March 14, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 52


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the athletes from Labrador who recently competed at the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games in Gander for being selected as the most spirited and dedicated team.

Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the team from Labrador on their achievement, I cannot help but feel a little boastful of the volleyball team that came from the small community of Hopedale, in Northern Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, as the week worn on there was no question in the minds of athletes, coaches and fans as to who the favorites were, as the volleyball team from Hopedale soon became known as the Mighty Mites.

This team, Mr. Speaker, short in stature but strong in heart and emotion, won the Bronze medal in their event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Their hard work and effort in getting the Bronze medal makes the Hopedale Mighty Mites volleyball team one of the unheralded success stories at the Provincial Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Torngat Mountains, it is an honour for me today to congratulate the volleyball team from Hopedale. It goes to show that some of the brightest and best of this Province come from rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, there is no better example of that, than the volleyball team from Hopedale, Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the provincial rock group, Timber, which won the grand prize at the Ninth Annual National Song Writing Competition held at Canada Music Week earlier this month in Toronto.

I am very familiar, of course, with this band. I know their talent. The served as a backup for me when I did Mambo Number 5 two years ago at the Big Brothers/Big Sisters concert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand the importance of a good backup band. If they can make me look good, then they have to be a good backup band.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can say that again.

MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy understands the importance of a good backup band.

The name of the winning song was Parade, Mr. Speaker, written by Billy Hickey, Greg Mercer, Chris Sooley and Rick Hollet. Local radio station K-Rock chose Timber as Newfoundland and Labrador's regional representative. Timber knocked off representatives from right across the country.

The competition, which was organized by the Songwriters Association of Canada, in conjunction with the organizers of Canada Music Week, attracted over 5,000 entries from all across this country.

The grand prize included a cheque for $10,000, thirty hours of studio time at the Metal Works Studio in Toronto with Gordie Johnson of Big Sugar fame, and a trip to Nashville.

Just one more example, Mr. Speaker, of the world-class musical talent that we have in our little Province of half a million people.

Hats off to Timber. Well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Peninsula West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local youth of my district who was recognized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation for his volunteer efforts.

Jimmy Hollett of the Burin/Black Duck Cove Tenant Association was selected the winner for the Burin Peninsula in the Tenant Association and Co-operative Housing Youth Volunteer Award.

Mr. Speaker, this award is given to youth volunteers around the Province living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing neighbourhoods or co-operatives who give their time and effort to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jimmy Hollett on this recognition, and I congratulate all our volunteers for their work in enhancing our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to two teams in my area, both teams from Roncalli High School in Avondale, who just two weeks ago in the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games won the gold medal in the boys basketball tournament and, as well, won the gold medal in the female tournament.

Mr. Speaker, the girls team, of course, the championship game was held at Gander Collegiate gym, and the Roncalli Cardinals went up against their arch-rivals, St. Kevin's Mustangs, who represented St. John's North. It was a very close game, being tied at one point at 39-39, but the Cardinals gained momentum and, coupled with a tremendous team effort, went on to defeat the Mustangs 55-51.

The boys championship, Mr. Speaker, was one of the closest tournaments. The Roncalli Cardinals went up against G.C. Rowe, representing the western region of the Province. The skills and talents of each team provided all spectators with fair play and excellent sportsmanship. The Cardinals squeaked out G.C. Rowe 62-61, capturing the boys golden medal in basketball.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend all members of the boys and the girls team, the team coaches and the staff, for an exciting competition and, of course, capturing the gold medal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a local company which has shown great entrepreneurial spirit in our Province. Air Labrador, which is a member of the Pike Group of Companies and is owned by a well-known Newfoundland and Labrador businessman, Mr. Roger Pike, recently announced an expansion to serve several areas in the Lower North Shore of Quebec, which includes services to the Labrador Straits.

This area was previously served by Regionair of Quebec, which went out of business last May. To accommodate this expansion Air Labrador has increased its fleet and hired an additional twenty-seven employees, bringing the company total to over 150 employees.

In this day and age of post-September 11, doubts and fears about the air transportation industry, Air Labrador has brought a little good news to the people of our Province and Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House to join me in congratulating Air Labrador on their recent expansion and wish them the best of luck in their future projects to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure I rise today to offer congratulations to all contestants who competed in the Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant, but especially to sixteen-year-old Kristen Parsons of Wabush, who, on February 24, was crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, marking the first time a contestant from Labrador has received this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, forty contestants took part in this pageant, with all contestants having to go through a fitness test, an interview with judges, an academic test, and a spontaneous interview and answer session.

When the pageant was narrowed down to ten contestants, they had to present a speech. Kristen chose her topic: school bullying, and delivered a very emotional and inspiring speech to her audience.

Kristen is excited and looking forward in fulfilling her duties as Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, and she has a busy schedule of events planned for her during the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, Kristen is a Grade XI student attending Menehik High in Labrador West, and after graduating high school plans to pursue a career as a pediatrician.

Kristens proud parents are Bill and Yvonne Parsons of Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to join me in wishing Kristen every success in her future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the members of the House, I would like to do a Member's Statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Alfred Saint of Musgravetown, a gentleman who passed away on March 8 of this year at the age of eighty-four.

Mr. Saint is well known for this hard work, dedication and commitment to family and to his community and it is fitting that we pay tribute to his life and accomplishments. His work history involved working in two of our major resource industries and operating a business of his own. He worked in the Labrador fishery and the forestry in Millertown. He also worked as a carpenter in the Musgravetown area and here in St. John's. For twenty years he operated the mill in Musgravetown for the Fishermens Union Trading Company and for seven years he operated a service station on the Bonavista Highway.

