The board has worked hard to establish a community partnership in the
fulfillment of this dream including the Rotary Club of Corner Brook, the
City of Corner Brook, Anthony Insurance, Grenfell College, and several local
business partners.
Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all of the residents in Corner Brook and surrounding
area, I ask members of the House to join with me to offer congratulations to
Chair, Mr. David Smallwood, the Board of Directors, and all other volunteers
and thank them for bringing this wonderful dream to a reality.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Mr. Speaker, on March 9,
the Peter's River Raid Adventure Race was held at the Shanawdithit
Campground on the Botwood Highway.
The
race was organized for students between Grades 5 and 9, and competed in a
three kilometre snowshoe race, a fire building station, and finished with a
three kilometre cross country skiing, each team consisting of five students
and an adult.
Four
schools competed in the competition: Cottrell's Cove Academy, Holy Cross
School from Eastport, Exploits Valley Intermediate, and Millcrest Academy
from Grand-Falls-Windsor.
One
of the organizers, Corey Samson, said the race is a challenge that the
students welcome and is certainly a different form of physical activity.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Nicholas Carroll, Grade 6; Carla Clarke, Grade 6; Timothy Hemeon, Grade 7;
Kaitlyn Butler, Grade 8; Patrick Carroll, Grade 8, and teacher sponsor/racer
Ms Karyn Rowsell of Cottrell's Cove Academy for winning the race for the
second time in a row.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Baie Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
had a lot of respect for this man and his wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and
passion for rural Newfoundland.
Born in Cape Freels, Bonavista Bay in 1926, Carl Wright moved to Nipper's
Harbour, White Bay. He married
Mildred Noble and together they raised three sons, Eddie, Brian, and Boyd.
A
man of many talents, Carl was a school teacher, United Church minister, a
boat builder, store owner, and politician.
Occasionally, I visited his home to extract stories and information
about life in the past. I
marvelled at his sharp memory and depth of knowledge as he so passionately
talked about the fishery, forestry, and mining.
Actually, he could talk about any topic.
For
the past thirty-six years, Carl and Mildred resided in the beautiful town of
King's Point where he was held in high esteem.
With
the passing of Carl Wright at the age of eighty-eight, not only did we lose
a dad, a father, a husband, a grandfather, and friend, but also a tremendous
amount of wisdom, knowledge, and history.
I
ask all members in this hon. House to join me, along with the entire
community of King's Point to offer condolences to the family and pay tribute
to a person who made a huge impact.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to rise in this hon. House today to recognize that the annual report
conducted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information has revealed that
our Province has achieved some of the shortest wait times for priority
medical procedures in Canada.
This report spans the five-year period from 2010 to 2014 and
cross-jurisdictional benchmark results for various procedures including
radiation treatment, cataract procedures, hip fracture repair, and hip and
knee replacement.
The
institute's report ranks Newfoundland and Labrador as the best in Canada for
cataract surgery, hip replacement, and knee replacement.
As well, we are one of the top three performers in the country for
radiation therapy wait times. In
fact, we are the only Province to achieve the nine out of ten benchmark
result in all priority areas, with the exception of hip fracture repair.
This can be attributed to a more precise method for measuring wait
times for that specific procedure in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has invested more than
$160 million to specifically address wait times over the last eight years,
and it is clear that our approach is paying off.
In
2012, we released two five-year strategies aimed at reducing wait times for
hip and knee joint replacement surgeries and emergency department wait
times. We are now the national
leader with the shortest wait times in the country for hip and knee
replacement surgery. In
addition, Budget 2014 allocated $1.8 million to continue implementation of
the Provincial Wait Times Strategy for
Hip and Knee Joint Replacement.
This not only provided permanent funding for the orthopedic and
rheumatology central intake clinics at Eastern Health, but also allowed for
the creation of eight permanent positions.
Mr.
Speaker, while we are proud of our efforts being acknowledged, we recognize
there is still significant work to be done to reduce wait times in other
areas and we remain committed to finding solutions.
For example, while our wait times for rheumatology have improved we
have yet to reach our target in that area.
We also continue to seek ways to provide more timely service in such
areas as neurology, heart valve replacement surgery, and mental health
services as well.
We
are always proud to have our accomplishments highlighted on a national
level, and we will continue to work to reduce wait times across all areas of
our health care system. We are
committed to providing timely access to quality care for everyone in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
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
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
The
federal government signed a ten-year deal with the provinces to help reduce
wait times in areas such as cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint
replacements, and sight restoration, and we have seen some improvements as a
result of it, but the problem has not gone away.
The
first thing is that wait times are only measured after you are on the list
to get a surgery, after you have seen the specialist.
There are people on a waitlist to see a specialist to get a
replacement, and this is not captured in overall wait time data.
The
Wait Times Alliance of Canada said that high numbers of patients waiting for
alternate levels of care, such as rehab or long-term care is likely the
single, biggest cause of wait times.
This government spent about 36 per cent of its budget last year on
health care. We have the highest
rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic diseases.
Sadly, we are spending the highest funding per capita, but getting
the lowest outcomes compared to the rest of Canada.
So,
unfortunately, when it comes to health care we are the worst, last, and
lowest, and that is certainly nothing to brag about, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
too thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Yes,
the Canadian Institute for Health Information has some good news, but they
deal only with the five priority areas that were set by the First Ministers
in 2004. It is a good thing that
in those areas the Province has gotten nine out of ten, I will agree, but we
have an aging population and we need to look at what is going to happen with
regard to joint replacement procedures as our population ages, and which is
happening very, very quickly.
That is one of the areas we are not good in.
Radiation therapy procedures are going to continue to rise in the future as
well. I am not surprised the
minister did not mention ER and the wait times for ER, where we are probably
one of the worst in the country.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to inform residents and businesses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador
about the release of the Job Vacancy Report.
This
report is a comprehensive information resource that can be used by
employers, education and training institutions, students, and job seekers to
help clearly identify job opportunity trends in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Job Vacancy Report was compiled by my department's labour market information
team. It is now available on the
provincial government website, and I encourage everyone to visit the site to
view this report.
With
a detailed analysis of more than 38,000 job advertisements recorded during
the last calendar year, highlights of the report include job vacancy
locations, post-secondary training requirements, key industries, and
in-demand occupations.
Mr.
Speaker, our Province has at its fingertips a homegrown, highly-skilled
workforce and accomplished graduates ready to participate in and contribute
to their communities and our economy.
Current up-to-date information on labour market trends, the kind of
information available in the Job Vacancy Report, informs the work of my
department on employment supports and services available to the people of
the Province and post-secondary programming.
Skilled workers and graduates can use this information to help make
informed long-term career and education-related decisions.
Employers and businesses can also use the information in the report
to assist with human resources and succession planning.
Mr.
Speaker, opportunities are available in our Province's many industries, from
services to resources. By
matching people to jobs and employers to people, we will encourage
individuals to study, work, and raise their families in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Government has been operating for two full years without current
labour market information. In
those two years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen 10,000 jobs disappear.
Government's follow-up attempt to Labour Market Outlook 2020 is to look to
the past. What benefit will a
job opening last year have on the tens of thousands unemployed today?
What benefit will last year's job openings have on the hundreds in
Lab West whose lives have been turned upside down with the massive layoffs
occurring?
Government's approach to workforce development is passive and reactive.
They act as bystanders observing trends rather than trying to chart a
course and create the conditions for job creation.
Mr. Speaker, when we have the highest unemployment rate among
provinces, these job openings will tell you that this government has failed
miserably in preparing our workforce for the work that is out there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I,
too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
It is great to have the report online, but I point out to the
minister the Department of Advanced Education and Skills was created over
four years ago and mandated to help people find jobs, plan their careers,
and as it says, to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can take full
advantage and benefit from the tremendous opportunities ahead.
Yet our unemployment rate in this Province right now is 13.3 per
cent, the highest in the country.
I
ask the minister why, after four years, are we still plagued with such a
high unemployment rate despite what they envisioned as opportunities
(inaudible)
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to inform the public that bike helmets
are now mandatory on all public roadways in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This amendment to the Highway Traffic Act became effective on April 1.
A
properly fitted bicycle helmet can decrease the risk of serious head injury
by as much as 85 per cent.
Working together with safety advocates and law enforcement, we have achieved
a new safety standard that will help protect children and families in all
communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Safety advocacy groups that worked with us on this initiative
included the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Association
of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Public Health Association, Safety Services Newfoundland and
Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Injury Prevention Coalition, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Brain Injury Association, and the Department of
Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
Mr.
Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of joining safety advocates, police,
and youth at Boys and Girls Clubs of St. John's to talk about the new
legislation, and demonstrate the proper way to choose a helmet, which
involves using the 2V1 approach.
The helmet should cover the top of the forehead and rest approximately two
fingers width above the eyebrows.
The side straps should fit snugly around the ears in a V shape, and
the chin strap should be buckled and then tightened until one finger can fit
between the strap and chin.
Anyone seeking additional information about the 2V1approach to fitting a
helmet, or other information about the new bicycle helmet law can visit
www.gov.nl.ca/BikeHelmet. This webpage also provides
information on how individuals can seek assistance with purchasing a helmet.
Those needing assistance with obtaining a bicycle helmet can contact
Canadian Tire Jumpstart if the helmet is for a youth under eighteen, or
Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador if the helmet is for someone older than
eighteen.
Mr.
Speaker, this amendment to the Highway
Traffic Act continues the provincial government's commitment to promote
healthier and safer communities.
I encourage everyone to learn more about the important new requirements,
which our government has put in place to protect children and families
throughout the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we are very supportive of this legislation.
I want to also thank all of the various stakeholders who had input
and continue to advocate. I want
to point out Canadian Tire and Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador for
supplying helmets. It is
important that everybody has access to these helmets.
Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting that in November 2013, it was this very
minister who, on two separate occasions, was asked questions by the Official
Opposition around having bicycle helmets.
One response was: There is no plan to move forward on that.
The other response was: At this point
in time, we are not looking at implementing it.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, thankfully the Official Opposition did not take no for an
answer. We continued to
advocate. We continued to raise
this issue. We continued to
raise this in Question Period.
As a result, we have this legislation here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister of the advance copy of his statement here today.
Yes, it is a good piece of legislation, but there is always room for
improvement. I have to note in
debate last year, and I will bring up the fact again to the minister that we
also need something that is going to end up covering things such as
rollerblades and scooters. We
still only have a 90 per cent compliance rate of usage of kids out there and
such who are using helmets.
We
have a report from the CBC that quotes a very interesting statistic that I
will make the minister aware of.
Between 1990 and 2011, nineteen per 100,000; it went up to twenty-six people
per 100,000 as regards to accidents in these particular areas of scooters
and rollerblades and stuff.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the member his time for speaking has expired.
Further statements by ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Premier said that he asked the RCMP to do an investigation on
the shooting death of Donald Dunphy.
I
ask the Premier: Why did you personally get involved in this investigation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
If
those were the words I used yesterday, I certainly did not intend to mislead
the House. I certainly never
gave any direction to the RCMP to conduct an investigation into the death of
Mr. Dunphy, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the words of the Premier were very clear.
It said that I asked them to do a full and fair and frank
investigation. The Premier has
had lots of time to withdraw those remarks.
I understand sometimes in this House we can get a certain stat wrong
or a certain name wrong, but remarks like this are very clear.
We
all know this started about a Tweet to the Premier's office.
It is a very serious and important issue.
Someone from the Premier's office called the police.
The Premier even, on the day, called and personally supported the
young RNC officer. We know that
the Premier's office is directly involved in this.
I
ask the Premier: Are you or your office currently under investigation on
this matter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Just
to clarify on the member's first question once again, I have not looked at
Hansard to see exactly what my words were and I already said to the member
before his last question that if I misspoke or if my words were misconstrued
or misunderstood, I fully apologize to the House and I want to correct it
that in no way have I directed the RCMP or the RNC or any police service to
do an investigation.
Mr.
Speaker, it is not my place to do that.
I have never done that. I
will not do that as Premier.
That is completely within the boundaries of the police services to decide
what they want to do there.
As
for the matters at hand and details of the circumstances that have taken
place and I will be clear what I expect from the police is that they
carry out a full, comprehensive investigation on the matter.
We look forward to seeing the results of that, as well the oversight
by the retired justice who is involved with this as well.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, given the tragic events on Easter Sunday, I think the question that I
asked on the second question I appreciate the fact that the Premier
explained the position and the remarks about yesterday, but the second
question was about the Premier's office.
Is the Premier's office a part of the current investigation being
carried out by the RCMP?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, if his
question is are we playing a role in the investigation, clearly we are not.
We have no involvement with the investigation.
It is entirely up to the police to carry out that investigation.
It is up to them how they direct and how they investigate.
In no way, do I or my office have any involvement in any decisions on
the progress of that investigation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
question is not about the involvement and who called for the investigation;
the question is about the ongoing investigation.
My
question to the Premier about his office: Is your office currently under
investigation on this matter by the RCMP?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I have no knowledge
of it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot
provide him with an answer. I do
not know if my office is under investigation.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier also said yesterday that the RCMP has a number of options available
to them, one of which was the appointment, as the Premier previously
mentioned, of Judge Riche.
I
ask the Premier: What other options are you referring to?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, the other
option that would be available as we have seen exercised in the past from
time to time, whether it is the RNC or RCMP, they have an option of calling
in another police force from outside the Province or within the Province,
depending on the nature of the investigation.
That would be totally at the discretion of the police force.
As
the Minister of Justice in particular with responsibilities for this, I have
no authority in operational matters.
There is nowhere in legislation that gives me the right to impose my
view on the RCMP. It is an
operational decision that they make as to whether they do what they have
done or choose another course of action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I just
listened to the answer from the Minister of Justice and I refer to page 48
of the Luther inquiry where it talks about the unprecedented step where the
RCMP called in the OPP for an investigation.
It also says, they were not ordered or forced by the Minister of
Justice who had the authority to do so; rather this was at the invitation of
the R.C.M.P.
I
ask the Minister of Justice: Are you sure you do not have the authority to
intervene here?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
can only say to the member opposite, I cannot speak to the circumstance you
just quoted. Since you seem sure
I do have the authority, I would say to the House that I will go back and
double check. I am advised by
those who write the legislation that the Minister of Justice does not have
the authority to intervene in direct police forces, but I will certainly go
back and double check that before I give a concrete answer to this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, given
that we had Judge Luther, the former chief of the Provincial Court say that
the minister does have the authority, I look forward to the answer on Monday
in this House.
Recommendation 26 of the Luther inquiry calls for an outside police force to
be used in the event of a police shooting in this Province.
The family of Mr. Dunphy is also calling for an outside police force
to complete this investigation.
I
ask the Premier: Will you now support this call?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Back
to the previous question, irrespective of what the member is quoting, I can
say to you very categorically that I am certainly not looking for that
authority as the Minister of Justice.
That is why we have police forces.
They are trained professionals who make decisions on this.
It should not be in the hands of a politician to decide who
investigates what files and when.
With
respect to the ongoing investigation, we have been very clear, Mr. Speaker,
that both police forces are engaged here in different pieces of an
investigation. We will see that
through. Upon conclusion of
those investigations we will make a determination whether further actions
are required.
As I
have said many times before, if an inquiry is required either through the
fatalities act that I am responsible for or through Cabinet, the Lieutenant
Governor in Council will make that determination.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I am
shocked to hear in this House today that the Minister of Justice is
abrogating his duty to the people of this Province as the administrator of
the Department of Justice.
Perhaps the Attorney General would like to say.
Again, I ask, you have the authority.
The Luther inquiry says to do it.
Why will you not call in an outside police force, as you have the
authority and the power to do so?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the eagerness of the member, but I will say to the House, I do
not take my direction from my critic across the way.
I will read the legislation and see what direction I have.
I
will say very categorically, that whether I have the authority or not, I
certainly do not intend to intervene and call in another police force.
I intend to let the investigation that is underway proceed.
I have confidence in the RCMP to carry out the particular piece of
investigation they are doing. As
I said a few moments ago, at the conclusion of that we will make a
determination as to whether an inquiry is required.
At
the end of the process, all the members on this side of the House want what
the public want, which is the truth and the facts of what happened.
We will go to whatever lengths it takes as a government to make sure
that we and the public are made aware of that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that the Department of Justice is not following the recommendations
in the Luther inquiry.
The
Lamer inquiry discussed the tunnel vision that can occur when police forces
investigate their own. There is
also the negative public perception that may arise when this occurs.
I
ask the Premier: Given the conclusions of the Luther inquiry and the Lamer
inquiry, why are you not supporting the call for an outside police force to
conduct this investigation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Again, Mr. Speaker, let
me be very clear. What we are
supportive of here is making sure that all information that the public needs
to know becomes public. We will
do whatever it takes to support and facilitate that process.
We
are currently involved in a situation that is very tragic for a number of
people and a number of families.
We need to find out what happened.
We need to let the investigation take its course.
As I
said a few moments ago, at the conclusion of that, through the facilities
act I will look at the medical examiner's recommendations.
Cabinet obviously will give every consideration to the interests of
the public. If the public is
satisfied and we are satisfied, it will be case closed.
If the public is not satisfied and we believe there is a need for
further investigation, then we will consider calling an inquiry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, on page
146 of the Luther inquiry, Judge Luther says in reference to bringing in an
outside police force such as the OPP, and I quote, The wisdom of already
having in place the established protocol with the O.P.P. for such major
incidents was borne out in an abundantly clear fashion in this
investigation. This Memorandum
of Understanding or something similar should continue to be renewed.