Mr. Saint also leaves a record of community involvement and service. He served as Secretary-Treasurer of the area school board for twenty years and he was Chair of the school board for seven years. He was the first Mayor of Musgravetown and served two terms as mayor.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pay tribute to the people who have helped build our Province. Alfred Saint is certainly one of those people.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in sending our condolences to Mr. Saint's family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue with our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today thirty-two Level I, II and III students from Botwood Collegiate and the Community Youth Network in the Botwood area.

They are accompanied by their teachers from Botwood Collegiate: Mr. Darryl Chippett and Ms Gloria Cooper, and two representatives from the Community Youth Network: Mr. Darrell Rice and Ms Gloria Evans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well today, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a former Member of the House of Assembly from the District of Port de Grave, Mr. John Efford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the inquiries conducted into the wrongful conviction of Thomas Sophonow and Guy Paul Morin, the commissioners have identified a number of problems in the justice system, including: tunnel vision by investigators; use of informants; poor use of discretion by prosecutors; questionable evidence; and bad science. Mr. Speaker, all of these systemic problems have played a key role in the wrongful convictions in this Province of Gregory Parsons, Ronald Dalton, and Randy Druken.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I ask the Premier: Does he not think that we have a very, very serious problem with our justice system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we did indeed await the decision of the Sophonow inquiry in Manitoba which was conducted by Justice Corey of the Supreme Court, retired from the Supreme Court.

Once the Sophonow decision came in, we had discussions with the Legal Counsel involving Mr. Gregory Parsons. In fact, the firm of which the Leader of the Opposition is a member. That matter, as the public is well aware, was settled and resolved two weeks ago, approximately, using the principles of the Sophonow case, I might add, in terms of determining what compensation should be paid to someone in the event of the scenario where factual innocence is the criteria.

I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we put all of the matters that he referred to in the same category. I realize that they have been sometimes put in the same category, but this Administration, or this department, is not prepared at this time to place all of the matters that he referred to, Mr. Dalton and Mr. Druken, into the same category as Mr. Parsons which falls squarely within the case of factual innocence as defined by Justice Corey.

I am not prepared, I decline and will not comment any further to questioning regarding the matter of Mr. Dalton, which is currently before the courts in a civil matter, and I will certainly not comment with respect to the matter of Mr. Druken, which is not Mr. Druken himself but the death of the female in that particular case, who was murdered. That investigation is still continuing. It would be totally inappropriate and improper for me to direct any comments towards those two matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and my next question will be for the Premier as well. However, the hon. gentleman opposite, the Minister of Justice, who answered that question on behalf of the Premier, was at the press conference which I attended some weeks ago on the settlement of Gregory Parsons, and at that point he stood up, quite bold-facedly, and said: The government admits no wrong doing whatsoever, that mistakes are bound to happen and the system eventually worked.

Well, you should ask Greg Parsons and his family, and you should ask the Dalton family and you should ask the Druken family whether it, in fact, worked. I can tell you, Minister, that certainly doesn't cut it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The reputations of these men and their families have been damaged irreparably.

Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Premier. Does the Premier feel that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has done enough to allay the concerns of the people of this Province about the erosion of the justice system in their Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just make this comment: As Premier of the Province, I do have an absolute deep and abiding respect for the justice system and understand one thing about it, crystal clear in my mind; that it is too serious and too important to play politics with, and I have no intention whatsoever -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: The Minister of Justice just gave an absolutely clear and understandable answer as to the differences in the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Parsons, represented by a group of lawyers, decided on a settlement basis that obviously was recommended by his law firm and those who represented him. That issue has been dealt with.

There is an indication that once the remaining parts of that case - because, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would know, being from a legal background, there is an investigation continuing where the person who is charged with an offence, that when that particular case is concluded, the Minister of Justice has already indicated that we will have an inquiry of sorts into that case.

It cannot be inquired into yet, Mr. Speaker. I even understand that much about it. It cannot be inquired into yet because it is still proceeding. He gave a crystal clear answer as to the differences and the distinctions in the other two cases. When they are all at a position, at a point in time in the justice system, we have not hesitated - the record shows clearly, because it is ongoing in the Province today - to have full public inquiries into issues in the justice system when they are warranted and when the matters that are under investigation have been concluded and a public judicial inquiry has been warranted. We will certainly examine these issues when they are that point in their history and development, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I also have respect for the justice system. I also have the greatest respect for the rights and the reputation of those wrongfully convicted, and the rights of the people of this Province.

There are others in this Province, besides the three gentleman that the Minister of Justice has already mentioned, who have been wrongfully imprisoned. Ten years ago, Lavinia Aggek was wrongfully imprisoned for a murder which she did not commit. While she was in prison, the real killer, Lucas Oquakiak, killed a second time and was subsequently convicted. Mr. Speaker, we have a very, very serious problem with our justice system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member now is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is about time that government did something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: One innocent man or woman going to jail wrongfully is one too many.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier now stand before this hon. House, before the members of this Legislature, and make a commitment to a full public inquiry into the justice system in this Province, to be commissioned by an independent judge from outside this Province, to find out what has gone wrong with the system and how we prevent these problems in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, he speaks as if he is the only person in this Province who has a monopoly on respect for our system. I beg to differ.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I indicated at the news conference two weeks ago, and I will do the same today for the public of this Province, in case he did not hear it when he was there on that particular date - and I do believe he heard me quite clearly - it is improper and impossible at this particular time to inquiry into matters that are still unresolved. Anyone who has been watching the news in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the Member for Ferryland knows more about this than anyone else in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we respectfully listened to the question from the Leader of the Opposition and I respectfully request that the Member for Ferryland show me the respect to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The people of this Province deserve an answer.