It serves our people well.
I
ask the Minister of Justice: Does this Memorandum of Understanding with the
OPP still exist?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I am aware
that our two police forces, both the RNC and the RCMP, do engage the OPP.
I cannot speak to the specifics as to whether there is an official
Memorandum of Understanding but I will certainly endeavour to check and get
back to the House. I think there
is but I am not definite, so I will check.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I ask the Premier:
Given that your Chief of Staff was the former Chief of the RNC, are you or
are you not aware that this MOU does or does not exist?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I think the
question has already been answered.
I stood on my feet thirty seconds ago and said I believe it exists
but I am not definitive. I want
to check it out with the proper authorities and I will report back to the
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask
for the last time: Why do we need to relive what we have already been
through? We have had the Luther
inquiry; we have had the Lamer inquiry.
I
ask the Premier: Why do you still resist having an outside police force
conduct this investigation? Why
are you resisting this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
member opposite indicated this is the last time he will ask the question, so
hopefully it is the last time I will have to answer it and be very crystal
clear as to where government and where I stand on this.
There are currently investigations ongoing before a very serious
incident that has happened in this Province, very tragic, and our hearts go
out to everyone involved in that and I am sure the members opposite share in
that respective comment.
We
will let the investigation unfold.
We are committed to see that through.
We are confident that the RCMP will do their due diligence.
Upon the conclusion of that, I will review the medical examiner's
report and recommendations.
Cabinet will also give consideration to what is in the public interest, and
if there is not full disclosure and there are still some issues with
confidence in the public then we will consider calling an inquiry, but we
will do so upon the termination and completion of the investigation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Environment and Conservation said yesterday: I was in business for
twenty-five years. Mr. Speaker,
there is a big difference between signing the front of a business cheque and
the back of a paycheque. He
lacks business experience. He
suggested that business owners should always look two or three years out.
That is exactly how outfitters do it.
That is why they sell their hunting packages in advance.
I
ask the minister: Why did you not follow your own advice and consult with
outfitters before hitting them in the pocketbook?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to say to the member opposite I was in business for
twenty-five years. The last ten
years in business, I was regional manager for a major company with over $160
million worth of sales a year.
That is $1.6 billion in ten years of sales.
I
was in charge of profit. I was
in charge of loss. I was in
charge of distribution. I was in
charge of marketing, Mr. Speaker.
So challenging me and my business experience, I take offence to that.
I will just put that out there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, when you are
in business, you need to think about the future, always.
You need to make adjustments when costs go up.
So your labour costs go up, your costs go up for insurance, your
costs
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the minister his time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the minister of tourism did not respond when I asked him about this loss of
income to small business owners in our tourism trade.
Would he answer my question today?
Given that your government made these increases retroactively, I ask the
minister: Will you commit to working with your uninformed colleague in
Environment and drop this increase for one year as requested by the
outfitters?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Again, Mr. Speaker, when
you look at the big game resource and what we have here in this Province, it
is second to none in the world.
As a matter of fact, we have the only caribou population that is hunted in
North America or pretty much anywhere in the world.
We
have helped protect that herd.
Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of the licences for that herd is reserved for
non-residents which go to outfitters.
They charge up to $10,000 for a hunt for these woodland caribou,
massive antlers on them. That is
why hunters want to come here and hunt.
Mr.
Speaker, we have been working with the industry.
We will continue to work with the industry.
We understand that this is a challenge going forward for some of
these outfitters, but they have the ability to pass those costs on.
They have the ability to raise their rates next year and recuperate
any costs that they incurred this year and going forward into the future.
The ability is there for them to do that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
glad the minister mentioned caribou.
Mr. Speaker, all the caribou herds in Labrador are classified as
threatened to some degree. Three
years ago government implemented a five-year ban on harvesting the George
River caribou herd, the last herd to be protected.
Confirmed reports of illegal hunting of the protected Mealy Mountain
caribou herd is cause for concern.
I
ask the minister: How has this herd been impacted by illegal harvesting?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, caribou is a
valuable resource in Labrador, and we understand the attachment to the
Aboriginal community and to other residents of Labrador an important
resource, important food source.
We want to see these herds come back.
We think that is possible.
The research that we are doing right now is showing that some of
these herds are starting to flatten their decline.
So our research is showing that there are some positives there.
Mr.
Speaker, in terms of illegal hunting, you are exactly right; it is something
that is not acceptable. Every
single animal that is out there now is important to the replenishment of
that herd and the resurgence of those herds.
We
have some information about certain hunts that have occurred in the last
number of months. We have
investigations ongoing. We have
evidence that we have collected, and we will continue to do the work of
enforcement.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, I am glad
you mentioned evidence, because there are several cases of illegal caribou
harvesting in Labrador that remain on the docket some for as long as three
years waiting to be processed.
Individuals from Quebec have already and are once again planning to return
to harvest more caribou from Labrador.
So I
ask the minister: What enforcement measures will you put in place to protect
the caribou herds in Labrador from illegal harvesting?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, we have
investigated two illegal hunts in the last couple of months.
We have gathered evidence of both those hunts.
Some of that evidence includes actual carcasses.
Justice officials have interviewed hunters from the area.
So we have gathered evidence.
Sometimes it is very difficult to bring this in front of the courts, but we
do have a plan. We know that
there is a threat to go and harvest animals again.
We have an action plan in place.
In the next few days we are going to see what the Innu from Quebec
are going to do, but we have a plan in place, and we will take action
immediately if we see any illegal hunts that are happening in the near
future. So we are on top that,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Environment stated in the House of Assembly yesterday, No, we
did not talk directly about fee increases
.
The outfitting association confirmed they were not consulted on these
staggering retroactive fee hikes.
So I
ask the minister: Since you also hold the portfolio of Service Newfoundland
and Labrador, responsible for red tape reduction, will you reverse your
irresponsible retroactive decision that adversely impacts business and their
ability to plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, there was no
retroactive decision made here.
Actually, when we look at allocating licences for the outfitters, we have a
two year plan. We allocate them
every two years. We let them
know two years in advance how many licences they have.
We do not tell them what the fees are going to be.
We reserve that right as a government as things change.
We
also reserve the right, if there is a crash in a herd, to take the licences
back. We did that a number of
years back with the caribou, Mr. Speaker, to try to protect that herd.
Mr.
Speaker, there is no retroactive happenings going on here.
So I do not know where his information is coming from.
In
terms of the fee increases; again, Mr. Speaker, the outfitters in moving
forward can charge more money.
They can rejuvenate that revenue going forward and charge more for these
fees.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, having a
right to do that does not mean the government does not have a right to
consult.
The
outfitting industry creates local jobs, brings millions of dollars, new
dollars into the Province's economy.
Increasing fees is a deterrent and contradictory to your government's
red tape reduction initiative.
The last report on red tape said this government is losing ground.
I
ask the Minister of Business, who was not consulted on these retroactive fee
increases, what he plans to do to ensure the Environment, Service
Newfoundland and Labrador Minister reduces red tape versus increase it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the
outfitting industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we think it is a very
robust industry. We spend
millions of dollars researching and making sure of the sustainability of all
the big game animals that are out there.
In
terms of the fees; the fees are necessary, Mr. Speaker.
We have some of the lowest fees in Canada when it came to
non-residents. There are
provinces in Canada that do not allow non-residents to hunt their big game.
We allow them to come here.
Mr.
Speaker, $167 extra for a moose hunt is not unreasonable.
We understand the business models that the outfitters are following.
Mr. Speaker, again I reiterate, they can find ways to get that back.
They can find ways to charge that and pass it along to the
non-residents who are coming here hunting our herds that we spend millions
of dollars a year to manage and sustain for the people of the Province and
also for (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
night we held a housing forum in St. John's and some of the stories from
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing tenants were nothing short of alarming and
heartbreaking. Parents told us
of children's bedroom windows that cannot open an obvious safety concern;
children being placed on puffers and steroids to cope with leaks and mouldy
carpets, and no units being furnished with fire extinguishers.
I
ask the Minister Responsible for Housing: What sort of example are you
setting as the Province's largest landlord?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I guess you
can always cite individual cases, but let me point out a number to the hon.
member. Since 2009, this
government has tripled the spending that has gone into modernization and
upgrading of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
For some twenty years,
there was $4 million put in annually.
This government increased that since 2009, up to $12 million.
Mr. Speaker, 77 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units
have been modernized and upgraded.
That speaks to our record.
We will continue that work and the work of Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They
should put a few more dollars in the Budget so they can buy fire
extinguishers.
Mr.
Speaker, a senior with health complications was offered a housing unit with
no parking. She needs her car
for multiple medical appointments and to maintain her independence, given
that she has mobility issues.
Housing cancelled her application for twelve months because she did not
accept the unit without parking.
Why
can't your policies treat vulnerable people with dignity instead of forcing
them to choose between a house or a car?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, his question
almost paints the picture of an individual from Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing who appears not to want to do the right thing for an individual.
That is the impression he has left with me.
In all of my dealings with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing, they want to find a solution for individuals.
We
have had members who have raised particular issues on this floor from this
side and from the members opposite that we have taken back to officials to
review. In all of my dealings
with the officials at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I find they always
want to do the right thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday in Question Period the Premier avoided giving a direct answer to a
question I raised, so I am going to try again today.
I
ask the Premier: Is the protective services unit a section of government or
of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, the
protective services unit operates through the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary. They have various
duties that the Premier has spoken on, on several occasions.
One of which includes providing some protective and investigative
services to public figures, not only the Premier's Office.
They are engaged any time other politicians of other counties, for
example, or other parts of the Province visit, if there is some particular
threat.
They
clearly do not operate as an arm of the Premier's Office.
They operate as an arm of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Well, it is very difficult to find anything on anybody's website with regard
to the protective services unit.
So I
ask the Premier: Can he give us more details about the terms of reference of
the unit as it relates to his office?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let
me clarify my previous answer.
The RCMP is also a part of the protective services unit.
To be clear, it is not just the RNC.
I will certainly endeavour to seek out a list of the responsibilities
of this unit.
As I
said before, to be very clear, this is not a unit that is assigned to the
Premier's Office. This is a unit
that has specific responsibilities around public figures.
It may not be government.
It could be Opposition members, depending on what they are engaged in.
It could be a Lieutenant Governor's house.
It could be visiting politicians.
I
will certainly talk to the RNC and RCMP and ask to get a list of the
responsibilities of that unit. I
will be more than happy to share it here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
have learned today that the family of Donald Dunphy, supported by their
lawyer, have expressed a loss of confidence in the investigation being
carried out by the RCMP on his death and are asking for an outside police
force to be brought in, as well as for an inquiry to be put in place once
the investigation is finished.
I
ask the Premier: Based on the red flag that is being raised, will he
reconsider his position into an inquiry, into all the circumstances
surrounding the death of Donald Dunphy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Again, it is a very serious matter.
We want to know exactly what took place as well.
We share that concern with members opposite, and also members of the
general public. We want to know
what took place.
Mr.
Speaker, as the member opposite just alluded to; we have to wait for the
police to finish their investigation.
We have to wait for the RCMP to finish their investigation.
We look forward to receiving their report and also the report of the
former justice who has unfettered access to the investigators and the
investigation. He has an
oversight role. We also look
forward to receiving a report from him as well on the outcome of their
findings in the investigation.
Once
we have that, Mr. Speaker, then we will consider next steps.
Just to be clear, at no time did we ever say or are we saying that we
are opposed to a public inquiry.
What we are saying is let's get the information first then we will make our
decision before we can move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister is on record as saying that he does not see the need to add extra
ambulances to the fleet to address the red alert situation on the Northeast
Avalon.
With
the larger population, Mr. Speaker, on the Northeast Avalon, what evidence
does the minister or this government have to arrive at that conclusion that
we do not need more ambulances out there?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for raising a very important issue.
It has been in a number of media reports this week.
I
want to tell hon. members of this House that since 2006, Eastern Health has
actually increased ambulance capacity in this region quite a bit.
They have more than doubled response capabilities, more than doubling
the number of ambulances and paramedics.
So there are sufficient resources to meet our needs in this region.
We
monitor red alerts very closely.
Some red alerts are Level I which means there is no ambulance on standby
when the call comes in. Some are
Level II. It needs to be put
into context. It is an issue
that we are examining closely and we will continue to work with Eastern
Health on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East has time for a very quick question.
MR. MURPHY:
Mr. Speaker, falling back
on the St. John's Regional Fire Department is not the answer.
I
ask the minister: Is the answer to call another ambulance when St. John's
Regional is tied up?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services, for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the member
is creating a perception that emergency calls are not being responded to
when a red alert arises. That is
simply not the case.
All
ambulances are actively responding to transports on a priority basis.
There are protocols in place.
Last weekend protocols were followed, and I am confident that Eastern
Health is managing this matter quite well.
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.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay is in a deplorable
condition and requires immediate upgrading; and
WHEREAS the condition of the highway is causing undue damage to vehicles
using the highway and is a safety hazard for the travelling public; and
WHEREAS both residential and commercial traffic has increased dramatically
with the opening of the Trans-Labrador Highway and increased development in
Labrador; and
WHEREAS cold patching is no longer adequate as a means of repair;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
immediately allocate resources to Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay
that allows for permanent resurfacing of the highway.
As
in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been on my feet a number of times petitioning for
resurfacing of Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay.
The road is in an absolute deplorable condition.
Yesterday, the minister stood and he gave a statement and he talked
about road safety. He talked
about it being a priority with this government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, last week I was working from my Forteau office for a
number of days, somebody did tell me that forty new bags of cold patch have
gone into the area, but there comes a certain point in time when you move
beyond the Dalmatian highway which I talked about last year where there
was more cold patch than there was pavement that it becomes unfixable.
There are sections there that the school bus travels over one particular
spot in Forteau, you cannot tell what is road any more.
People are swerving in around and they are going onto the grounds of
a private business, Mr. Speaker.
Asphalt is needed, it is desperately needed, we are going to have the Budget
come down next, and I certainly hope because what I am talking about does
not fall under discretionary spending.
If
we cannot do better than what we have there now, tear up what we have and
put some gravel back down, or else we have to shut down the road.
I invite the minister to come up with me.
I know that he has received pictures from a number of mayors in the
area that are very, very concerned.
Now we have heavy, heavy traffic on an already extremely dilapidated
road going back and forth to Muskrat Falls, which has made a bad situation
almost extremely impossible.
We
hear in this House lots of times talk about the billion-dollar tourism
industry. Mr. Speaker, our
businesses do not have a chance.
Who is going to come? Who is
going to come in a motor home?
We have the Mayor for Red Bay sitting in the gallery today; they got the
designation last year, UNESCO status, World Heritage Site.
Their community is depending on tourism, but who is going to drive
over an atrocious road like that?
So,
I will continue to be on my feet and to be advocating.
I know there is a batch plant that is being set up this year for
asphalt north of Red Bay. What a
great opportunity to save some money and to resurface some of Route 510.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Town of Conception Bay South is the second largest municipality
in the Province with a population of approximately 26,000 people; and
WHEREAS recent dangerous incidents on community streets have highlighted
concerns of high speed and inadequate traffic control in Conception Bay
South; and
WHEREAS residents, organized groups, and the town continue to raise
awareness about pedestrian safety along main streets and the lack of police
presence in Conception Bay South; and
WHEREAS residents are increasingly concerned about safety in their community
and are feeling insecure on their streets and in their homes;
We,
the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to review
the level of policing in Conception Bay South with an objective of
increasing policing services and improving public safety for residents.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like first to point out that I am in no way criticizing, in
any way, the work of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers in
Conception Bay South. They
continue to present themselves in a most professional manner as they go
about their daily work in making Conception Bay South a safer place to live.
In
speaking with residents, I feel the issue here is tied more to the degree of
policing, perception of residents, and visibility of police in the
community. Mr. Speaker, the
Premier is fully aware of these issues.
He is a former member of the RNC.
He was a ward councillor in the Town of Conception Bay South.
Also as the MHA for Topsail, he has been kept in the loop regarding
councils concerns re: policing in the town.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition came about with two points of focus.
First of all, there is a major concern in the district of speeding
and dangerous driving. Route 60
and the Foxtrap Access Road are provincial highways through the town.
There are eight schools on or immediately off these highways where
safety needs to be a priority.
Recently, we have heard the mayor's concerns regarding the Conception Bay
South Bypass Road.
This
is not only a concern on the main street, but as well on side streets.
The deputy mayor recently said speeding and dangerous driving are
currently the biggest issues we have to deal with in our town.
Recently a local Facebook group, CBS traffic safety group, has been
created to draw attention to the issue.
I know the Justice Minister is aware of the issue, as residents of
his street have been very vocal about speeding in his neighborhood.
I spent significant time with a parent group from his street when I
was his councillor.
Mr.
Speaker, the second concern in the District of Conception Bay South is a
sense of insecurity among residents.
This seems to be particularly true among seniors.
I picked up on this in two ways as I have knocked on doors throughout
the town. In some cases,
residents were very forthcoming in pointing out
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HILLIER:
these feeling that they
rarely see an RNC vehicle in their neighbourhood.