I indicated at the news conference that once the matter was concluded involving the person whose life was taken in the matter surrounding Gregory Parsons, his mother, once that matter was concluded, which is currently before the courts of this Province - as anyone in this Chamber knows, and you do not have to be a lawyer to know, it is improper to be inquiring into anything when the matter is before the courts. We do not want to jeopardize, and we could possibly jeopardize, someone's rights by doing so. The whole tenor of this question here is not to do anything to infringe upon anyone's rights. It is totally inappropriate.

I indicated at that news conference, and I will indicate again, once the matter is concluded involving the death of Gregory Parsons' mother, we will be appointing someone to review and inquire into the investigation and prosecution surrounding Gregory Parsons' mother's death. If that investigation, that inquiry, raises questions about the system that justifies and requires that we ought to have a full-scale inquiry into the system in this Province, we are certainly commited to do that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: - but you cannot put the cart before the horse. This is a very serious, sensitive matter which must be dealt with at the proper time, but within the proper protocols of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer quickly.

MR. PARSONS: We do not want to fool up the justice system in haste and do it inappropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, the Minister of Justice, who rides on his high horse there today, waited four years after they knew Gregory Parsons was innocent as a result of DNA evidence before they compensated. You waited four years until someone was finally arrested. That man was innocent four years ago!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: My question again, Mr. Speaker. The Premier does not answer it; I will ask the minister again: What I want is a commitment for a full judicial inquiry. I am not saying now, I am saying at the appropriate time on Dalton, Druken, and Parsons. I want a full inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: I want it on all issues and I want it done by an independent judge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible). We do not want it white-washed. We want a full inquiry, with full evidence heard before that inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of parts to the question. Just to point out, unlike most other days where it takes a day or so for the Leader of the Opposition to change his position, he changed his position now in the length of one question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Hansard has a way, which is the written record - for those who do not know - of this Legislature, of writing down the words that were actually used because words are very important. The fact is this: In the question to me previously, he asked if I would stand and give an immediate commitment to investigate the justice system in Newfoundland and Labrador. In this question, he jumps up and says: I didn't mean immediately, I mean at the appropriate time. Which is exactly what the Minister of Justice answered before that: at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is clear to point this out. With respect to the issue of compensation for Mr. Parsons, I am not sure he wants and has asked the Leader of the Opposition to be raising that issue in the Legislature on his behalf today, but there is an important piece to it. It is this: the law firm that the Leader of the Opposition is still a member of, Mr. Speaker, is the law firm that advised their client to sue the government when there was a settlement almost agreed to about three years ago. Their advice was: Don't take the settlement. Sue the government and we might be able to get you some more. It is because of actions taken by his lawyers that we are here several years later with the settlement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: There was never, ever a settlement offered to Mr. Parsons. They held him up to ransom. They starved him. They did not put a settlement on the table until a couple of months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government, Services and Lands with regard to his decision to implement a zero tolerance policy on the spillage of liquid waste from fish trucks. Mr. Speaker, the trucking industry is almost as important to the fishery of today as our boats and fish plants. Water drainage from fish is a fact of life. As a matter of fact, in the trucking of live crab, trucks are required to maintain a temperature that allows for ice melting to keep crab from drying out.

My question is, Mr. Speaker: Once the trucks are modified and tanks are added to contain the spillage, where does the minister propose that the truckers dump the waste, since there are no facilities currently in place to handle it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member that the government's responsibility is to ensure that we have proper road travel regulations, and to see that they are enforced. That is what we are doing in this case. Private industry will provide whatever services are required to enable truckers to operate properly in this Province once they understand that our regulations are going to be enforced. We want to make sure they understand that they are going to be enforced after April 1, and I am sure you will find that those problems will be dealt with by the private industry. You are not suggesting that government get into that kind of service industry at this time, are you?

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I thought this government was committed to a waste management plan, but apparently not. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that this zero tolerance policy is being brought in, in the absence of adequate facilities and without much thought to the ability of the industry to comply.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us what discussions he had with the Minister of Environment with regard to the establishment of dumping facilities? And, would he tell me how a truck loaded with crab, melting ice, and with an onboard temperature of between zero to three degrees, to ensure ice meltage, can be made 100 per cent watertight. I do not know how it can be done, and if you cannot tell us how it can be done, and tell the trucking industry how it can be done, I can assure you there will not be any fish moving from boats to fish plants this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is not as great a problem as the hon. member has suggested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands

MR. NOEL: I guess the members opposite feel that we in this jurisdiction are not able to deal with these problems as well as other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions have regulations to deal with the same kind of problem, and truckers in this Province today - we have to keep in mind that the fish companies are, I think, going to operate something like half the trucks involved in fish transportation. Some truckers in the Province today have made the modifications to their vehicles that are necessary to do this properly. There are all kinds of ways that this can be done properly.