This
may well be the case but residents are clearly concerned that they do not
see regular police presence
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the member that his speaking time has expired.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the undersigned
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS we, the residents of the Port au Port Peninsula, do not want
hydraulic fracturing to be used in oil exploration in our area as it will
contaminate our air, water, and soil; and
WHEREAS fracking will destroy tourism and rural diversification forever; and
WHEREAS we are not willing to leave the toxic footprint of fracking for
future generations;
We,
the people who will be most affected, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge government to include a representative from our area on their fracking
review panel for which consultations will be held in our area.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I got this petition in.
This was (inaudible) by a very interested person over on the West Coast who
took it upon herself to get out there her and some of her friends and
get names, signatures for this petition.
It was a very good effort brought forth by these people who are
asking government a very simple question about the fracking panel and
wanting to have representation on the same panel for obvious reasons.
I
can quote one interesting news story this morning, Mr. Speaker, that comes
out of Saskatchewan talking about some wells that were tested that were
leaking hydrogen sulfide gases and actually killed some animals in the area
where the wells had occurred.
This is an area of this province where there is a danger particularly to
part of our agriculture industry, in this case to farming and the sheep
industry for example. When they
tested the wells, Mr. Speaker, they found twenty-one out of twenty-two of
these wells were leaking and caused damage to some farming areas in
Saskatchewan.
These people have a direct concern.
They have a direct concern not only for the people's health and for
the security of the water, but for their industries as well.
So we would certainly hope, and we have asked this as a party on this
side of the House, that the government would reconsider while it still has
time, that this government would consider the fact of putting West Coast
representation on this panel.
Why? Because the people of the
West Coast are to be the most affected by this.
I am going to ask government again to consider while there is still
time for government to consider having a member, a person from the West
Coast, sit on the fracking panel to represent the interests of the people on
the West Coast.
Mr.
Speaker, I am quite pleased to table this petition on their behalf today.
Hopefully government will pay attention to this petition.
They can see that it is coming from various places like Mainland,
Lourdes, from Stephenville itself, Winterhouse, Lourdes again, Black Duck
Brook, Mr. Speaker, communities from all over the Port au Port Peninsula
that are directly concerned with this issue.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS government has the responsibility to ensure that Internet access is
broadly available so people have a right to be able to access the Internet
in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and
opinion and other fundamental human rights; and
WHEREAS Bide Arm was by-passed under the Broadband for
Rural and Northern Development initiative, which saw high-speed Internet
added to thirty-six communities on the Great Northern Peninsula in 2004; and
WHEREAS nearly a decade later Bide Arm still remains
without broadband services despite being on amalgamated town with
Roddickton; and
WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for
education, business, communication, and social activity; and
WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to
provide broadband service to rural communities to replace slower dial-up
services;
We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to
urge the government to assist providers to ensure that Bide Arm is in
receipt of broadband Internet services in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by residents of
Roddickton, Griquet, Ship Cove, and Bide Arm which are all in my
constituency.
SOME HON.
MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
The Town of Bide Arm amalgamated.
It is part of a municipality of Roddickton, Bide Arm.
It is the largest town now on the Northern Peninsula east.
It is a major service area.
The children and people who are living in Bide Arm are certainly
hindered in terms of their education, in terms of the equal opportunities
they have and all other residents.
So with the federal government having $305 million
under the federal program for expanding broadband Internet, I would hope
that the current government would be pursuing opportunities, working with
providers, as I have been doing, to see that broadband comes to Bide Arm
because they missed the boat a few years ago when there was $225 million
there.
I put forward this petition and hope that we can get
some movement for the people in that community.
It is well-deserving. I
know we have a member on the other side who is from Bide Arm, the Member for
Baie Verte Springdale. Let's
make sure we get the broadband Internet there in Bide Arm.
It is a great town.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition
of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS hundreds of residents of the Southwest Coast of
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the
communities of Margaree, Fox Roost, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose
Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove, and La Poile, use Route 470 on a
regular basis for work, medical, educational and social reasons; and
WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470;
and
WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety and
communication tool for visitors and residents; and
WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 470 feel that
the provincial government should invest in cellphone coverage for rural
Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner
with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage along Route 470.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have entered this petition on a number
of occasions. I am going to
continue to do so until we
get something done. Now,
thankfully we are starting again, I do not want to speak too soon, but we
are starting to move past the winter season where we saw people stranded for
hours and hours on barren roads, desolate roads in a snowstorm with no
supplies, and we do not have an ability to call people on a cellphone.
Now
the good news is that with the advent of technology we can alleviate this
problem with a minimal investment.
We are not talking huge dollars.
I would like to think that it is an investment, because the fact is
the returns you are going to get will outweigh what the actual investment
is, I can guarantee you that.
The
fact is right now we have people coming over here, we have tourists who are
coming over here and one of the things they see when they get off the ferry
is: Oh, we have no cellphone coverage in a lot of the places that we would
like to go visit. Well, maybe we
will not go down there.
The
second part is we have people who are not getting calls for work because God
forbid if they step outside their house, they cannot get a call on the
cellphone that they pay for. I
pay for my cellphone but I do not have to worry about that in most of the
places I am in, but they do not get that.
Again, it is something that affects the majority of us in this House of
Assembly in many places. I also
have Route 480. I am looking
forward to the minister working with me on this issue to ensure there is
cellphone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is time to make it happen, and his department can make that
happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
call from the Order Paper, Order 2, second reading of a bill, An Act To
Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy.
(Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs,
that Bill 1, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And
Protection Of Privacy, be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded
that Bill 1, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And
Protection Of Privacy, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, An Act To Provide The Public With Access
To Information And Protection Of Privacy.
(Bill 1)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is my pleasure to rise in this House today to start the debate on the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act bill.
I suspect there will be considerable debate on a piece of legislation
that is important to those of us in this House and important to people
throughout the Province.
The
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, also known as ATIPPA,
is an important piece of legislation.
It is legislation that provides people with the right to access
information and ensures the protection of personal privacy.
It applies to more than 400 public bodies, from government
departments and agencies, to health care and educational bodies, as well as
municipalities.
As
you are aware, in March 2014, former Premier Marshall announced the
appointment of the ATIPPA Review Committee which was mandated to conduct a
comprehensive review of the legislation, including the amendments that we
made in 2012. The ATIPPA Review
Committee consisted of individuals with expertise in law, expertise in
privacy legislation, and expertise in journalism.
The
committee was comprised of Clyde Wells as Chair, Jennifer Stoddart, and Doug
Letto. Mr. Wells, as members of
the House know, is a lawyer, a former chief justice, and former Premier of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms
Stoddart is the former Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Mr. Letto is a journalist with over thirty years of experience.
When
drafting the terms of reference for the ATIPPA review earlier this year, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador made an unqualified statement that
the committee's work would be transparent, comprehensive, and independent of
government. We remain strongly
committed to these principles and we were very fortunate that such
highly-qualified and respected individuals in their chosen professions
agreed to undertake this important review.
The
committee was given a mandate to conduct a comprehensive review of the
provisions and operations of the act which included: identifying ways to
make the act more user friendly so that it is easily understood by those who
use it and can be interpreted and applied consistently; assessing the Right
of Access (Part II) and Exceptions to Access provisions (Part III) to
determine whether these provisions support the purpose and intent of the
legislation or whether changes to these provisions should be considered;
examining the provisions regarding Reviews and Complaints (Part V) including
the powers and duties of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to assess
whether adequate measures exist for review of decisions and complaints
independent of heads of public bodies; reviewing time limits for responses
to access to information requests and whether current requirements are
appropriate; reviewing whether there are any additional uses or disclosures
of personal information that should be permitted under the act or issues
related to the protection of privacy (Part IV); and reviewing whether the
current ATIPPA Fee Schedule is appropriate.
On
March 2 of this year, the committee presented government with its two-volume
report on the independent statutory review.
The report contains a total of ninety recommendations including draft
legislation and policy and procedural changes designed to be user friendly,
and to provide legislation that when compared with international standards
will rank among the best in the world.
Since reviewing the committee's report, government has moved forward with
implementing a number of recommendations to provide more efficient and
effective services before introducing this bill in the House of Assembly.
Let me summarize for you some of those changes.
First of all, eliminating the $5 application fee for filing ATIPP requests,
as well as amending the fee schedule; removing the practice by some
departments of having MHAs and political staff having to go through
executive assistants on constituency matters, such that MHAs can now go
directly to departmental staff who are able to respond to these matters;
requiring departments to report all privacy breaches to the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner, as well as the Office of Public
Engagement; providing a toll-free help desk for municipal ATIPP
co-ordinators seeking advice and guidance on access and privacy matters;
and, directing ATIPP co-ordinators in departments to anonymize the identify
of ATIPP applicants during ATIPP requests, thus ensuring the protection of
their privacy throughout the request process.
Mr.
Speaker, the decision to accept all recommendations in the report and to
move quickly on bringing this legislation forward is more evidence of this
government's commitment to increasing transparency and accountability.
It is also consistent with government's broader commitment to open
government. The act is not
intended to simply address amendments that we made in 2012; rather, it is a
new approach to access to information and protection of privacy not only in
Canada, but internationally.
The
key to success starts with building a strong foundation.
This bill recognizes that the right to access information is vital to
democracy, and recasts the purpose of this act to specifically acknowledge
this. It also ensures the
privacy of individuals is protected to prevent the unauthorized collection,
use, or disclosure of personal information.
This newly identified purpose sets the foundation for a strong piece
of legislation that promotes the basic and fundamental democratic rights of
accessing information and protecting privacy.
Mr.
Speaker, we are putting forward a bill that will replace the existing Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and will change how the act is
administered by changing the role of the ATIPP co-ordinator, increase the
protection of personal information, promote transparency and accountability
in municipalities, and significantly change the role of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the administration of the act.
A number of the amendments to the legislation will make the current
processes more user-friendly and efficient.
First, the act will give delegated authority for handling a request
solely to the ATIPP co-ordinator.
It will also anonymize the identity and type of applicant, which will
protect their privacy throughout the request process.
The
act will also legislate what fees can be charged for responding to ATIPP
requests. Specifically, no fee
can be charged for requests for personal information, no application fee can
be charged for general requests, and the free time spent in locating records
in response to a request increases from four free hours to fifteen free
hours for public bodies, ten free hours for local government bodies such as
cities and towns.
As I
previously stated, government moved forward with implementing this
recommendation as an early action in advance of introducing this bill.
On March 9, government announced that it had eliminated the
application fee and amended the fee schedule to reflect the language in this
draft bill, what was the draft bill.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on a critical component of the bill: the
access to information provisions.
While the act provides for the right to access information held by
public bodies, this right has some specific and limited exceptions.
Most exceptions to disclosure are discretionary, meaning the head of
a public body can chose whether to release information.
Whereas other exceptions are mandatory, meaning the head of the
public body has no discretion to release information but is instead required
to withhold information.
One
of the most notable elements of this bill is the expansion of the public
interest override. Currently,
information is required to be disclosed when there is a risk of significant
harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public, and
disclosure is clearly in the public interest.
This bill has broadened this override, which applies to most
discretionary exceptions. This
would require officials to balance the potential for harm associated with
releasing information in an ATIPP request against fundamental democratic and
political values.
It
provides that where a public body can refuse to disclose information under
specific exceptions, those exceptions would not apply where it is clearly
demonstrated that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the reason for
the exception. This is a
significant change from the current legislation and the Information and
Privacy Commissioner has been tasked with developing the test for the public
interest override in providing training and guidance on its application.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the most prevalent comments we have heard in response to the
ATIPP review report and the recommendations of the Committee is that this is
pure and complete reversal of the amendments made in 2012 through Bill 29.
I believe some members of the House have heard of that bill and would
remember it.
I
think the narrow characterization of this new modern and leading piece of
legislation is a disservice to the work undertaken by the Committee and by
government to bring forward today what I believe to be an incredible piece
of legislation.
During the review, Mr. Wells commented on a number of occasions that the
amendments made in 2012 were both good and bad and that the review was about
far more than those amendments.
It was a full and comprehensive review of an entire act, not just amendments
that were made in 2012 but an entire act and how it operates.
What
this bill represents is a new approach to access to information and
protection of privacy legislation, not only in this Province but also in the
country and internationally as well.
With
respect to the major criticisms of the 2012 amendments, only three of these
provisions have reverted. The
protection of briefing books, the Commissioner's ability to review
solicitor-client privilege records, and the three-part test for third-party
business information.
Other sections that received a lot of attention because of the 2012
amendments have been modernized and changed, thus they are creating
provisions that are new and improved.
Very different from what we have ever had.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the role of the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The Commissioner plays a fundamental role in the administration of
the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
This bill strengthens the role of the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner as an advocate for access to information and protection
of personal information.
Specifically, the bill increases the powers of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner to include responsibility for approving extensions of time for
ATIPP requests and the power to review various types of records including
Cabinet records, solicitor-client privilege records, and other records in
the custody or under the control of the public body.
In
addition, the bill with give the Commissioner the power to monitor and audit
the practices and procedures employed by public bodies in carrying out their
responsibilities and duties under the act and make special reports to the
House of Assembly containing the Commissioner's findings and, where
appropriate, his recommendations and the reasons for those recommendations.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill also provides an appointment process, term, and salary
that support the independence of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Another provision I would like to highlight deals with the complaint and
investigation process to be undertaken by the Commissioner.
Given the enhanced role of the Commissioner, whereby he can promote
and facilitate efficient and timely access to requested information, the
bill requires a more expeditious complaint and investigation process, which
includes adopting practices and procedures to respond quickly to complaints
and to avoid excessive delays in resolving complaints.
Mr.
Speaker, governments function best when they are open to the people they
serve. Our government has always
strived to be open to meet the expectations of the people of the Province.
Disclosing information should be the default.
Withholding information should be the exception.
I
have highlighted the key aspects of this new legislation.
I would also like to point out that the Office of Public Engagement,
for which I am responsible, will continue to hold administrative
responsibility for this act and the regulations that come under it.
We
will work closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner to ensure training and awareness sessions, and associated
materials are developed and made available to ATIPP co-ordinators within the
public bodies that are covered by the act.
As I
mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, government has been working on early
implementation on a number of the review committee's recommendations.
These actions are improvements to government policies around access
to information and protection of privacy that municipalities, applicants,
and others are using right now and will lead to more efficient and more
effective services.
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee provided government with the strongest possible
framework for access to information and protection of privacy, and
government wants the public to benefit from these recommendations as soon as
possible. To make this happen,
we have established an interdepartmental transition team to roll out these
recommendations and prepare for the implementation of these recommendations.
The
transition team is working with the Office of Public Engagement to prepare
for the necessary steps that must be taken to bring the act into effect.
The team comprises of members from a range of departments including
Cabinet Secretariat, the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the Human
Resource Secretariat, and the Office of Public Engagement, and reports to
the Clerk of the Executive Council as well as to the Deputy Minister of the
Office of Public Engagement. Of
course I am receiving regular updates from the team as well.
I approved the terms of reference for the team.
They are published on the Office of Public Engagement's website.
Mr.
Speaker, the transition team's work is focused on four main components.
These components include a training plan and related materials,
policy manual revisions, an organizational review for ATIPP co-ordinators,
and a series of tasks relating to municipalities.
The
various groups of people within government such as deputy ministers,
assistant deputy ministers, and ATIPP co-ordinators, as well as other public
bodies have been identified as key stakeholders requiring training related
to the changes resulting from the ATIPP review report, including the
legislative changes in Bill 1.
That training is already underway.
Government has already held a number of preliminary training sessions
throughout the Province. For
example, today in Labrador West one of these training sessions is taking
place.
Mr.
Speaker, government has also additional training planned for ATIPP
co-ordinators. That will take
place next month. We have also
identified additional training that is needed for the municipal sector that
will take place during the summer.
Also, the review committee recommended that ATIPP co-ordinators be
trained in service delivery excellence.
That specific training is also scheduled for our government ATIPP
co-ordinators. It will take
place early next month in May.
The
implementation team has identified that the ATIPP policy manuals need to be
thoroughly revised to reflect the changes resulting from the ATIPP review
report. These revisions are
already well underway and government is consulting with the Information and
Privacy Commissioner on this work.
Additionally, government is reviewing how the ATIPP function is
staffed within the provincial government.
The
Committee made a series of recommendations related to municipalities.
That was actually a clear focus of the report.
To advance work on these recommendations, government has formed a
municipal working group, and it includes provincial government officials,
the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and representatives
from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and municipalities
themselves. This group has been
charged with working on a range of recommendations contained in the review
report that pertains specifically to municipalities.
The transition team will also be bringing forward a change management
plan on how to effect a cultural change within the provincial government.
Mr.
Speaker, as the transition team works through the required steps to be ready
for proclamation of the bill, a couple of items came forward that actually
required clarification from the review committee.
When Mr. Wells met with me to present the report, he made the offer
that we could call upon him any time and call on the other members of the
Committee, should we require clarification on anything that is contained
within the report.
So,
our implementation team, our transition team, including the Information and
Privacy Commissioner, had a discussion with Mr. Wells with respect to a
couple of things: with respect to the definition of data set; and, the
expanded definition of public body as it relates to local government bodies
contained in the draft legislation presented by the Committee in its report.
The outcome of that discussion resulted in Mr. Wells writing a letter
to my deputy minister in the Office of Public Engagement clarifying the
intent of the Committee with respect to these provisions in question and
suggesting rather minor language changes to these definitions rather
minor, but yet important and significant.