This is a safety issue in our Province, Mr. Speaker, it is a tourism issue, it is an issue for our department. These trucks go in to weight scales across the Province and leak their load sometimes and we have to close down the scales for some periods. The government has been trying to deal with this issue for some time. It seems interesting that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a former Minister of Fisheries who, almost two years ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. NOEL: - told the industry that they had to rectify their ways in this regard and that the government would be enforcing these regulations. We tried to do it last year and we had meetings with the industry last year, and we have advised them that we are going to enforce the regulations as of April 1 of this year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about other jurisdictions being able to deal with this, is he talking about the fish trucking in Saskatchewan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I just have one final question. I have been getting lots of calls on this, I can assure you of that. If the minister wants to know how serious a problem this is in the trucking industry, then I would ask him: Is he planning on attending the meeting in Clarenville tonight that is being put off by the Truckers Association, because they are so concerned about the affect this is going to have on their industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very happy to attend any meeting that the truckers want to invite me to. I don't need the member opposite to invite me to a truckers' meeting. They have not invited me to their meeting. I will be happy to meet -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I guess we can't expect (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: It seems like you have to go to Saskatchewan to get (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Fish is transported all throughout the Atlantic Provinces and down into the Northeastern American States. So that is where you can look for your examples, look at what they do down there. People don't have to put up with the safety problems and the tourism problems and the health problems and the waste problems that we would have to put up with if we didn't enforce this. We are very appreciative of the importance of the fishing industry to our Province, but we are appreciative of the rights of other people as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish his answer.

MR. NOEL: This is a regulation that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - fishermen themselves have told me should be enforced in the Province, and they agree, some fishermen, not all, and some truckers, with our efforts in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we have no alternative. This is a policy which is appropriate to the Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of Industry, under a section of Hansard called Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given, responding to questions I asked about a contract given to Bristol Communications, indicated that there was no public tender because there was a standing offer with Bristol. However, he said, the department went out for a request for proposals in an effort to give other companies an opportunity to bid on the work.

Can he confirm that a committee of officials within his department was set up to look at who they should give the contract to, and actually advised to give it to another company, and that the advice of the officials was overridden? Can the minister confirm that this was the case, that in essence what he said on Tuesday, that an RFP was established to give other companies a chance to bid, that that didn't happen, that the company that was actually promoted and said, should get the contract, didn't, and Bristol Communications was given the contract instead?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Gary Anstey is not involved with Bristol Communications, is he?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Not to my understanding, but he could be.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. gentleman from Bonavista South that I do not spend my mornings down in the Registry of Deeds to find out who is a shareholder in what companies in the Province. If I did, I would probably find some very interesting persons from the other side as well.

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, Bristol got this contract in the proper fashion and in the proper manner. If there is anything different than that, I would be glad to inform the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is endeavouring, after Question Period and before the next sitting day of the House, while he endeavours, through his department, to find out what actually happened, my sources in the department tell me that a committee was formed, that a recommendation was made for another company besides Bristol to get the contract, and that it did not happen.

I would like for him also, if he could, to answer this question, or find the answer to the question: Can he also confirm that the amount of the contract was not $105,000, as reported initially, but actually it was a contract for $50,000, and, for whatever reason, $59,000 was added on? While he endeavours to find out why one company that should have had the contract did not get it, why was the contract almost a little more than doubled as a result of Bristol getting it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, that is indeed the fact. I think the original contract was for $55,000. Some extra work was done by Bristol, for which they came back and asked the department - I believe it was for some $300,000 - that they considered to be in overruns, and the department settled for an extra $50,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. As of March 20, the United States government placed up to 30 per cent tariff on cheap steel products being dumped into their country to protect their steel industry. As the minister is aware, as the steel industry goes, so goes the iron ore industry. At the present time, cheap steel has been dumped into this country from other countries. There is a strong lobby by the steel producers of Canada and workers in the steel and iron ore industry, for the Canadian government to take similar action to that of the U.S. This has been a topic that has generated much media attention during the past couple of months.

I ask the minister if he could inform this House of what actions this government has taken to lobby its federal counterparts to ensure the long-term interests of workers in the iron ore industry in this Province are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I am aware of the fact that there has been anti-dumping legislation passed by the U.S. I am also aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the union in Labrador City and Wabush about the effect that this could possibly have on production at their facilities, and no later than, I think, the first part of this week, have written the Minister of Industry and Trade for Canada to ask him to ensure that whatever action is necessary to protect the steel industry in Canada - because I think there are four producers in Canada; I believe that is the fact - there have been a number of measures that have been taken previously on a number of other occasions by the federal government that have been somewhat effective, and I have asked them to ensure that the steel industry in this Province is given a fair and competitive market in which to operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he could provide for myself and the unions in Labrador West, a copy of the letter that he sent to his federal counterpart, and if, in future representations to his federal counterpart, whether or not he could involve the workers of the Iron Ore industry into a lobby that, if required, would involve them being a part of this government's initiative in order to place tariffs of the anti-dumping of steel in this country.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Labour. Minister, I want to ask you what you think about the snitch line that workers' compensation has set up for anonymous complaints and unfounded accusations against injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the member opposite asked that question, because it has been in the news of late and I think it is important that you raise it here in this House today.

The line you are referring to as the snitch line is a referral line and it has an 800 number. I know you were in this House last spring when we passed legislation on workers' compensation. Everyone here in this Province knows that the Workplace Health Safety & Compensation Commission is funded totally by employers.

It is important that we have a fund that we can have to look after injured workers in the Province for years to come. We all know that particular fund is in jeopardy. In fact, there is a $200 million deficit there. The fund itself is only 65 per cent funded, so we have a concern that any amount of fraud is too much fraud.

Although there was a focus on this being worker related, there are three components to this line. Number one is, if employers themselves are under-reporting assessments, if they are under-reporting payrolls, if they are under-reporting claims to injured workers...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to quickly conclude her answer.