As
government has committed to accepting the recommendations of the Committee,
those changes discussed in Mr. Wells' letter have been reflected in the
bill. We are considering his
letter to be an addendum of sorts, and we have reflected those recommended
changes from Mr. Wells and the Committee in Bill 1, which is now before you
in the House.
The
first change relates to a minor drafting error in the definition of data set
contained in the bill. In this
provision, the word adopted should have been the word adapted.
That change has been made to Bill 1, the bill that is now being
presented in the House. Some may
say well, that is not significant, but when you talk to lawyers they will
definitely tell you that such wording can be very significant.
Government and the Information and Privacy Commissioner also sought
clarification on the expanded definition of public body.
The review committee provided guidance on this point in the form of a
slightly revised definition that they felt better expressed the Committee's
intention regarding entities created by local public bodies to carry out
public policy objectives and provide public services on behalf of local
government. Mr. Speaker, the
revised language in this definition has also been reflected in the bill we
have before us today.
At
the suggestion of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,
government has delayed the coming into force of this section of the act only
this section related to the new definition to August 1.
The reason for that is to provide time to work with municipalities
and talk to municipalities about all of the entities which manage their
assets and discharge their responsibilities.
With
the introduction of this bill, there is an historical opportunity to create
a made in Newfoundland and Labrador plan for access to information.
One that, when compared with international standards, will be user
friendly and will rank among the best in the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, I view this new legislation as a win for the
Province, a win for all of us.
As
the head of the Centre of Law and Democracy told VOCM on Monday, it is great
to see that the Bill 29 debate led to a very important conversation on
avenues forward which has ultimately led to reforms that are going to make
the law the strongest in Canada and a much better system than it was in the
pre-Bill 29 days. Mr. Speaker,
frankly, I could not agree more.
Government is looking forward to supporting the implementation of this
legislation. This bill
illustrates the significant changes that are being made right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador and will serve as a model for other jurisdictions
across Canada to follow. So we
have certainly learned a lot.
I
expect there will be support in this House for the bill, given that many
hon. members have been advocating for increased access to information and
stronger protection of privacy for some time.
Also, I will acknowledge there are members opposite who expressed
concerns about the changes that we made in 2012.
This new piece of legislation certainly addresses those concerns.
Mr.
Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at this time in the debate.
I look forward to closing second reading in debate at the appropriate
time. I look forward to working
with all members of the House as we work through the Committee stage of the
bill process as well. This is a
significant piece of legislation.
I am
proud be tabling this piece of legislation in the Legislature today.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate.
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.
It
is a great opportunity to speak to Bill 1, An Act to Provide the Public with
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Bill
1, as the Minister of the Office of Public Engagement made very clear, is a
result basically of PC secrecy, a government that is not open, accountable
or transparent with the result of what was implemented in Bill 29.
We all lived through that, many members here in the House that were
here in 2012 in June. The public
basically of Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered under this government's
regressive approach to sharing information.
I
really welcome Bill 1 and the amendments that have been put forward.
There have been a number of clauses and changes that were proposed
through the independent review panel by Commissioner Wells, Commissioner
Stoddart, and Commissioner Letto, who were a part of this committee that
went out and looked and did the jurisdictional scans, but also did the
review and did consultation and looked at bringing forward the piece of
legislation that we have here today.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at what the public expects from a government, they
expect a level of openness and accountability to ensure that the public
trust has been able to establish a system of transparency, public
participation and collaboration.
It was very clear, if we go back to 2012 and the months and years that
followed, because we are three years later now, that this is a government
that clearly did not listen, was not being transparent, failed to engage in
public participation and the collaboration that was needed that resulted in
a Bill 29 which was a very regressive piece of legislation.
In
fact, the minister just talked about how with this current bill that is
being proposed, this made in Newfoundland and Labrador plan, we would be the
best in the country. Now I
believe that was said in the debate in 2012 as well.
Instantly when Bill 29 was implemented, we went from being one of the
highest ranked with our previous access to information law, the ATIPPA law
that we had, we dropped instantly, and the Centre for Law and Democracy,
Democracy Watch, people spoke out.
They compared this regressive legislation to a number of countries
that are not that open or transparent and have a high level of corruption
and things like that. So it was
really taking a step back by what happened at that time.
Government should be transparent because that really promotes
accountability. It provides
information to citizens and what their government is really doing.
This is why the Leader of the Official Opposition in 2012,
immediately after the debate, after this government invoked closure, shut
down debate, shut down public dialogue and stunted any ability for the
consultation, said that Bill 29 does not work.
Bill 29 is wrong, and the Official Opposition would repeal Bill 29.
He immediately said that and continued moving forward.
When
we look at access to information and privacy protection, we have to really
go back and look at how we got to where we are today and how we arrived at
Bill 1, as the Minister of the Office of Public Engagement talked about.
He talked about the past and going back and how we got to Bill 1,
where we are today.
If
we go back to June 16, 1981, this is when Newfoundland and Labrador's first
Freedom of Information Act became law.
Both the government and the Opposition members of the House noted at
that time that the legislation was creating an important right to the people
of the Province because here as legislators in this House we produce laws
and we have to act in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
It
was established, a statutory regime, so that citizens could access
information and records of government, and government departments and
agencies subject to limited exceptions.
This was the first opportunity for informed participation in what we
would call the democratic process and assurance of greater accountability.
This
act stayed intact for nearly two decades.
This is why the Newfoundland and Labrador Freedom of Information Act
until 2000 were looked at creating change.
We have to look at the evolution of time.
In 2000, we basically entered what was a real information age with
technology and how society acted and interacted with the introduction of the
Internet, and how information exponentially gets shared and deciphered in
society. This is why it is very
important to look at not just freedom of information but also look at
privacy protection.
In
response to that this is where a more in-depth review a freedom of
information review committee gave a broad review and put forward proposed
changes. It was actually in
December of 2000 when the Justice Minister at the time, Kelvin Parsons, who
was the minister and the Member for Burgeo La Poile announced that
government would undertake a comprehensive review of the Province's freedom
to information.
A
Freedom of Information Act Review Committee looked at all of the literature,
examined information, and looked at other jurisdictions.
After
that time, after a number of months, seven months of
doing some consultation and review, former Premier Roger Grimes and Justice
Minister Kelvin Parsons held a news conference to release the Committee's
report on the Freedom of Information Act review.
The result of this Committee's recommendation which was
done within the Department of Justice created a completely new bill.
It was the access to information bill.
It was drafted. Just like
we have here today; we have Bill 1, which is basically a completely new
bill. So I would be under the
assumption that the former Bill 29 will be repealed as was called for by the
Leader of the Official Opposition after the debate of Bill 29 back in 2012.
This piece of legislation, how we got our past ATIPP
legislation, it was debated in the House in the fall 2001 and actually
referred to the Social Services Committee for examination.
Now, I take everybody back to that time because I was
here debating Bill 29 in 2012 and one of the first amendments that was put
forward by the Official Opposition was to say look, we need to put forward
an amendment that defers this bill, takes it out of the House right now, and
defers it to the Social Services Committee for examination so that it can
have a proper review, so you can bring in the witnesses that you need to.
Talk to the people that you need to talk to, as basically would
happen if the proper process and channels were taking place.
If this government at the time listened to the Official
Opposition that was doing its role, holding government accountable because
it was listening to the people of the Province that is something this
government was not doing. It was
not listening. Actually, the
former Premier, Premier Tom Marshall, said that; we were not listening.
We are going to listen to the people of the Province now after we
have talked to our supporters and talked to people, they are saying Bill 29
was a bad move.
The process that was followed under the past
Administration to improve the access to information legislation actually
followed a very fair process.
Government reviewed the recommendations.
A new act was introduced to the House of Assembly, Bill 49, which was
to provide the public with access to information and privacy protection.
At the time, the Official Opposition proposed
thirty-five amendments and thirteen of those thirty-five amendments were
accepted, with modification. At
that time, this was an opportunity where there the Official Opposition saw
improvements or saw areas where there could be change, where you could have
improved legislation.
If we go back and look at the debate in 2012, when
meaningful amendments, meaningful dialogue, and consultation were being
suggested by the Official Opposition, what happened?
The government members on that side and maybe some of them will
speak to it when they get up and talk to new Bill 1 and know that no
amendment was accepted by the Official Opposition, that was put forward in
this House to improve access to information at that time to this regressive
and draconian Bill 29 that resulted in, I cannot tell you how much amount of
toner. The toner budget must
have went through the roof in Newfoundland and Labrador since Bill 29.
I receive documents, pages and pages that have been blacked out.
I was in the elevator just yesterday and there were
twelve boxes of toner going to the fourth floor which is the Premier's
office, so I think it is trying to black out all the information they can
while this bill is not actually passed in the House of Assembly.
This is a government that says they are changing, but I
am holding government to accountability in this and their process.
When it comes to what they say they are going to do and what they
actually do it is two totally different things, Mr. Speaker.
This is why I am taking the time to look at the historical
significance
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
and then also go through Bill 1 and I will have every opportunity in
Committee if I do not get to finish everything that I want to say today on a
clause-by-clause basis to Bill 1, and there are 130-something clauses I do
believe in this particular bill.
It is important that we have thorough debate in the House of Assembly and
that government does not invoke closure as they have in the past.
We have seen a very regressive government here where
they do not want to listen to the ideas of the Official Opposition in many
cases but when they do listen, they get good legislation like the bicycle
helmet legislation that came forward that was asked for by the Official
Opposition.
Going back to the bill, when it was brought back into
the House at the Committee stage it was assented in March 2002, so we look
at the transition of time that took place.
It certainly was not rushed.
It was a bill that was passed in the House of Assembly and you cannot
proclaim a bill or a section of a bill until all aspects are made
operational, until that functional change is made.
This was very monumental because if we look up to that stage as of
1990, the old bill was nine stages, had sixteen sections that was much more
limited.
Bill 49 in 2002, after the first major overhaul that
was done since 1981, which was done by a Liberal government, had had
thirty-two pages, it had seventy-seven sections, and it really focused on
the right to access, the public disclosure.
It was very detailed what could be disclosure or harmful in certain
situations, the disclosure of personal information, the protection of
privacy, how personal information should be collected, how the accuracy
needed to be maintained, and the protection of personal information.
This is all very important because, as a government,
government collects a significant amount of information on people when
everybody fills out forms, when they file for different reports.
We have seen, just recently, in many cases where there have been
privacy breaches, where lots of information has gotten into the wrong hands,
because the right protocols and measures and steps were not thoroughly
enforced.
So, we need to see situations where we look at
protecting privacy. I was very happy
to see the minister talk about privacy protection, because that is important
too, finding that particular balance.
Government collects all this information, and all this information
that is personal in nature is looked at as a provincial asset.
It is information that gets put forward and certain aspects of
information that government collects can be very useful.
Very useful in policy decisions, very useful in finding and
collecting stats, and putting out in an open way, in terms of open, usable
data sets.
One of the sections of Bill 1 talks about open data and
data sets. We have not seen
where
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
information that has been put forward that government would have we have
not seen that visionary approach yet, Mr. Speaker.
We have not seen it.
Because government talks the talk, but it does not walk the walk.
A year ago they said they were doing this Open Government Initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I understand members have various conversations, but if
members would take those conversations to other corners it is difficult to
hear the speaker. So I ask
members' co-operation.
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would expect that members opposite would be very
interested in Bill 1 and enhancing and protecting personal information,
privacy, and access to information.
If the government is really open, accountable, transparent to the
people, that this should be the most important topic of discussion in the
House of Assembly, and all members should be very attentive to debate in
this particular House at this time.
I
will go back talking about this piece of legislation and how we got to this
particular time. That was the
access to information legislation that we had.
This
government, even in its Throne Speech just this week, one of the first
pieces of information talks about openness and accountability.
During this session members passed forty-one pieces of legislation.
A prominent theme, our government's legislative agenda was openness
and accountability.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province have heard all this before.
In 1999 the Blue Books states, A PC Government will establish a new
Freedom of Information Act
to
reduce the wait for information, and to ensure Ministers actually provide
the information requested where that information belongs in the public
domain. This was back in 1999.
I do
not have to take people too far.
I do not even have to go back and talk about Bill 29.
I can talk about just an access to information request that has been
made through our office for public library board minutes.
Public library board minutes through the Newfoundland and Labrador
public libraries board, library association, whenever you look at agencies
and minutes that are being held by public bodies they should be made
publicly available, especially things like the agenda of a particular
meeting. If there needs to be a
closed camera meeting to discuss a particular matter, well that can be
something very different. The
policies and protocols in place, when you are talking about minutes of a
particular meeting and how they go about doing their business, something
like that could be in the public domain.
Knowing who is on a particular board should be in the public domain.
When we asked about the Marble Mountain Development Corporation in
the Public Accounts Committee there were lots of vacancies on particular
boards, this information was not made available.
When I actually asked the public libraries board for this information
they said no, we are not going to give it to you.
You should file an access to information request.
When things should be made available to the public, it should not be
something that is delayed or it should not take a significant amount of
time, but this matter was.
I
remember asking a municipality for public minutes of their meetings.
Any individual of a town has the right to go into a municipality and
ask for the minutes, to see those minutes.
My office, when I asked for town minutes, I was charged a twenty-five
cent fee for every single page and delayed and had to push and talk to the
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to get information,
simple information.
So
we really do need to see under the legislation that when we talk about what
should be made readily available, one important component and one thing the
minister talked about was the training that is happening.
Making sure the ATIPP coordinators and municipalities have adequate
training so that information that really belongs in the public realm gets
there, and information that could be sensitive or needs to be held back
because of a section of a particular act, then that needs to happen as well.
Back
in 2001, when we talk about the ATIPP legislation that we had, former
Premier Williams said the party who rejects it can completely ignore the
recommendations of the Citizens' Representative, and that is significant.
He also stated that in the absence of the public, which meant in
secret, code of silence. So
there needs to be a commitment to accountability, responsibility, and
earning the public trust.
We
are moving from 1999 when there was a promise made.
In 2003, the Blue Book stated, A Progressive Conservative government
will: Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include
amendments that will clearly identify information that should be in the
public domain, now everyone will find this very interesting including
cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the
information
Back
in 2003, it was promised that Cabinet documents will be something that would
be available to the public. Did
this ever transpire under this government?
When we look at what was available prior to 2012, prior to Bill 29,
things like briefing books and other notes, whether it would be in
Estimates, these types of information was available through access to
information, but Bill 29 made sure that information would not be available.
It actually extended section 18, I believe it was.
I
may have to refer back to Bill 29, but I think that extended Cabinet
confidence and what could be looked as a Cabinet record.
Anything, basically, could be stamped by the Executive Council Clerk
to be determined a Cabinet document.
This is something that in 2003 we are now twelve years later was
to be included in a Cabinet document, and that information was pulled back.
I
remember sitting in multiple Estimates as the Vice-Chair of the Resource
Committee, and as a critic of a number of portfolios over the years that I
have been here, over the last four years, and asking questions, asking for
bits of information, having to do significant follow up to get pieces of
information. Some things were
never forwarded. Asking for the
notebooks and notes that the ministers were being provided and not getting
that information. Going through
to having to file a particular access to information and then having that
delayed, so information that is delayed and access to information that
people should have the right to access.
We
have seen it in the House of Assembly many, many times where ministers have
read particular notes and documents and not tabled them in the House of
Assembly or made them readily available.
We have seen times where government has missed their own dates for
making reports, whether it be draft reports
MR. KING:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order, the
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
member opposite is suggesting that ministers here have stood and
deliberately not followed the code of conduct for the House which requires
that when they read from documents they table it.
I would ask him to retract that statement.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, speaking
to the point of order, I would state that my comments were not of that.
I said there are particular times in which a Speaker has made a
previous ruling in this House of Assembly that stated that if they do not
see the minister, it is up to the discretion of the minister to table the
information in the House of Assembly.
I have seen in the House of Assembly where there are situations where
information has not been tabled in the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of
order.
The
hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North may continue.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Going back to the Blue Book of 2003, it states, to release to the public
every government-commissioned report within 30 days of receiving it.
It will take the report's recommendation within sixty days.
How many times have we seen reports that we have requested, that have
been in draft form or have been complete, that were not being made
available? They said they will
not put forward that information and make it available on the Internet.
There has been many times when information should be posted online, whether
they are annual general reports, whether they are other documentation.
That is not getting done in a timely manner.
This is something that we have seen.
A staggering history where government has really said they are going
to look at the documents that are under Cabinet secrecy, under that, but
they have really pulled back on that information.
Bill 29 was a prime example.
We
look at in 2008, Wangersky who is the editor, I believe, of
The Telegram said that, Transparency and accountability are like an
exercise program: practice it conscientiously, or it'll end up doing you no
good at all. If you do not
practice it all the time, it will do you no good at all.
So,
this is a government that said that it was going to make all these changes
and then it implemented Bill 29 and said we are not going to release this
information. We are not going to
provide this to the public.
People spoke on this quite significantly the Centre for Law and Democracy,
Democracy Watch. We have seen
where this government has really lost its way, and lost a lot of momentum in
creating opportunities, because information is an asset, and how it gets
shared, and how those data sets get shared in making good business
decisions, making good policy decisions, and informing the public so that
they can capitalize on the opportunities that Newfoundland and Labrador
would have.
Under this government there has been a tremendous amount of wealth that has
come to the Province, but they have showed that this government is just
unable to manage the resources of the Province, make good decisions for
people and the policy decisions that have come forward have resulted in
misspending and deficit budgets and borrowing.
All of these things come back and result to how you do business, and
how you earn the public trust and how you have accountability.
It
was the past Premier in 2011, Premier Dunderdale, saying that well, four
years is not enough time. This
is a government that has been talking about it since 1999 in one of their
books, been in government since 2003, and then in 2011 said well, you really
need a second term to consolidate, to entrench your systematic change and
boy, in 2012, did they entrench their systematic change.
Yet, Premier Dunderdale said it takes that second term to do
something around transparency, accountability, and principles like resource
development for putting people first.
You really need a longer period of time.
So
it is very rich of the minister to get up previously and talk about how you
would need that second term, when what they are doing is they are pulling
back on Bill 29, on all this regression, years later now, and this is not
about being accountable. For
that period of time there was a real loss of accountability, and that is
something that we are going to continue to press as the Official Opposition
to ensure.
I
give you an example of the Auditor General.
The former Auditor General Wayne Loveys, when he requested and sought
information on government's infrastructure build program they talked about
this $5 billion plan they wanted to do.
The Auditor General does these performance audits to make sure that
we are getting best value for public dollars.
When he went seeking that information about an infrastructure build
program and what the plan and the strategy was, he was denied access.
He was denied access to information.
The Auditor General was denied access to information under this
government.
The
past Premier said government has nothing to hide, and said that the Auditor
General had alternative ways of getting the same information.
Although, the former Premier could not suggest any ways to the
reporters as to how the Auditor General could get that information.
This is a real serious problem when we look at the past of this
government and their legacy, when we look at what they have done to withhold
information. It is very
dangerous to the people of the Province.
It impacts public trust.
Everyone should care about access to information and privacy protection.
Secrecy is a recipe for corruption, waste, and public abuse.
Boy, have we seen that under this current government.
Do I only have to bring up Humber Valley Paving where $19 million in
bonds, where small business operators in this Province are not going to get
paid because government gave back $19 million in bonds without having any
information, any documentation?
When
we look at the review that the Auditor General conducted and said that he
was not satisfied with all the information that was provided and the
approach of ministers of this Crown not following due protocol by not
properly documenting it is highly suspicious when you make such a quick
decision without having any paper trail, no information, when you talk about
things without having documentation.
It is important to have a paper trail when you are making decisions
because that is accountability.
I
would say that the decision of Humber Valley Paving shows secrecy and it
shows unaccountability. The
public trust is broken when those types of things exist.
That is a real problem.
When
we look at what Bill 29 brought.
Bill 29 brought upon this ATIPPA Review Committee.
It required another $1.1 million to be spent on this particular
review to reverse changes in Bill 29.
If
you do not have a strong, open government and the open government law to
enforce the system for high penalties, if people can basically not be
accountable for their actions in Newfoundland and Labrador, it creates a bad
government and it creates the perception of a bad government.
It basically leads to abuse of power
and communities are impacted and we see a waste of public taxpayers' money.
We
have seen that happen here. We
have seen it happen in many cases with decisions that this government has
made. Errors that have happened
that have resulted in millions and millions of dollars of misspent public
money, taking on things that were not needed in terms of various
environmental liabilities that are just causing significant problems.
So when you take on errors that you do not have to and when you
accept liabilities and you give back money that you should not be giving
back, then you have a real problem with how you can truly administer good
public programs, services, and infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Government is failing and continuously failing.
The Member for Trinity Bay de Verde has been up in this House of
Assembly asking for government to release information on the Business
Investment Corporation, on their bad debts and writeoffs that have happened
and want to find out the accountability on this.
The Minister for Child, Youth and Family Services has committed to
providing this information and tabling it in this House.
That is weeks ago now, Mr. Speaker.
We still have not received that information.
The
Minister of Fisheries has been up in this House saying that he would go seek
and get information that was put forward by the Fisheries critic, the Member
for Carbonear Harbour Grace.
My colleague here in the House has been pursuing and actively requesting
information. The minister
basically put forward that these matters are private or protected or
confidential to a series of questions where information really does need to
be made public, not all of it is protected under business confidences.
So, the minister has to do his job and put forward that information
in the House of Assembly. Both
should be more proactive in disclosing information.
We
have seen where we have asked for information and we have not received it,
and that is a real problem. Not
only the Official Opposition has had a problem with accessing information
and what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador under this secret,
non-transparent, unaccountable government.
The Canadian Association of Journalists spoke out very clearly and
said that in Newfoundland and Labrador under Bill 29 public information is
going to be more in darkness.
The
media was being charged thousands of dollars in some cases to get
information. I remember there
was a real hesitation of making restaurant reports public.
Now they are online.
There is proactive disclosure there, but they are not online for public
bodies. Whereas the Member for
Mount Pearl South has been rising in this House of Assembly asking
government to be more accountable, more open, more transparent, and see
proactive disclosure. They had
to pay an excessive fee for that information.
Also, there have been times when the Fisheries critic here through the
Official Opposition requested information on aquaculture.
I believe that was thousands and thousands of dollars that the
Official Opposition would have to pay for information.
So I
am very pleased to see in this particular bill where the application fee
which is something we spoke out about, I believe, in debate in 2012 about
the $5 fee, and also about the increased fees that would be happening.
The Official Opposition talked about it that access fees would
increase from 66 per cent from $15 to $25 an hour.
Those types of things were restrictive.
When
we had the briefing with the officials on Bill 1 they talked about, even
with all of the application fees, they only received $6,000 in revenue from
this particular matter. So this
is why fees would be eliminated.
That is a good step for the application fee to be eliminated.
It is something that the Leader of the Opposition had raised in the
ATIPPA Review Committee, in the public hearing.
He was actually the only leader in this Legislature to make a
presentation before the Committee and put forward a number of
recommendations, recommendations that were accepted and even expanded upon
by the Committee.
This
government here back in 2012 really felt that the public accepted and was
okay with their past draconian Bill 29, despite MHAs on this side of the
House receiving a number of calls and emails from the general public
speaking out, upset, outraged.
I
remember being here when the galleries had a significant amount of people,
whether it be in the daytime or the nighttime, when members of the Official
Opposition debated and spent seventy hours plus debating, or about seventy
hours debating this in the Legislature.
People reached out to us. MHAs
in other districts who would not speak out on their constituency concerns
they would not speak out about government's own secrecy bill.
This is something that requires and I am glad that it has a serious
review by having such members like a former chief justice as Clyde Wells, a
former Privacy Commissioner, and someone who worked in journalism and who
would understand the importance of information and sensitivities of
information as it would be put out in a matter of a public way.
Looking back, there are real problems with how government was saying and
members opposite were saying that this would be one of the best.
The Minister of Justice at the time, who introduced the bill
because back then access to information and privacy protection was under the
Justice department. So the
former minister said that this was just a modernizing.
Some ministers even said it was just housekeeping legislation,
claimed the bill was based on consultation, research, and best practices
across the country. We all know
that it certainly was not the best in the country at that time.
People spoke out heavily about Bill 29.
The
current Premier of the Province on June 11, 2012 said, It is a good piece
of legislation, I say, Mr. Speaker. If it was a good piece of legislation,
we would not be here today with a brand new rewritten bill, Bill 1, with
significant changes, basically repealing Bill 29, which should happen,
because it is a very regressive piece of legislation that our leader the
Leader of the Official Opposition said needed to happen.
We continued to pursue and request and demand that the bill get
repealed. Now we get a repealed
bill, we get Bill 1 with new access to information requests.
So I
am very happy to be able to speak about while I go into the closing of
Bill 29 because Bill 29, after the seventy hours, the Government House
Leader at the time invoked closure.
The minister said that there would be all the time in the world in
this House to debate the issue.
The House Leader changed their mind.
This is a government that changes their mind.
So, when we look at what they say they are doing and what they are
actually doing, we have to make sure, as the Official Opposition, we
continue to press for the greatest level of accountability because this
government has changed their mind in many, many situations, have made bad
decisions; and in many cases, based on our pressure, our accountability, we
have seen improvements to legislation.
This
government, in Bill 29, promised openness, but they provided closure.
Being open and being closed are two different things very radically
different. This is a government
that has withheld, shut down debate, shut down information, shut down
dialog, and the people of the Province have been very upset with this and
with this government and their way that they manage and govern the people of
the Province. They know that it
is bad management on that side of the House of Assembly, and this is why we
have Bill 1 coming in repealing Bill 29.
This
is a government that promised transparency, yet buried information.
I have given examples, I have given situations where people could not
see it, people could not have access to it.
Basic things like library board minutes withheld.
Information in it that the strategic plan that would happen, which in
every government department the strategic plan is posted on government
websites that information blocked out, black toner; we have seen our share
of it.
They
promised accountability, but made sure that was impossible to achieve under
that draconian Bill 29 legislation.
Because if you look at what we are seeing and what has happened
before, there are many situations that we debate in the House of Assembly
where government truly lacks accountability to do the job that they need to
do. When you are not consulting
with the people on the very decisions that you are impacting, when you are
adversely impacting the economy of small business and jobs in rural areas,
like the Minister of Service NL and Environment is doing, then you have a
real problem, because you are not truly being accountable to the people of
the Province.
I
want to go and move beyond the review of Bill 29, one the former Premier
talked about moving forward on that, because I have alluded to how the
Premier said I think people have real concerns over Bill 29: One of the
things I said we are going to do is we are going to listen to the people of
the Province. He also said: I
have talked to good supporters of ours I guess PC supporters who have
expressed to me concern about the legislation.
So
we have seen a lot of change happen, but I want to move forward because the
ATIPPA Review Committee, which did very important work to get us to where we
are to Bill 1 here in the House of Assembly, raised very important points.
The Leader of the Official Opposition on July 22, 2014, actually
presented to the review committee.
The presentation was not meant to be an exhaustive list of issues
with the legislation, but the ones that really impacted the Office of the
Official Opposition which role is to hold government accountable for their
actions and to ensure the public trust is there, that we have ensured
government is doing things that the people of the Province truly want.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition made our positon clear, very clear on Bill
29, and that it needed to be repealed.
I have made that point several times.
In the review the Leader talked about sections of Bill 29, sections
18, 20, 27 and 30. In July, 2012
so over a two year period during that presentation the Official
Opposition submitted over 130 ATIPPA requests to government.
Forty-six of those were denied in full or in part.
That is a significant amount of denied information that the people of
the Province should have.
Some
of that information should have definitely been made available to the people
of the Province, so that we as legislators in the House of Assembly, who
represent people on their issues of concern, should be made available.
The four sections cited, where eighty-eight times in those forty-six
access to information requests, those four sections, 18, 20, 27 and 30, were
the primary reasons why information was being denied.
They
also talked about where government was not responding, the timeliness of
response. In Bill 1 we are very
happy to see twenty business days, and then there is the onus on the
department to request a refusal of information, or that particular matter.
What the Official Opposition saw in many cases was information was
delayed, and sometimes only a few days, but in other cases it was six months
to respond to requests. Access
delayed is the same as access denied.
My colleague, the Member for Burgeo La Poile, has said that many
times in this House of Assembly as the MHA for the Official Opposition
responsible for Justice, and really pushing on government to show they are
accountable.
Section 18 was on the particular Cabinet confidences.
The Official Opposition made recommendations that it should be
replaced with a similar version of section 18 pre-Bill 29, and The
Information and Privacy Commissioner, together with government, should agree
upon a clear interpretation of the substance of the deliberations test.
The
Information and Privacy Commissioner should have the power to subject an
access to information denial that cites Section 18 to a substance of
deliberations test.
This
was put forward. This is a
really good thing. The onus now
is on the department to prove that they have to withhold this information;
that they have to pass a particular test through the information of the
Privacy Commissioner.
Section 20 was about policy advice or recommendations.
This was used in many cases to deny information.
Section 20 should revert to the version of Section 20 that existed
prior to Bill 29. That was
accepted. It was accepted and
that is a good thing.
When
you look at advice or recommendations and the language that was put there,
it was very vague. It really
extended what could be determined; or this draft document, or the beginning,
or a note, or anything could have led to what may be advice, or a policy
advice piece. I have actually
seen it in those library board minutes where basic information that should
be made available was used as section 20 to withhold information.
This
is a very serious matter. I hope
that on a go-forward basis, once this act gets passed and put forward, there
is going to be a way to look back at some of this information that was
withheld and not proactively disclosed to say we are going to make this
available now. We were wrong.
This government was wrong on that matter.
Withholding information is certainly a negative thing.
Using particular sections in a way that withholds information is
negative. It just relates in bad
policy, bad legislation.
Section 27 states, Disclosure harmful to business interests of a third
party. The recommendation was
that section 27 should be repealed, reverting to section 27 which was in
place prior to Bill 29, wherein a three part test ensures appropriate access
to information rather than just a blanket view that it needs to be
protected. This is why maybe
government is trying to withhold their business investment corporation
information and try and use a section like 27 to say we are not going to
provide it. We will continue to
press and seek that information.
Section 30, Disclosure harmful to personal privacy.
The recommendation put forward by the Leader of the Official
Opposition
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
at that time, at
this hearing, was to consider revised language under section 30 to clarify
what is considered personal information and to reveal section 32(f)
reverting the language to the pre-Bill 29 version of the ATIPPA, which
followed for the disclosure of remuneration, not just salary range.
We saw that included in the new bill, Bill 1.
In
Bill 29, the Official Opposition had a significant amount of amendments that
were put forward but because this government is not open, not accountable,
not transparent, is a closed government, decided to invoke closure and not
listen to the Official Opposition's amendments that can improve the
legislation.
The
past Liberal Administration, when they brought forward the original ATIPPA,
access to information request brought forward in the House, it was referred
to Committee. Amendments were
accepted by the Official Opposition at the time.
So it produced a better quality piece of legislation than existed in
1981.
This
is how legislation should happen.
We should have a functional Legislature that looks at legislation in
a quality way. Where we have
quality debate and we talk about the issues, as I am raising here in the
House of Assembly today.
I
have to go back and talk about the Bill 29 situation.
This is a government that did not go through the proper channels that
were available to legislators here to look at putting forward proposed
amendments and making sure we can have a positive change to a bad piece of
legislation.
Actually, on March 3, 2015, for more than forty minutes this was produced
in the Telegram, Telegram James
actually published this and said: For more than forty minutes at a news
conference on Tuesday morning, Public Engagement Minister the minister who
introduced this legislation sat quietly while the former Premier, Clyde
Wells, talked about the exhaustive flaws to government's access to
information legislation and talked about how the Minister of Public
Engagement was one of the government MHAs who stood in the House of Assembly
and defended very strongly Bill 29 and I have heard the Minister of Public
Engagement get up and talk about how the legislation this government
produces is the best in the country, the best in the country in many cases,
and highlighted how that during this period, during that filibuster, during
that time he stated that we are going to be a new, open government.
We are going to be on transparency.
It
has been over a year since the Open Government Initiative was announced.
We have seen very little proactive disclosure.
We have seen information that is there that is not in useable forms.
They are not good datasets.
It is just rash this government has had over a year to actually do
something like DataBC has done, to actually do with good spatial maps where
you can get actual information like land use, things that are valued by
people in the Province to be able to make good decisions, yet we have seen a
census put up of the Voluntary and the Non-Profit Secretariat that is no use
to anybody.
I
cannot see how anybody can look at that data and make a good decision as to
how it can be used, how it is a usable form.
It is a series of questions.
It does not identify in any way who answered, who responded; it just
breaks things by region and answers.
The actual data itself, the qualitative data that government has, may
be useful to them in full form but what they have produced publicly is
absolutely useless to anybody and that information I have seen that case
where you are not able to decipher and use these Excel spreadsheets, series
and series, pages and pages with hundreds of lines that do not connect, that
are not in chart form or graph form, or allow you to do searchable
information in a way that you can actually use it that makes sense to the
people of the Province.
I
would like to see this where government is talking about but in the Speech
from the Throne they talked about moving forward and making this government
very accountable and open but when they talk about doing their open data
portal and their government initiative, they are talking about 2020.
We have seen this case where this government's outlook is years and
years and making promises saying that they are going to do this; they are
going to balance the books in 2021.
This is a government that cannot balance its budget; it is borrowing
ideas, lost
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible)
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I will have that
opportunity I say to the minister and I look forward to debating the Budget
in the House of Assembly and also continuing this bill clause by clause on
particular matters, if I have questions about specific sections.
I look forward to the minister who is responsible whether it is the
Office of Public Engagement, or Justice, or some former minister who is
responsible for bills and this legislation to answer the questions.
The people of the Province have a right to know.
They deserve to have that information.
The
Leader of the Official Opposition put forward a number of recommendations to
the Committee in part or full, things like reverting fees in the schedule,
reducing the fees, reverting them back to 2012 amendments where we have seen
those types of things happen.
Also, one of the things that the Official Opposition has been pushing very
firmly is that MHAs should be able to work on behalf of their constituents
without the involvement of political staff in the minister's office.
We
have seen that change happen where somebody can go forward and actually
access the staff who would have the information.
For a period of time this government shut down the ability for the
Official Opposition and MHAs who represent districts and represent people in
Newfoundland and Labrador to have the access to the information, and the
direct access to people who can provide delaying further and slowing down
the progress for the people in the communities that the Official Opposition
represents here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say, that is quite shameful.