MS THISTLE: Anybody can call and report employers, if there is double-billing by a pharmacist, by a physiotherapist and so on, and in fact if there is fraud against injured workers. It works both ways.

What we have to look at is maintaining the fund and keeping it stable -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish her answer quickly.

MS THISTLE: - and using the most professional care in doing so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for this Province, I feel it is incumbent upon me at this time. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, while the Premier was responding to one of his questions, make a statement that three of the prosecutors involved in the investigation and prosecution of the Gregory Parsons matter have since gone to the Bench.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I also overheard the Leader of the Opposition make a statement that it would not be of any benefit to have a current sitting judge of our Supreme Court make an inquiry.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who might place the integrity of our judiciary into disrepute by those types of comments, and unlike the Leader of the Opposition who tends to condemn the system before there is ever an inquiry, I challenge him - if he is going to take the good reputations of these individuals in question he should not do so under the cloak and protection of the House of Assembly - to make those slanderous statements outside this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, once again, in order to have the facts fully disclosed, I encourage the Minister of Justice to have a full and open inquiry. My comment, with regard to a judge from outside the Province, is consistent with the Hughes Inquiry, when Mr. Justice Hughes was brought in from outside the Province to conduct the Hughes Inquiry; which the Leader of the NDP was involved in. It is also consistent with the fact that Chief Justice Hickman went to Nova Scotia to conduct the Marshall Inquiry. That is the right way to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. minister under advisory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

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

The hon. Minister of Justice rose a few minutes ago and asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the comments that he made against the three prosecutors, but he refused to do it. Distinctively, I heard the hon. member make those comments and I would like for him to withdraw those comments right now and respect the honour of this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Clearly, the record will show what the Leader of the Opposition did or did not say. What really is at stake here, Mr. Speaker - there is another question and I will pose it right now, and we will research it: How was the Premier of the Province, how could he today, stand up and refer to cases and matters that only the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Province should have, and information that only the minister should have, but should not share with anybody else.

There are two issues here: One issue is that he referred to the case; and the second, larger issue is the concept and principle in law called, without prejudice.

I want to point this out, the real issue here today is: How is the Premier of the Province in possession of knowledge that the Minister of Justice or his department should not have provided to him or any other member of his Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice, speaking to the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Opposition House Leader, the only statements uttered in this House today by the Premier are the same statements that have been uttered by me to the public media of this Province for the last three years concerning these cases. Most of which were said at the settlement press conference that was held here in Confederation Building two weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: He lied.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I distinctly heard what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has said and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: I did utter the word lied, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if I offended anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now if he will withdraw his statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the hon. minister to withdraw his remarks.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Justice, the Chair has indicated that it will review Hansard, take the point raised under advisement and report back to the House.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am giving Notices of Motion of a motion that I will introduce a little later in the day, but I want to talk to the hon. members opposite. I talked yesterday but they have not seen the motion. I will just give notice that I will be asking permission a little later in the day. It has to do with Bills 44 and 45, that the Leader of the Opposition and I, and the Leader of the NDP, have talked about. I will confer with these a little later in the day and introduce the motion a little later.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Clarenville area. I will read the prayer, it says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its 2001/2002 Budget there would be a long-term care facility constructed in Clarenville and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given $500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for the said facility; and

WHEREAS in August of 2001 the then Acting Minister of Health and Community Services further confirmed, in a letter to the Town of Clarenville, that government's commitment is to build a forty-four bed long-term care facility and it was expected the design consultants would be appointed in September of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, that is the third petition this week that I presented from residents of that area, including the districts of Bellevue, Terra Nova, Trinity North and Bonavista South. I tell the Member for Bellevue district, obviously, someone has to speak for them on behalf of this issue because clearly he is the minister who needs to appoint the consultants, and it is not yet done.

I was extremely interested in knowing that a day after I presented the second petition in this House, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in a taped interview with CBC Radio in Gander, had indicated: Yes, government is still committed to a long-term care facility in Clarenville. But, Mr. Speaker, she indicated that government is rethinking the model. She said: we are looking at what is happening in St. John's; we are looking at what is happening in Alberta. What she has indicated is that the Department of Health is starting to ask themselves how they should go about doing this. They need to start doing more planning on the planning process, which is somewhat ironic because in late January in an interview with the Packet the director of communications clearly indicated that the only delay, and the only reason for a delay, was because officials in her department were tied up with the Fogo Hospital project. Once that was out of the way, they would be proceeding immediately with the project in Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, we seen the minister on CBC on Wednesday telling a reporter that even though they are still committed to the project, they are not sure how they are going to go about doing it. Clearly indicating that obviously government does not see any real sense of urgency in this project. This is something that has been ongoing since the late 1980s. In fact, I think it was in 1991, the then Clarenville Area Hospital Board sat down with the department and the minister of that day, to talk about the construction of that facility. Here we are ten years later and the minister is saying that we are still looking at how we are going to approach the planning. We now have to plan for the planning to do a project that was committed in last year's Budget. With that kind of time line and with that kind of commitment or that kind of comment, you really have to question how serious the commitment to this project really is. I ask the minister if she can now come out to the Clarenville area and tell the people of that area who had to endure such hardships for such a long period of time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: It is about time that we move forward and make the commitment and honour that commitment, and appoint the consultants and do the design work for the project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of in excess of 500 people in the Trepassey area and surrounding communities. They are, basically:

To the hon. House of Assembly, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They are asking the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer. Basically, just to sum up, they are asking that they reverse the decision to take a nurse out of Trepassey. Trepassey is an area, I am being told, is the farthest distant to an acute care facility in this Province by road. They had 1.5 nursing units in that particular area and now they have moved a half one out. There is only one nursing unit left in that particular area.