The
bill itself, going in, I wanted to talk about a particular piece of Bill 1.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Take your time.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Oh, there is lots of
time. I still have a few
minutes.
One
of the sections that interest me quite significantly is the enabling
disclosure of datasets. That is
one of the things that were changed in the definition put forward.
That was actually from the draft legislation and expanded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
So there was a letter
put forward from my understanding from the briefing by Premier Wells in
that. Maybe the Minister of
Public Engagement will table those letters for clarity and make sure that
they are available to all Members of the House of Assembly.
We want to see that. I
would certainly want to see that.
I
want to hear more debate and discussion around the datasets and around what
is not happening when it comes to the information that government has
readily available and why this directive is taking such a long time to move
forward.
One
piece of the actual bill that I am very supportive of is finding that
balance and striking a balance in privacy, because people do have a right to
have their privacy protected and ensuring that individuals are notified for
a privacy breach that creates a significant risk of harm to the individual
and that they report that breach to the Commissioner.
It is important that that system exists so that the Commissioner's
office is informed and that the red flags that need to go off, that things
can happen in a quick manner.
When you see that, a privacy breach
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker is having trouble hearing the member.
Thank you.
The
hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
know that I have said a lot here on this particular bill, talked a lot about
the history and how we have got here, and talking about the privacy
information I have a lot that I could say about that.
We talk about preparing the privacy impact assessments, how privacy
investigations and the role of the Commissioner's office would play.
I think that the enhancements and the role of the Commissioner's
office is a very positive thing, that independent body and what his role in
this bill does. This is very
good to see that extra layer and that extra step, and those powers being
restored or expanded to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Because we have seen in the past where the Privacy Commissioner had
to go to court to access information because government was withholding it
had to go to court in that situation.
So,
there are all kinds of cases; there are all kinds of examples.
I think I have made it very clear right now and I know that I only
have a small amount of time but Bill 1 is repealing Bill 29, which is
something that needed to happen, because this government has been failing
the people of the Province in being open, accountable, and transparent.
When you lose the public trust, you have to see where drastic action
needs to happen. The Official
Opposition is there to play that role to make sure that government is
accountable.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
very pleased to speak on this bill today, a bill which contains significant
improvements to the access to information process.
Through this bill, we seek to increase transparency across government and
strengthen the democratic process in our Province.
We want to have world-class legislation on access to information, and
that includes a first-rate approach to customer service and a process that
is fast, fair, engaging, and low cost.
Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the minister when he addressed the bill today and of
course he covered most of the categories that are in the explanatory notes,
but there are three there that I thought I would try to elaborate on today.
There are many, but if I pick three and maybe one of my colleagues
might have the opportunity to discuss others or elaborate on others as we go
along.
Mr.
Speaker, the three that I was looking at elaborating on, there is the
reducing of timelines, eliminating costs, and making the application more
friendly. This bill contains
substantial reductions in the cost of ATIPP requests to applications which
are reflected in the new fee schedule that government released earlier this
month. Where possible,
government has been implementing recommendations made by the committee prior
to the proclamation of this bill.
For example, the new fee schedule has removed the $5 application fee
for ATIPP requests. This allows
anyone to make a request, regardless of their economic situation.
In
addition, the number of free hours an applicant receives for processing a
request has increased substantially.
In the 2012 amendments to the fee schedule, government doubled the
free time that applicants receive by providing them with four free hours
rather than two they had previously.
Now, based on the recommendations from the review committee, we have
expanded the free time that applicants receive from local government bodies
such as municipalities and cities to ten free hours.
The free time for all other public bodies has also increased to
fifteen.
While free estimates under the old fee schedule were limited, the new fee
schedule will see even further reduction in the number of requests where
fees are required to be paid.
This will ensure that the information is provided without cost to the
majority of cases.
Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely pleased to see the committee took into account the
limited budgets that many municipalities in this Province have.
To improve the process for municipalities, the committee suggests
providing ten free hours for applicants to make a request to local
government bodies rather than the fifteen other public bodies are required
to provide. This balances the
rights of the applicant to receive information with limited fees, while also
ensuring that municipalities are not unduly affected by the financial
implications of processing an ATIPP request.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill has also seen a reduction in the type of costs that a
public body can charge an applicant.
Specifically, public bodies can only charge for the time it takes to
locate records rather than the time it takes to locate, review, and sever
records. Furthermore, this bill
expands on the current regulations which allow applicants to request a fee
waiver where fees would cause unreasonable financial hardship.
Now,
applicants can also request a fee waiver for a request if it is in the
public interest to disclose the records.
While fee estimates were infrequent prior to the changes to the fee
schedule, this bill will ensure that applicants are charged for requests in
even fewer circumstances than before and ensure that costs are not a barrier
to information.
In
addition to reducing costs for applicants, this bill will provide applicants
with the opportunity to request in what format they would prefer to access
records. For example, if an
applicant wants records in an Excel spreadsheet versus a PDF document, then
it is possible for the public body to do so.
They will be required to provide the records in Excel format; or, if
the applicant wants the records in an electronic format rather than paper,
the public body must provide the electronic copy when possible.
While public bodies have provided
applicants with records in the format requested before, under this new bill
it will be required to do so whenever feasible.
This
bill also puts increased emphasis on a public body's duty to assist the
applicant and ensure that the applicant is more involved in the process and
kept informed through every stage.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this bill will require public bodies to keep
applicants informed of the status of their request.
This
will be accomplished through a required advisory response detailing the
status of a request and indicating any expected delays, possible fees, and
any other circumstances that may impact the request.
This advisory response must be provided to the applicant within ten
business days of the public body receiving the request.
We believe this increased communication and duty to assist will lead
to greater satisfaction by those who request the information.
In
addition to increased emphasis on the duty to assist applicants throughout
the ATIPP request process, this bill will require the protection of the name
of the applicant and applicant type.
While it is already common practice for government departments to
protect the name of the applicant, the inclusion of this requirement in the
legislation will ensure that applicants are confident their personal
information is protected.
Mr.
Speaker, this government has worked diligently to improve timelines for
responding to access to information requests.
Since August of 2013, government departments have responded to 97 per
cent of requests within legislated timelines.
Currently, public bodies have thirty calendar days to respond to a
request, with the ability to extend the timeline for an additional thirty
days under limited circumstances.
In addition, they can request additional time from the office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Mr.
Speaker, once this bill is passed the time to respond to a request will be
reduced. Responses must be
provided within twenty business days rather than thirty calendar days.
The public bodies will no longer be able to unilaterally extend a
request. They will now be
required to request an extension from the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
Government does not see these new timelines as an obstacle.
While getting used to the new timelines may take a bit of time,
government is committed to continuing to meet legislative timelines and is
committed to working with the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner to ensure the process for requesting an extension is seamless.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that this bill will also see
changes to the time frame in which reviews conducted by the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner must be completed.
They will now be required to complete any formal investigations
within sixty-five business days.
This
bill also puts restrictions on how long informal reviews can take.
Government has always appreciated the effort the Commissioner's
office puts into resolving matters between public bodies and applicants
informally. If a decision by
government is under review within the Commissioner's office, we will work
with them to ensure that their timelines are met and that matters can be
resolved informally, where possible.
Mr.
Speaker, the bill contains changes that emphasis fairness and oversight of
the process. Under this bill,
the name of an applicant will only be known to the person who receives the
request. This ensures that
requests will be treated the same regardless of who submitted the request.
Finally, in situations where a public body has reason to believe a request
is frivolous, vexatious, or repetitive, they will need to apply to the
Privacy Commissioner for approval to disregard the request.
These oversights strengthen the fairness of the process.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill will contain significant improvements to the ATIPP
process and will improve customer service by reducing timelines, reducing or
eliminating costs, making the application process more convenient.
It will also strengthen and enshrine in the legislation requirements
to assist applicants, keep them informed throughout the process, and
safeguard the fairness and impartiality of the process.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the
Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand here today and speak to Bill 1, which has the name on
it: An Act to Provide the Public with Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy. It is funny; what is
that old saying? It is like dιjΰ
vu all over again. It was not
long ago that we were here in this House for hours and hours and hours
debating what was essentially
AN HON. MEMBER:
Days.
MR. A. PARSONS:
That is right.
The member opposite said day and days, and we were debating a piece
of legislation that has the same name but the exact opposite intent and
meaning the exact opposite.
It
seems that members on the other side, I do not know if they have seen the
light or come to their senses or realized the error of their ways, but the
fact is this is not parliamentary language I am going to use now, but I
will say one thing: I told you so.
I
have my speech here from June 2012 where I stood here, I think it was
Thursday it could have been Friday; I cannot remember what day and I
said look, this is the wrong thing to do.
This is going backwards in time.
This is not giving the people of the Province the access to
information that they should have, that they had, and that you are doing the
wrong thing. Members on the
other side took every opportunity well, actually not that many, but they
took every opportunity to say, do you know what?
You are wrong. It appears
now that they have seen the light.
Whether they were forced to or not, it does not matter.
It is better late than never.
There is a lot of stuff I want to say about this piece of legislation.
One thing I would note is that I would imagine that it is, I think
and we are not talking about the protection of privacy piece so much as we
are talking about the access to information part.
One of the good things and one of the things that makes me feel
comfortable debating it is that I know it was not drafted by the crowd
opposite. It was not.
It was drafted by the Committee that was formed of Mr. Wells, Ms
Stoddart, and Mr. Letto. These
were the three individuals who were tasked with coming in and looking at
this and saying, do you know what
AN HON. MEMBER:
A cleanup.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, a basic cleanup.
Their job was to look at this.
We
have to go back. What happened
is that this came up in June 2012.
Maybe that is the best thing I can do is provide some background,
some history, to people out there watching and maybe the members on the
other side, and we have some new members since then who were not lucky
enough to partake in that. That
really was a historic event when you think about it.
It was, I think, at that point the longest filibuster in the history
of the Province. We broke that a
few months later.
We
go back to that time when the bill was dropped on our lap on a Monday.
To echo the comments by the Member for The Straits White Bay North,
we were told this is housekeeping, standard stuff, nothing too serious.
We found out very quickly that it was not.
I think it was the Member for St. Barbe who coined the term that I
love the most; it was the official secrets act.
The official secrets act is the name that we put on it.
I
cannot emphasize, I really think the role that the media played in this and
that we as the Official Opposition played in this, the role that the Third
Party played in this because when this started, in many debates you do not
get the attention that you need.
In this case there was a decision made and contrary to what some might say,
I will say that it was led by the Official Opposition, but I am sure there
might be some discrepancy.
Anyhow the good thing
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
I will get to the
Member for Gander now in a second because he has some great quotes in that
old debate too.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Sorry, I am not sure
what the federal district is.
Anyhow, we had that debate and what happened was we had a lot of questions,
we had a lot of concerns, and by extending and filibustering this piece of
legislation, the media had an opportunity to report on it and get the news
out to the public. Then what
happened was you had an outcry from the public saying this is not
acceptable. You are denying us
information. You are locking the
place up. I have always said it
is funny; you look at the House of Assembly these days, it is literally
shrouded, but in those days it was figuratively shrouded in secrecy.
We
filibustered; we asked a lot of questions.
In fact, from the start of that week to the end when government
invoked closure, I believe we only got as far as clause 6.
I think that is when the former House Leader, the former member I
can say his name now, Mr. Kennedy invoked closure on us and said we are
not going to debate this. Up to that
point, you could see the public getting engaged and getting involved and the
backlash was very quick. Now
again, members on the other side they spent most of that week saying how
this was a great thing. They
were saying how this was a great event and a great thing that they were
doing. Hopefully, I will get it
here.
There are a lot of interesting comments when you look back on it.
In fact, our current Premier, at that time, if you go back to June
11, 2012, he said: 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.
So all I can say is given that we are now here to toss that out, like
the garbage that it was, we find out he was wrong.
He was absolutely wrong.
Another thing, again sometimes it comes down to do you trust somebody.
He was the minister back then, June 11: It is a good piece of
legislation, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Well, given the fact that we have completely had this thrown out and that we
have had a committee, an independent committee that was appointed by the
government and said we are going to tear the guts out of it, I say it was a
bad piece of legislation. It was
absolutely horrible.
They
know that now. They know that,
and that is why we are here now today debating the complete opposite of it,
but going back to that, we had a debate.
We never finished the debate.
We only got to clause 6.
It
was an interesting debate, and being a rookie member back then, and had not
been in many extended debates, it was like nothing I had ever seen before.
It was heated at times.
You are sleep deprived, and back then we did not have the benefit of having
the number of members we have now.
We had six back then. So
there were a lot of sleepless times, and you are sitting here trying to
debate it.
Do
you know what? We did what we
had to, and the public caught on.
From the moment it was forced down the throats of the people of this
Province by this government, the same government that is still there, the
people have not liked it. They
have not liked one bit of it, and they have let this government know.
It was like an albatross around their neck.
I
really have to question the logic of bringing it in in the first place.
For the cost they paid politically for it, I am wondering why it was
brought in in the first place. I
do not know if they could not see what was going to happen, I do not know
whose brainchild it was, but they paid dearly for it.
More importantly than them paying for it, do you know who else paid
for it? The people the people
of this Province paid for it.
They paid for it in many ways.
One way they paid for it was literally in dollars, because one of the things
we got with this nice report was a bill, and it was a bill for over a
million dollars.
Now,
we had no choice but to spend that to get rid of the garbage that that was.
I have no other word
AN HON. MEMBER:
Atrocity.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Atrocity is a good
word for it.
We
had to bring in this committee, and it completely validated everything we
said on this side for days and nights, and it completely goes against
everything the other crowd stood across and voted for and said was the right
thing to do and was for the people of the Province.
When you think about it in dollars and cents so right now we just
had a Throne Speech, and we have a Budget coming up next Thursday.
In
that Budget we are hearing about we have already seen the effects of some
of it. I know the outfitters are
paying for it. We are going to
see fee increases, we could see tax hikes, we are seeing the cuts to
services, and a huge, huge deficit.
The more you think about it again, I am interested to see where it
comes. I do not know if it is
going to be like a Harper budget where you have the minister saying: Oh, our
grandkids will pay for it. I am
wondering if that is where they are taking their cues from.
You are hearing about the hard times and we cannot do this, and we
cannot do that, because it is money.
We
asked for a seniors' advocate yesterday and one member said, well, we cannot
do that, it is going to cost. Do
you know what? This was a
million dollars spent to fix something we told you about in the first place.
We gave you the advice for free, but hindsight is 20/20.
I
will continue on from June of 2012.
I mean this bill had an effect.
One of the things we saw and I do not know if it came out of that,
it is not actually legislated, but it has to be brought up.
It is relevant to this because the Minister of OPE brought it up.
One
of the ways this government put the shackles on us and on the people of this
Province and Mr. Wells and Committee brought it up in here was this
political practice, this intrusive practice, a breach of privacy practice,
where if we as an MHA wanted to advocate on behalf of our constituents, we
had to go to the minister and their EA.
We were not allowed to talk to civil servants, the front line workers
actually handling it; we had to go to the minister's staff.
The
whole practice was absolutely wrong.
In my case I think it is illegal, and it certainly would have been a
point of privilege in this House, but the minister to his credit, the first
day we brought this in he said, no, we are getting rid of that practice.
He announced that. In
some cases you had ministers who, you go to them and you get answers right
away from them or their EAs.
Actually, the Member for Gander, when he was the minister he had one EA in
particular, and I think she was in a number of departments; she was
excellent to deal with. Maybe it
was because her minister was excellent, I do not know.
It is too bad he is not a minister anymore.
Anyhow, what I am saying is that particular EA was excellent.
Now, I should not have had to go to her in the first place.
It was wrong.
The
problem we had is some ministers and their EAs deliberately would not get
back to you, would not get you answers, and would not give you information.
They were hurting the people of the Province for political gain, and
it was wrong. It was absolutely
wrong, scandalous, shameful, and ridiculous.
There are not enough words to describe that behaviour.
Here
we were representing constituents; they would come to you with an issue.
You try to go to the front line worker for whatever department.
No, no, no, we cannot talk to you, go to the minister.
I go to the minister; the minister would go back to that worker.
The worker would go back to the minister.
The minister would come back to us.
We would go back to our constituent.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
Oh, it was a great model of efficiency.
Here we were, and in some cases you had the front line worker saying
I will go back to the constituent.
They did not quite understand what our job was.
Members on the other side know our job is to advocate on behalf of
constituents. Members on all
sides do that, but we were not able to do it.
We were unable to do our job because of that particular policy that
was tossed out to the scrap heap, thanks to this great work that was done by
the committee.
I
have to tell you, if there was one good thing that former Premier Marshall
did in his short time here he was here, gone, here, gone, supposed to be
gone, here, gone one thing he did was he made this happen.
I will give him credit for that.
He said, look, we have to review that.
Maybe he had the sense politically.
He said do you know what?
This is hurting us; or maybe I think, hopefully, he said do you know what?
This is the wrong thing.
Nobody else on that side came up with it.
It was him. Do you know
where he is? He is gone,
replaced by the new Member for Humber East.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, he is sitting in
his government paid office.
So
we go back to this. This
continued on. We were living
under this. It was funny; just
about everybody on this side can tell you of an instance where we made an
application for information and it would come back and it was completely
blacked out completely blacked out.
I
will not take it, but the Member for St. Barbe has a great example of one
application he made for information.
I will wait until he speaks to bring it up.
It was absolutely amazing the lengths to which they would go to black
out information. Sometimes they
messed up, though, and we saw the information.
AN HON. MEMBER:
They still do it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
They still do it, but
maybe it is because this is not implemented yet.
Maybe it is not voted on yet.
Maybe we have to get this through right away.
There have been some practices changed, and it is a start in the right
direction. Again, I say, I am
glad you listened to us. This
was the last opportunity to do it.
This is apparently the last sitting of the House before the general
election, so this was the last chance we had to do this and get it right.
This
whole file has changed. Back
when we did it then, it was the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice handled access to information.
I do not know if debacle is strong enough a word, but let's just say
that it is not with Justice anymore.
Now it is gone with the Department of OPE, the open propaganda,
engagement, whatever. I do not
know what it is. A simpler word
would be mess. That is another
simpler word. It was a mess.
The
good news is, Mr. Speaker, I will inform you now.
I am almost positive that when we
pass this we will officially be ahead of Moldova.
We will be ahead of Moldova.
To that, I say congratulations to this government.
Congratulations.
Now,
I am not going to use that word but wherever that country may be and we
are having a bit of fun with it because it was a joke.
That is why we are laughing, because it is a joke what we had to deal
with then and the excuses that were made.
Again, the current Premier back when he was a minister said oh, we
have to do this because that crowd over there puts in all these frivolous
and vexatious requests, hundreds and hundreds of them.
I think he might have said thousands of them, but it is funny because
the media listens to this stuff and the media looked at it and I think it
was eleven a week. So again, it
is absolutely wrong.
I do
not know were they mislead by their people?
Did they have a chance to read it?
Did they know what they were doing?
I do not know. I can only
venture a guess that they will have an opportunity during this debate to
stand here and say why they did it in the first place, because I think the
people still want to know. I
think the people still want to know why it was done in the first place, so I
would say look, come on with it, tell us; tell all the people why you did it
in the first place.
We
know why they are doing it now, because they have to do it.
We will say to you it was the right thing; you should not have done
it back then. Sometimes good
comes out of bad. I have to tell
you, I had a great legislative experience.
That was the only good that came out of it; I had the chance to sit
here and debate and learn the rules of the House as a rookie member, because
that was our first session of the House as well.
The election was in October 2011 but we did not have a session then
because the former Premier did not want to sit.
That was our first session.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
It is funny; the more I hear comments, the more it jogs my memory
because again going back to former Premier Marshall, I think he actually
said that that whole debate I might be paraphrasing was a waste of time.
That it was a waste of time and resources.
I
would say to people if you want to, go back to Hansard June 2012 I cannot
remember which member said it was housekeeping.
I have to say, we have different opinions of housekeeping, I can
guarantee you that; I would hate to see your house.
You say you are going to sweep the floors and you have the walls torn
out, that is what it comes down to.
Again, I am going to get lots of opportunity during Committee to talk to
this because do you know what?
Sometimes you have to tell the crowd on the other side a couple of times to
get it through. Look, we told
you three years ago
MR. JACKMAN:
Are you saying they are
slow?
MR. A. PARSONS:
I am not going to
comment on what the Minister of Seniors said then; I will leave that off the
record and let people wonder what he just said.
MR. JACKMAN:
Are you saying the people
outside are slow?
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, I am not saying
the people outside are slow; maybe the people on the other side are slow.
Anyway, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the great work that Clyde
Wells, Doug Letto and Jennifer Stoddart did.
It is better late than never.
I look forward to continuing to debate and talk about these sections.
Let's hope that they do not close the House on us this time.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to stand here today to have a little time to speak on Bill 1, An Act
to Provide the Public with Access to Information and Protection of Privacy
Act. I have been listening to
some of the speakers; the purpose of this bill is to revise the law
respecting access to records and protection of personal information held by
public bodies. This bill would
maintain the ombuds model for accessing personal information protection, but
it also gives the Commissioner the decision-making power in certain
procedural matters.
During the review and the review as you have heard some people talk about
through Clyde Wells, Jennifer Stoddart, and Doug Letto, three professionals
who were commissioned to do this review, they did the review and they came
out with ninety recommendations.
Government has said that it would accept all ninety recommendations that
were put forward. Sixty-seven of
those recommendations were legislative and sixty-five of the sixty-seven
relate to the ATIPPA.
Twenty-three of the recommendations are policy.
Sixty-five legislative changes will take effect with this Bill 1.
We have already started as a government to implement some early
action changes on that.
We
have put a transition team in place.
That has already been put in place.
That transition team reports to the Clerk of the Cabinet.
They also will report to the Deputy Minister of the Office of Public
Engagement. The terms of
reference will be placed on the Office of Public Engagement website for
public viewing.
We
have already started training for some of the ATIPP co-ordinators.
For example, today in Labrador West there was a session.
I think there was another session earlier in Happy Valley-Goose Bay
this week. The training for the
ATIPP co-ordinators has already begun in some of the regional centres
throughout the Province. This
will continue. There will also
be more training done which is scheduled for May, and then this summer for
the municipal sector there will be training for the ATIPP co-ordinators.
Another big piece in this is the service delivery training for government
co-ordinators. That is scheduled
for early May. This will teach
them how to utilize their responsibility for the duty to assist.
By that, the responsibility for the duty to assist, those
co-ordinators within government will assist people to go through the
process, and hopefully that will be done in an accessible way to make it
easier for the people who are availing of the services.
There will be substantial changes also to the policy manual.
These revisions again are already underway; we have already started
these revisions to the policy manual.
There is an organizational review being done of the core Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador ATIPP function.
This is well underway and this will provide a much better form of the
whole organization of the process for the ATIPP.
A
municipal working group has been formed.
I am not sure it if was my colleague for Exploits or the minister
himself who said you will have members on that working group.
It has already been formed.
There are members there from the Office of Public Engagement, from
the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, from the Office
of Information and Privacy Commissioner, from Municipalities Newfoundland
and Labrador, as well as from different municipalities throughout the
Province.
They
have four key propositions that they will be responsible for: the public
disclosure standard in the Municipalities Act; revised municipal guide; the
template for municipal policies; and thorough and adept training.
Once these are implemented, it should provide for a much clearer
composition and better, more thorough communication line.
That is one of the big things with
this is the communication line to make it more accessible and more
transparent. The change
management plan, this will allow for a more open, a more transparent, and a
more assistant-friendly process.
There were two changes to the draft bill language.
As we had said, we would be accepting all recommendations by the
commission, but Mr. Wells in his conclusion of the recommendations said that
he would be accessible and available if there were any questions.
As the government went down through the recommendations, there were
two pieces that they had questions on.
They went back to Mr. Wells.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner met with Mr. Wells with respect to the
definition of database and the expanded definition of public body as it
relates to local government bodies contained in the draft legislation.
Mr.
Wells suggested minor language changes to clarify the Committee's intent.
The first one, as you heard the minister refer to, was basically a
typo and that was the word adopted was replaced with the word adapted.
That was a fairly basic one.
After seeing clarification on the definition of public body, the
clarification that was given helps articulate the intention of the Committee
to capture entities created by local public bodies to carry out public
policy objectives and public services.
Basically, what that amounts to is there is going to be a clearer definition
of what the public bodies mean.
There are going to be different organizations, different public bodies that
will be doing work on behalf of government and on behalf of different levels
of government. We need more
clarification as to whether or not they will be covered by this.
That will not come into effect until later on.
I think it is in August that it is going to happen.
The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said, we sought the
clarification there. That gave
us the clarification. Basically,
what it says is that it was created by or for a local government body or
group of local government bodies.
The purpose of it is the management of a local government asset or
the discharge of a local government responsibility.
We feel we need a little more time to make sure that clarification is
there and work out some of the bugs in that one.
It is going to be August 1 before that actually comes into effect,
rather than in June.
The
role of the ATIPP coordinators is also very clear in these messages.
There are no officials other than the ATIPP coordinator involved in
the request, unless consulted for the advice in connection with the matter
or giving assistance in obtaining and locating the information.
The coordinators now have a much more detailed and important role
than they had before. The
anonymity, identity of who is actually requesting the information so the
only person who will know who is requesting the information will be the
coordinator who is working on that particular ATIPP request.
That information now remains very confidential.
There are basically three major groups in the Province that requests this
information. They are all
balanced out pretty well. It is
the media; it is individuals who are seeking information, whether it be
personal information or public information; and then of course the political
parties that seek ATIPP requests to be able to do research on behalf of
their particular party.
The
commission made recommendations about the fees.
I know the Member for Exploits went through the fee structure in
quite a bit of detail there actually.
What we have done, the recommendation is that we remove the $5
application fee. That has
already been done. That has been
implemented already.
The
increase in free time; now for public bodies we have fifteen hours of free
time, and for municipalities we have ten hours of free time.
Back in 2012 you had two hours, which was increased to four.
That has increased for municipalities to ten hours, for public bodies
to fifteen hours. I also have to
say they will only be charged for locating the records.
If there are redactions to be done or if there is reading to be done
or typing to be done, they will not be charged for the time it takes to do
that.
Also, they provide for a waiver of charges where it is a financial hardship
in public interest to disclose, if that is there.
Again, I will not get into the details of that.
The Member for Exploits talked about that in detail.
These are certainly positive moves that we see here.
The
timelines, I thought, was one of the very interesting parts in the
recommendations. The timelines
for the ATIPP requests now are at twenty business days to respond.
That really puts pressure there to make sure the answers get out in a
very timely fashion. Most
provide records if available or provide advisory response, they must provide
this to the applicant now by day ten.
So within ten days of the request they have to get back with some
type of response, and then within twenty days they have to have a full
response. It cannot be extended
beyond that due date without the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner giving an approval of that.
Ten
business days to respond to the notification of the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner review; with the review there is an informal stage of thirty
business days with the possibility of a twenty day extension to that, and
that would be a twenty business day extension.
The formal stage is sixty-five business days.
That really, really tightens up the timelines when it comes to an
extension to that within the informal days.
The
ten business days for public bodies to respond to the recommendations are
there. When it comes to the
override I have to say, during the briefing we asked some questions of
this and I have to compliment the staff on the briefing they gave.
They were very precise in explaining to us how the override works.
Basically, with the public interest override, the Office of the Information
and Privacy Commissioner has to provide the guideline there, and he will
provide guidelines. What will
happen is they will put together the format of a test so that when the
coordinators go through the request they will then, as I stated earlier,
bring it to either the Deputy Minister within the Office of Public
Engagement or to the Clerk. They
will look at it and they will use this test.
So everybody will be using the same format to make the decisions, if
there is an override necessary there.
I
think that is really important, because in the public interest and the
disclosure it clearly demonstrates that outweighing the reasons for the
exceptions. Some of those
exceptions include: municipal confidences, policy and legal advice,
confidential evaluations, the disclosure harmful to governmental relations,
financial or economic interests, conservation, and labour relations
interests where the public body is an employer.
With
everybody using the same format, the same template, to me that exercises
continuity there. I thought that
was a very good one. The Office
of the Information and Privacy Commissioner can, of course, override that.
There are some mandatory exceptions there for the disclosure.
That would be personal information, third party business information,
the House of Assembly and statutory office records, and workplace
investigations. The exceptions
that were changed, some going back to what it was before, some being new.
Briefing books; once again, they certainly are accessible under ATIPPA.
Third party business interests, there is a three part test in order
for information to be withheld.
They will only notify third party businesses if they intend to disclose that
information. So they will try to
get hold to the third party if they plan on notifying that.
The
Office of the Privacy Commissioner will be able to review the records
withheld under solicitor-client privilege.
The Office of the Privacy Commission certainly has a lot more
responsibility and accessibility than they did before.
Cabinet records, official Cabinet records are still private; any information
or disclosures relating to the Cabinet.
So any conversations that are 'ATIPP-able' right now.
Of course, the Commissioner himself
will be able to review all Cabinet records.
One
of the other things with the policy advice when it comes to exceptions to
draft reports is the timelines there right now.
Public bodies have sixty-five business days to keep it in a draft
form. Then after the sixty-five
business days, if there have not been any requests for edits or changes, it
then becomes policy. After it
becomes policy, after the sixty-five days, it is 'ATIPP-able'.
The term consultations and deliberations was removed from policy
advice because that is exactly what policy advice is.
It is all about consultation and deliberation so it was not necessary
to have that in there a second time.
Records to which ATIPPA does not apply; in section 5 you have the records
and I think this is very important of RNC investigations in which
suspicion of guilt of an unidentified person is expressed, but for which no
charge has ever been laid. If
somebody is charged with something or if there is an investigation happening
we probably all can relate at some point to someone we know where somebody
was being investigated. I know
there was a question here in Question Period today.
There may be an investigation on the go that you do not even realize
you are a part of, therefore that information should remain private while
that investigation is open.
There are some parts of section 5 records that the Commissioner himself will
be able to review.
The
provisions that prevail over ATIPPA; there were six recommendations that
were made. Basically in these
six that is the Aquaculture Act, the Aquaculture Regulations, the Lobbyist
Registration Act, the Mining Act, the Royalty Regulations 2003, and the
Revenue Administration Act. The
provision is being removed in all of those saying that they could override
the ATIPPA. Now it is the other
way around. The ATIPPA would
override that.
Basically what would happen here is before ATIPPA, if they wanted to get in
there, they would have to go into court to try and get access to
information. Now it has actually
reversed where these bodies would have to go into court to stop the ATIPPA
approval.
Personal information protection, reasonable efforts to notify the third
parties; I mentioned the third parties.
They would try to inform them that it was going to be there.
It has to be within reasonable efforts shown that they did try to
notify them that the information was there.
Privacy breaches, the mandatory reporting to the Commissioner, notifying
affected individuals where there is a risk of significant harm; so they will
be notified knowing that was there.
One of the other ones is that now they are replacing salary range
with remuneration. Before, if
you requested that information you may be told that, well, their salary is
between A and C, whereas now this information will give a full breakdown and
full disclosure of exactly what the remuneration is.
That would include any benefits and bonuses that may be contributed
to that remuneration.
What
is the role of the OIPC? Well
the Commissioner will recommend disclosure.
A public body can either comply, or within ten days must seek a
declaration from court not to apply.
The Commissioner, rather than public bodies, will now approve time
extensions. The Commissioner
will now approve requests to disregard certain requests.
If they feel that they are frivolous or vexatious, the Commissioner
himself can make the recommendation that it not move forward.
Public bodies will now be required to notify the Commissioner for all
privacy breaches. Also the
Commissioner will monitor and audit, as necessary, suitability of procedures
and practices employed by public bodies in carrying out their
responsibilities and the duties under the ATIPPA.
The Commissioner has a lot more flexibility and power than they had
before.
I
think this is a very good piece of legislation.
As you have heard the minister say, all recommendations will be
accepted by this government. I
think it is time that we move forward with this piece of legislation and
move forward with the governing of the Province.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I do
not know if I can say I am pleased to have to stand to speak to this bill or
I am in a state of shock that I am standing speaking to this bill.
I guess the first thing I want to say, since the minister did not do
this, is let's be honest about what we are doing here today.
Let's not fudge our language, fudge our words about what is going on
here today.
When
the minister spoke the minister made the comment, among what he said, that
some members of the House he said some members, he meant of the House
did raise concerns about some of the terms of the previous bill, meaning
Bill 29. This, meaning Bill 1
today, answers some of those.
Well
I dare say some members did say something.
As a matter of fact, we spent seventy hours in a filibuster saying
it. What do we have here today?
Again, let's not fudge our language.
We have a piece of legislation that has cost over a million dollars;
a piece of legislation that cost over a million dollars because this
government opposite us refused to listen.
The
reason they refused to listen was not because they did not think we knew
what we were talking about, or it was not because they did not think all the
Opposition knew what we were talking about, or it was not because they did
not think that people in the Province did not know what they were talking
about, or that professionals dealing with privacy and information issues did
not know what they were talking about.
It was because they had a plan and they were not going to let anybody
keep them from their plan. They
thought they could get away with it, a plan that today we can call Plan A.
They did not know there was going to be a Plan B.
It
was a Plan A that was determined to make sure the people in this Province
were going to be restricted in the information they were going to be able to
get. They wanted to put
everything they were doing out of the reach of the people of the Province.
That was their plan, to go behind closed doors and to name every
single piece of paper that had Premier written on it, or Executive Council
written on it, or whatever and put it out of the reach of everybody;
individuals, organizations, groups, and businesses.
Put all of it out of reach so they could do whatever they wanted to
do. That was their plan.
Then
to use language which was unbelievable; language by the Premier of the day
when she said the act was a fine balance Bill 29 I am talking about
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.
Let us do whatever we want to do behind closed doors and you cannot
find out what we are doing, and that is a healthy functioning democracy.
It is amazing language when you thing about it, Mr. Speaker.
That is what they did.
They thought they were going to get away with it.
That is the part that is very interesting.
What
started to happen? I would say a
lot of things started to happen to turn them around.
We will not know exactly why they saw the light and saw that we had
to do something about this, but we can make some guesses and some of those
guesses can be educated guesses.
When they realized they were going to have to do something, what they did
was smart. Under legislation, a
statutory review of the act could be called for.