In Trepassey, not many seniors have left; no huge amount of seniors. There is a need for continuing care there, for nurse visitations to carry on general nursing duties, and that is compounded. The responsibility of nurses in Trepassey is compounded by the fact that one of the busiest clinics in Newfoundland and Labrador, Dr. McGarry's Clinic in Trepassey, has people driving from St. Mary's Bay, they even come from Mt. Pearl, Witless Bay, the whole region. Thousands and thousands of people come to Trepassey to avail of the services there.

Many people are dropping in and using the nursing services while they are there in the same Nurse Abernathy Clinic, while the stats that community health uses in seeing the need of a nurse - they say that people from other areas are going to get this nursing service in their own area, but you don't turn somebody away from a nursing station when they are at a doctor's office and they wish to drop in for a medical purpose at this nursing station.

The nurse out there has been very busy - the only one there - in a community that is isolated, basically. If you had to leave there the next closest nurse you could get is Ferryland, and that is a tremendous distance away. It is about an hours drive away just to see a nurse, and a two hour drive to get to a medical facility. I think that is improper. You will have to take into consideration the geography of the area when we are putting nurses out there. The area is decimated enough with young people gone but the least we can do is have adequate nursing services available within that area. It is providing an increasing burden.

The town is concerned. The citizens are concerned. I spoke with numerous people in that particular area and they have taken the time and effort, and are so concerned - over 500 people, representing a big percent of the population in that area, are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, because of a cutback in their nursing service. In other words, it has scaled back to two-thirds the service that it had before this decision came in last fall.

I am asking that this House of Assembly, and we call upon the government and the Minister of Health and Community Services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to finish, about a half a minute?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will keep it very brief, within a half minute actually.

We call upon the Minister of Health to look at this unique situation in an area that is two hours from any medical facility. The only nurse in the whole area now, the closest one between here and St. John's is in the Ferryland area - to allow that half nursing unit to go back to an area that is in dire need of having a reasonable level of nursing facilities and medical services available to the people in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition, and the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometers of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is a section of road that I have stood here, I say for the last four years, putting forward pleas to this government, to the Liberal government, to have this section of road upgraded and paved. They have made some feeble attempts. They have gone down there and, I think, up until now the only change in the petition is that I am asking for four kilometers of road rather than six. It is six kilometers of road from Birchy Cove to Bonavista. It is the main highway that leads from all the communities of Bonavista South into Bonavista. People use this road to go into Bonavista to access the hospital. School children travel over this section of road every day to get to the school, and seniors travel over this section of road in order to get to drug stores and to access other services in Bonavista.

Back about three years ago, the parents and the school children became so frustrated that there was no work being done on this section of Route 235, that they decided they would have a protest. They were responsible. They did not want to go out and block off the road, and stop people from getting to work. They did not want to stop people from accessing the hospital. What they decided they would do was, they would go out and hold a protest by the side of the road where they handed out pamphlets and asked people to support them in order to get this section of road upgraded and paved. Up until now, Mr. Speaker, there has been two kilometers over a four-year period, upgraded and paved from Bonavista to Birchy Cove.

Mr. Speaker, those people are not being unreasonable. All they are asking for is that the main highway that leads into the Town of Bonavista be put in a state of repairs that would allow them to access the town with some degree of comfort, and something that they should expect in the year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, those people pay the same price for insurance, they pay the same price to licence their vehicle, and they pay the same price to go and register their vehicle, as people in other parts of this Province. I do not think they are asking too much, to ask to be considered to be provided with a mode of transportation over the main highway to the largest community on the highway, that they could drive over with some degree of comfort.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, I ask the minister and I ask the government if they would include this four kilometers of roadway in their capital works budget that is going to be brought forward to this House of Assembly in the coming days; in fact, next Thursday.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: I think it is Motion 3, Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole on Bill 49, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

We are reconvening Committee of the Whole on Bill 49. We last dealt with section 17.

A bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy." (Bill 49)

On motion, clause 18 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 19 deals with public advice and recommendation. "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal (a) advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister; or (b) draft legislation..." and then there are several exceptions underneath in section (2), "The head of a public body shall not refuse to disclose under..." certain conditions.

The amendment which has been proposed by the Opposition is in section 2. We are suggesting that an amendment be proposed, that "an economic forecast" be actually included.

Can the hon. the Minister of Justice hear me? Mr. Chairman, I think there is some problem with the microphone. Will I just take a moment?

Mr. Chairman, if we can resume.

In section 19, the amendments that have been presented by the Opposition include the inclusion of an economic forecast under subsection (d), subsection (1), of section 2. As well, we are asking for the addition, in subsection (f), which I will read: A final report or final audit on the performance or efficiency of a public body.

And, we are asking for the addition: and any of its programs or policies.

As well, we are asking that the time period be reduced from fifteen years to ten years. Those are the amendments which have been suggested by the Opposition and put forward for consideration by the Minister of Justice.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, government is not prepared to accept - I should say, it is probably easier, we are prepared to accept the path of least resistance.

With respect to section 19(2)(f) "a final report or final audit on the performance or efficiency of a public body." We have no objection to the Opposition's amendment in regards to section 19(2)(f).

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to section 19(2)(f) carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if we could also have the Minister of Justice's position - I thank the minister for that amendment - the minister's position as well on the reduction of time periods because this is an ongoing issue which we brought up in several sections in this particular act. The goal of the Opposition in this legislation is to have information as open and accessible as possible. That is tied up, of course, in reduction of time limits and time frames and I intend to go through that at some point further on in our debate.

As well, our intention is to try and reduce time periods to a shortest time as possible. We have indicated that we would like to have Cabinet information reduced down to fifteen years and we are asking that this information be reduced from fifteen years to ten years, because we feel that is a reasonable time frame for this information to be presented. That is consistent, in my understanding, with British Columbia and Nova Scotia who disclose these records after ten years and five years. We feel that it is a reasonable request and a reasonable amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct, B.C. does have ten years and Nova Scotia has five years. The information regarding the other jurisdictions, Manitoba has thirty years, Ontario has twenty years. We felt that, after canvassing the various jurisdictions across the country, fifteen certainly is not unreasonable and we are not out of line with what exists, and indeed, are far below what exists in some other jurisdictions. It is a policy decision that we felt fifteen was the appropriate period of time.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to section -

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was the Chairman about to put an amendment?

CHAIR: The Chair was going to put the amendment, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, to section 19(3).

MR. RIDEOUT: Just before we get there, I have a matter I want to raise on section 19(2). Is it okay?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Minister of Justice, in responding to those amendments in this section proposed by us, has agreed to an amendment in section 19(2)(f) but is not prepared to accept the amendment on the release of economic forecasts.

Now, I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to tell us why it is that the government wouldn't be prepared to have matters, such as economic forecasts, released? It is my understanding that the Freedom of Information Committee, for example, in its July 2000 report, recommended the release of statistics, public opinion polls, and environmental impact assessments. So, what would be wrong with including economic forecasts? The economic forecast is pretty general information that, I suppose, I cannot see that there would a lot of secrecy about it. I cannot see that there would be a lot of concern about economic forecasts. You know, large banks across the country publish economic forecasts on the various provinces two and three times a year. So if there are economic forecasts that the government or some government agency has prepared, why would it not be appropriate that that information be made available to the public?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, economic forecasts have been removed there. Again, the concern is if the disclosure of any information, such as economic forecasts, would harm the economic interests of the Province. I appreciate that general, economic type forecasts may not, in any way, impact upon the economic interests of the Province, but, I guess, it is a case of finding the balance again. We thought it appropriate to leave out the economic forecasts because it could impact upon the economic interests of the Province. The public interest in having that protected is far greater than having that information disclosed.

CHAIR: Are we ready for the proposed amendment to section 19(3)?

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: In the Chair's opinion, the nays have it.

On motion, clause 19, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 20 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 20, as presented in the bill, states, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information (a) that is subject to solicitor and client privilege; or (b) that would disclose legal opinions provided to a public body by a law officer of the Crown."

The amendment which is being presented by the Opposition says, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information (a) that is subject to....privilege; or (b) that would disclose legal opinions provided by an officer of the Crown prior to" - and here is the addition - "(i) a final and binding legal decision where matters are being adjudged or arbitrated...". So, once the matter is over, once it is final, once there is a binding decision, that legal opinion would be presented; and, as well, after the exhaustion of all legal rights of appeal.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is consistent with the act in British Columbia. Basically what it does, it allows the public access to legal opinions after rights of appeal have been exhausted. I think it is a fair amendment. I think the public should have a right to legal opinions. I think the public should have the right to a lot of legal opinions that are presented to government. For example, a good example of an important legal opinion was the legal opinion on FPI which was presented, I guess, back last March or April, which the Minister of Justice, I believe, on April 4, commented.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't have access to it.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, we didn't have access to it. We finally did get access to it, though. When we did get access to it, it was helpful when we finally got it. The reason it was helpful was because the Minister of Justice indicated at that time, last April, on FPI, that he had many, many options open to him, which meant that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Fisheries had many options open to him.

As a result of us having access to that opinion, we had the benefit of obtaining it, of looking at it and realizing that in that particular situation it would have been in the interests of public policy if the legislation had been changed, and what we did just two nights ago could have been done, basically, about eight or nine months ago. Just one small example of how important it is for the public and/or the Opposition and/or the media to have access to legal opinions.

We feel this is useful information, it is very important information, and we suggest that this amendment be passed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I would point out here that this is a discretionary section again - may - and, as properly referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, we did indeed release legal opinions with regard to FPI, as we did with respect to the matter of bulk water. There were several opinions from various legal counsel that had been rendered during the bulk water matter and those were released as well upon request.

I would point out that it is a discretionary thing and, albeit the Opposition amendment is well intentioned - for example, once everything is final and complete and adjudicated upon - I guess therein lies the difficulty of: we know what the intention is by that addition, but there is some difficulty deciding if it ever does come to an end, and what is to an end.

We felt that the protection is here in the sense of the discretionary piece having may rather than shall not disclose. That discretion is still there, depending upon the given circumstances, to disclose those legal opinions.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition pass?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 20 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Shall clause 21 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment by the Opposition with regard to section 21 is an amendment to subsection (4). Actually, in fact, it is an addition to subsection (3) by the addition of subsection (4), and it states, "The head of a public body must not refuse, after a police investigation is completed, to disclose under this section the reasons for a decision not to prosecute...".