They did it sooner rather than later, and so we had the statutory
review committee; but when we look at some of the stories that the statutory
committee tells us about, maybe it will give us an insight into why they
reversed where they were headed with their Plan A.
I am
going to tell some of the things that are in the review the report rather
of the statutory review committee.
They share, in the introduction to the report, some of the stories
that were presented to them in the public meetings that they held.
A businessman told the Committee that after a tender was awarded for
office supplies, he was forced to go to court to obtain tendering
information in order to understand why his competitor made what he felt was
an impossibly low bid. He had
to go to court because that is what Bill 29 put in place.
A
tendering process is supposed to be an open process; it is supposed to be
transparent. It is something
that we take for granted in a democracy.
They closed the door on open and transparent tendering processes.
That is one of the things that they did.
Let's look at another one, another story that was told to them: One
journalist informed the Committee that a town council in her area was
blacking out all the names of people making applications for development,
the names of groups and organizations on documents, even the names of
citizens on petitions to the town.
A petition is public. It
was being done on the apparent advice of the provincial Department of
Municipal Affairs, in order to protect local councils from being sued for
breaching the privacy provisions of the ATIPPA.
Provisions that were brought in because of Bill 29.
I
will just do one more: Another journalist told of the frustration
associated with delays, and how even when she involved the Commissioner's
Office, she felt she was being asked to negotiate for information from the
public body, when what she actually needed was for the Commissioner to
champion her cause. That power
had been taken away as well.
So I
think it is a fair guess, Mr. Speaker, to say that they started to feel the
heat. I would say they started
to feel the heat from members of their own party.
I would say they started to feel the heat from business people. I
would say they started to feel the heat from people whom they saw as being
important to them, the people they saw who were voting for them.
I am
not going to stand here today and congratulate them on doing the mess that
they created. One of my
colleagues in the Official Opposition used the term as well.
I think it is a mild term really.
It was a disaster what they created.
We went from having a pretty good piece of legislation our ATIPPA,
our act was very good. When the
statutory review studied the act that had been desecrated by Bill 29, they
put back in place a lot of what was in the former act.
They added some new stuff, but they restored what was in place with
some good additions to it.
What
we have is this government having the gall to sit over there and say look at
how wonderful we are, after causing us to be in this House for over seventy
hours in a filibuster trying to get them to listen to reason.
We talked logic. We
talked about what was wrong. You
know, I am willing to bet I have not had the time to do it but I am
willing to bet if we sit and look at every point that was made, both here in
this House, by people who were professionals in the area, by individuals who
sent emails, who were on Open Line, et cetera, every single idea that is now
back in our ATIPPA was all said in June of 2012.
It was all said, but they had a plan and their plan did not work.
What
is their plan now? What is Plan
B? Bill 1 is Plan B.
Plan B is let's try to fool the people a second time.
We tried to get away with what we wanted to do in 2012.
So now let's use the language and behave in a way that says look at
how wonderful we are creating this wonderful act, an act that is now
probably one of the best acts in Canada.
Aren't they wonderful when all they had to do was be honest back in 2012 and
admit that what they were doing was wrong, and admit that Bill 29 was going
to create one of the most regressive and repressive pieces of legislation
with regard to privacy and access to information.
They will not admit that.
They are not going to say that.
It was a piece of legislation I was not a professional in this area, but I
certainly have enough experience to know that when I took that bill in my
hand, when I took Bill 29 in my hand the very first reading of it, I looked
at my colleagues and I said we have an absolutely regressive and repressive
piece of legislation. We are
going to have to deal with this.
I think we are talking filibuster, folks, because I do not know how else we
are going to be able to make the points that we have to make.
I
knew, because anybody who had any common sense knew, when they read it, what
they were trying to do. I have
news for them now with Plan B.
If they think their Plan B, Bill 1, is going to make people forget what
happened, I think they probably have another thing coming, that their Plan B
is to try to undo the past.
The
minister said it when he presented his opening address today: We do not need
to look backwards. Yes, we do
need to look backwards. Just
because they say it does not mean that people are not going to look
backwards. So here in this House
today I think it important for us to point out and to make sure that people
remember what it was they did.
A $1
million piece of legislation.
Well, you know it may have cost thousands for us to be here in a filibuster,
but we could have gotten the improved piece of legislation.
We could have had good legislation for a lot less than $1 million if
they had listened. They even had
organizations, both here in our Province as well as in Canada, giving them
the free information, telling them what was wrong, really begging them to
listen because of what they were putting in place was so terrible.
So
let's be honest. The government
today is wanting to claim credit for this piece of legislation as if they
were the ones who dreamed it up.
They were smart to put the statutory review committee in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
I am glad that they did,
but only because it gave them an out.
We have to remember, $1 million to write that piece of legislation
that was totally unnecessary.
I
give credit to the statutory committee because the statutory committee of
three people who really listened to the people who sat in front of them, who
knew what they were talking about and did their job, I give absolute credit
to them for the excellent report they have done and for the legislation they
have written.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Necessary only because of
what they did in 2012.
This
new bill was made possible because of the people in the Province.
People let them know how unhappy they were.
While they did not listen when we were in the House in 2012 trying to
get them to see it, enough pressure was put onto them that they finally
realized they had to call for a review ahead of the statutory five-year
review. Even when they did that
they were not honest about it.
They
said, well we do a statutory review, it is called for; but they did it ahead
of the five-year limit because they needed to do it.
They had to do it to cover themselves.
That is why we cannot give them credit.
It was the public outcry, and I would suspect a lot of outcry behind
the scenes that forced them finally to put a committee in place, a committee
with members of the highest calibre.
Now they are claiming the work of the statutory committee as their
wonderful work and wanting all of us to say, aren't you wonderful.
I do not think so.
National experts told you that the provisions of Bill 29 were dangerously
undemocratic. That was one of
the expressions used. We have
that in Hansard, dangerously undemocratic but you did not listen.
Experts on international access to information laws called key
changes in Bill 29 breathtaking.
They did not mean breathtakingly wonderful, they meant breathtakingly
unbelievable. They could not
believe it. They told you in
2012 that Newfoundland and Labrador would rank below some developing
countries if the amendments went ahead.
You did not listen because you had your plan.
ATIPP, though, is not the only instance of this government's refusal to pay
any attention to experts, be it their own experts or others.
This government has continually and consistently chosen to ignore
their own independent experts.
For example, the joint panel review, or their own PUB review on Muskrat
Falls. Both reviews, experts
giving them advice but they do not listen.
They
have their own agenda all the time.
This is probably one of the worst things in a democracy, for this
government to use their own majority to bring into place a piece of
legislation that everybody was telling them was wrong everybody, not just
people in this House. If they
wanted to ignore the fact that we represented constituencies that is fine
they can do that. Then they also
chose to ignore the voice of experts.
They chose to ignore their own constituents.
They chose to do what they wanted to do in order to protect
themselves.
There were so many things that were in place that were working well.
There was one thing that has happened because of the statutory review
and because of the new legislation that I am really pleased about, and that
is the recognition of the rights of the Commissioner and the role of the
Commissioner.
What
this government tried to do through Bill 29 was an insult to the
Commissioner. I could not
believe it at the time, the insult that they were making to an officer of a
statutory office, giving him a job to do and then taking it away by forcing
him to have to be going to court to get what he knew he should be able to
access.
He
had rulings that were on his side.
That was the other thing.
They could not even keep the Commissioner from getting information.
Rulings when he had to go to court that said he had the right to get
what he was looking for. They
had everybody against them everybody.
We
suggested during the debate to the ATIPP no, we suggested, I am sorry, to
the ATIPP Committee that when a disagreement arises between an applicant and
government regarding access to information, the decision of what information
can be made public and should be made by the Information and Privacy
Commissioner.
Bill
29 changed that stating, the Commissioner can work to resolve a contested
information request informally.
If that fails, the Commissioner may issue a report with recommendations.
If that fails, the Commissioner may try going to court.
That was the insult. You
put a Commissioner in place, somebody who has the expertise to do the job
and then you completely tie the person's hands totally.
We
told the ATIPP Committee the Commissioner should have a larger and more
powerful role in handling requests for information, and the courts agreed.
We told you in the House at the time and later, suggested to the
ATIPP Review Committee that, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is
the best person to arbitrate contested access to information issues.
We recommend strengthening the Commissioner's powers, including his
ability to issue directives rather than to only recommend the release of
information. We recommended
that, The Information and Privacy Commissioner should be given the power to
order the release of information.
Finally, this act, the legislation that cost us a million dollars is saying
that. That could have been
solved in June of 2012 if you had listened, but you had your own agenda, you
ignored us, you ignored the Opposition, you ignored the voice of the people
in the Province, you ignored the voice of experts in the Province, you
ignored the voice of experts outside of this Province.
You had your plan, you stuck to it, but now you have another one.
We
are going to make sure that people remember where this came from, that
people remember what happened in 2012, and you are going to find out that
this plan is not going to work either.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
certainly pleased to speak to Bill 1, An Act to Provide the Public with
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Department of Public
Engagement for their very thorough and comprehensive briefing.
They did a tremendous job.
I appreciate their work.
I also appreciate and commend the Minister of Health and Community Services
and Office of Public Engagement for his outstanding leadership and proactive
leadership on many files. On all
accounts, the department and minister are doing a fantastic job, a super job
indeed, Mr. Speaker.
In
addition, I would like to thank the review commission for their work, very
stellar work indeed. The
commission was comprised of very capable individuals with lots of expertise
on this subject matter.
Furthermore, I would like to thank former Premier Marshall for having the
courage to order out a review one year earlier.
As you know, the ATIPP Act is required to be reviewed every five
years. In 2014, we commenced a
review a full year earlier than was required by legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I give the former Premier credit for his proactive step
in doing just that.
As
we all know, Mr. Speaker, all legislation is never static.
It is forever evolving and ongoing over time as circumstances change
and as new information comes to light and as new information is presented.
We always have to be open for change and be proactive when the time
comes.
Now,
as a government we have to have the courage to adjust our sales and
acknowledge that no government will get everything right every single time.
It is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker.
What is the most important thing is this that we listened and we
learned. It is a new day.
This is a new time. This
proactive step is a sign of strength.
It is not a sign of weakness.
I do not look upon this as a sign of weakness.
This is a sign of strength.
What is wrong with correcting your course?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Opposition spent more
time this afternoon I listened intently on what happened the past two or
three years. They are still
stuck in 2012, as opposed to talking about this very important proactive
bill that is on the floor this evening.
They wanted it; now they are complaining that they got the new
legislation. I do not
understand, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. POLLARD:
All they are complaining
about is what happened in the past.
Well, how fruitful is this debate going to be if they are stuck in
the past all the time? It is not
going to be very fruitful. I am
wondering if they support the bill.
Judging from what I heard this afternoon, I do not know if they are
going to support this bill, Bill 1.
They
are reticent they are sort of reluctant on giving any credit.
I do not care who gets the credit, Mr. Speaker.
Let them take all the credit they want.
The most important thing I am concerned about is that the people of
the Province are the winners.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
That is what I am most
concerned about, Mr. Speaker.
They are still stuck on past events.
Get over it. They are
reluctant to say anything positive, but let me use an analogy.
I am a parent of three daughters.
Let's say my daughter got 40 per cent in science.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have three smart daughters, good-looking
daughters; they turn after their mom, Mr. Speaker.
Let's say they fail a science test.
Now, as a parent I would not be very pleased.
I would scold them. I
would probably ground them. I
would probably tell them off. I
would discipline them. I would
be very upset and discouraged that they failed their science test.
Now,
let's say she got another opportunity to pass the science test, to redo it,
do the exam. This time, guess
what? She got 95 per cent on the
science test wow. What should
I do then as a parent, of my daughter, who cares?
Should I still berate and scold her and say you failed the first
time, what in the world are you doing now after studying and passed with a
95 per cent, you should have still stuck with 40 per cent?
That is what they are saying today.
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot concentrate on her failure all the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to settle down because I get so excited.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
That is just me.
Mr. Speaker, that is part of my DNA, I suppose.
What
is the best approach to this here now?
Give the people the credit, give the Commissioner the credit, give
the NDP credit, and give the Liberals credit.
I do not care who gets the credit, Mr. Speaker.
The main thing is the people get the credit.
I
would congratulate my daughter for passing a test because she is now a
success, like any other parent would do.
So why not accept, okay, we have accepted our misstep or whatever you
want to call it for instance, and with a new effort, she passed her test.
We accepted she got 95 per cent.
The
same thing with this, this afternoon, we are going to celebrate because this
time hopefully, Mr. Speaker, new legislation, a new day, new time, we are
going to move forward. We
corrected our sails and we adjusted our sails.
Hearing the debate on Bill 1 by the opposite members I am not confident if
they are glad that we are still bringing in this legislation.
I hope they are, Mr. Speaker. We want to move forward.
I do not understand it, why they are complaining all the time.
To
move forward, we cannot look backward all the time, looking back in the
rear-view mirror while we are going forward.
There are obstacles there, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot do that. We
cannot look in the rear-view mirror all the time.
More importantly is where we are today.
Not 2012, not 2013, not 2014; we are here in 2015 trying to give the
people of this Province the best of our ability, the best governance we can
give them. We have the
Opposition over there still complaining because we are bringing in good
legislation today, probably the best in the world or in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
What have we learned?
We learned we are going to move forward with new information.
Mr. Speaker, we took our criticism; we took our bumps and bruises
along the way in 2012, 2014. If
they want to rub our noses in it, well go ahead, do it again.
We are humble enough to take it.
We are humble enough because the people are the winners of this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Mr. Speaker, some people
feel that government would have been better off if we said yes, wipe out and
repeal Bill 29, than having a comprehensive review of the entire legislation
completed. However, what does
this bill do? It was drafted by
the ATIPPA Review Committee. It
clearly shows that in order to move access and privacy forward in this
Province, we needed a complete overhaul of the legislation.
By
focusing on more than just Bill 29 that they are still stuck on, the review
committee was not only able to satisfy the statutory obligation government
has to review the legislation every five years, it provided this Province
with a strong piece of legislation that puts Newfoundland and Labrador at
the forefront of access and privacy legislation in Canada and a world
leader.
One
of the members, in Doug Letto's words, said the legislation eclipses that in
other parts of Canada and takes into account best practices around the
world. That is what we are
discussing this afternoon.
What
is the purpose of this legislation?
It has three main purposes.
Number one, the purpose is to facilitate democracy by ensuring that
citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the
democratic process. The second
purpose is to increase transparency in government and public bodies.
The third purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the privacy of
individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held and
used by public bodies. That could be
a school board or RHAs, or municipalities or what have you.
Mr.
Speaker, I submit that this proposed bill does just that.
By expanding the purpose of the act, it includes a stronger public
interest override and expands the powers of the Office of the Information
and Privacy Commissioner. The
bill will ensure that the people of this Province who make access to
information requests will receive as much information as possible in a
timely manner which, in turn, will lead to greater participation in the
democratic process.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I might want to go back because perhaps we may not understand
the phrase public interest override.
What that means is if in the best interest of the public, the
information will be released, if it is in the best interest.
It will not be withheld; it will be released for perusal.
It
also does this by improving some of the exceptions to disclosure found in
the act; for example, if you look at the provision relating to Cabinet
confidences, this new bill strikes the appropriate balance between
protections that existed in the original legislation and the protections
that currently exist. Under the
original legislation, the substance of Cabinet deliberations was protected.
The 2012 amendments expanded this protection to exclude from
disclosure all Cabinet records.
It also provided a definition of what constitutes a Cabinet record based on
the definition found in the Management of Information Act.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, based on the Committee's report it seems that the changes made
in 2012 were both positive and negative.
On the one hand, it provided ATIPP co-ordinators with clearly defined
parameters of what constitutes a Cabinet record, which did not exist under
the original legislation. It
also ensured the protection of Cabinet confidences, which is paramount to
ensuring that open, frank discussions occur at the Cabinet level.
On the other hand, it went too far in
protecting factual information and supporting Cabinet records in their
entirety.
This
new bill strikes the right balance between the original legislation and the
2012 amendments. In terms of the
2012 legislation, the definition of a Cabinet record remains, as does the
protection of official Cabinet records.
However, the inclusion of supporting Cabinet records and factual
material contained in a Cabinet record has been removed from the definition.
These records are no longer protected in their entirety.
Now, as was the case before the 2012 amendment, a line-by-line review
of these records will be required and only the substance of deliberations
will be withheld from the applicant.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude.
I do not have much time left.
In addition, the bill introduces an entirely new element to this
exception to disclosure. Both in
the original and current legislation, Cabinet confidences were a mandatory
exception to disclosure, meaning that they cannot be released to the
applicant under any circumstance.
Under the proposed bill, Cabinet confidences will remain a mandatory
exception to disclosure.
However, the Clerk of the Executive Council can disclose these records where
he or she is satisfied that the public interests of the disclosure outweighs
as more important than the reason for withholding that information.
The
review committee did an extensive review of Cabinet confidences right across
Canada and other jurisdictions around the world.
The ability for the Clerk of the Executive Council to disclose
Cabinet records, which is based on a similar provision in New Zealand's
legislation, will make Newfoundland and Labrador Cabinet confidences
provision the most progressive in Canada and one of the least restrictive
among jurisdictions with similar Westminster-style parliamentary systems.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a lot more material here, but looking at the time I will
conclude my remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the House
do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
motion is that this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This
House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 o'clock.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.