A public body must not refuse, after the investigation is completed, to disclose certain information. The information which cannot be refused is the reason for a decision not to prosecute. That information should be given, "(a) to a person who knew of and was significantly interested in the investigation, including a victim or a relative or friend of a victim...". For example, if somebody is killed, and if the Department of Justice decides that it is not going to prosecute a certain individual, then at least the relative of the person who is deceased will have the reasons why the Department of Justice is not prepared to proceed.

The second situation where we feel that the information should be provided is, "(b) to a person wrongfully convicted...". We had a lengthy discussion on that already this afternoon about people wrongfully convicted, which will emphasize the importance of this section to the people of this Province. We have three wrongfully convicted people in this Province. We have Gregory Parsons, who was wrongfully convicted for the death of his mother. We have Ronald Dalton, who was wrongfully convicted for the death of his wife, and we have Randy Druken, who was wrongfully convicted, I believe, for the death of his girlfriend. Is that correct? Three, very, very unfortunate situations, very, very close relationships.

I feel that it is very, very important to Gregory Parsons, to Ronald Dalton, and to Randy Druken, that they be given the reasons, that they know why the Department of Justice would decide not to prosecute a certain individual. If the Department of Justice, for example, in the Parsons case, made an arrest, as they have done, and then they subsequently decided not to charge that person and not to prosecute, the position of the Opposition is, if anybody has a right to know why they have refused prosecution, it would be Gregory Parsons; it would be Ronald Dalton if somebody had been arrested; it would be Randy Druken. The Ronald Dalton situation, actually, is different because the cause of death was quite different, but the Randy Druken situation, for example, if a possible perpetrator was arrested, then, in fact, that information should be known to Randy Druken. These are people who have been seriously harmed by their wrongful conviction. Their reputations have been hurt. Their families have been hurt and, in fact, their lives have been destroyed. If anybody has a right to that information, it is someone who has been wrongfully convicted by the justice system in this Province.

The final situation, the third alternative, is, "(c) to any other member of the public, if the fact of the investigation was made public." If it is a public investigation, we are saying, make the information available to everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the suggested addition of subsection (4), we are not in favour of such an amendment. There are three subsections to that suggested amendment, actually: (a), (b) and (c). They talk about victims here. The principle concern here is, the heading, suggested, "The head of a public body must not refuse, after a police investigation is completed...", and therein lies the problem again. It is very, very difficult, in most circumstances, in a lot of circumstances, in fact, to determine if your investigation is ever completed. In those cases where you may have even made a decision that you have completed your investigation, vis-à-vis a certain perspective of it, it does not mean that investigation, when new evidence might come to light, might never be reopened.

This ties in, I would point out as well - we are dealing with section 21 here, and its suggested subsection (4) - this ties in very closely with section 21.(1)(g), and in that section we talk about, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to....(g) reveal information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion...". That comes into play here quite often, that, albeit we might think an investigation is completed, there are many, many times when new evidence comes to light; and the prosecutor now, in our system, has the discretion to decide whether they ought or ought not to reveal certain information, because you may tell one person, for example, why your are not prosecuting that person, but the revelation and disclosure of that information may, in fact, compromise someone else or compromise another aspect of the investigation. I would also point out that under the current system - and we have had it for many years - a lot of times the information that you are talking about here may reflect upon someone's credibility; so, again, the prosecutor uses his discretion as to whether or not he thinks that ought to be revealed.

British Columbia, as the Leader of the Opposition said, has a section such as has been suggested here, whereas ours is patterned after the New Brunswick act. Again, we do not want to compromise any future prosecutions by releasing any information now, and that is the reason we cannot support the suggested amendment.

I would also point out that most often victims are advised by the prosecution's office and their staff as to why something does not proceed. Very rarely is there a case where, if a matter does not proceed, that the prosecutor would not inform particularly the victims why a case cannot proceed. It may be due to a lack of evidence in a certain matter. In that case, the prosecutors do, as a general rule, advise the victims of why the matter did not proceed.

With regards to the matter of the wrongful conviction inclusion here, I fully appreciate this is a matter of great concern to the Leader of the Opposition, having been involved in these cases. No other jurisdiction in the country has this type of inclusion and, for the reasons I stated earlier in Question Period, I do not intend to elaborate, at this point, while these matters are still before the courts, in regard to this; but simply to say we are not prepared to accept that subsection amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

A couple of points in response to the comments of the Minister of Justice. First of all, I will deal with his reason for not using the British Columbia model. What he has outlined, I guess, by a reverse sort of logic, he has indicated that the British Columbia model really is not up to scratch. It is not sufficient. It does not work.

The other thing he outlined and said in his comment here - and he can correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe I am - he said that he is not aware of any, or in most cases, people who are in a position where they have been accused - if I can put it that way. That the prosecution is going to move forward with the case; that they are advised anyway. Would that be a correct summary of what you said? They are advised anyway of what the reasons would be. This is an important point and I do not want to misquote you. I want to be sure of what you said. Would you like to take a second just to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, I will deal with this point. In response to the Leader of the Opposition's question regarding this provision about the right to know in terms of shall as opposed to may, you said: In most cases, people who have been accused, victims, they would be in possession of all the knowledge anyway. That is what you have indicated. I just want to be sure. Would that be a true reflection of what you said?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: What I am saying here is - subsection 4 suggested amendment - subsection (a) deals with, "to a person who knew of and was significantly interested in the investigation, including a victim..." So that one deals with victims, relatives, and friends of victims.

Under the second subsection, (b), it talks about wrongfully convicted. A wrongfully convicted person, I believe, has the assumption that the person was in fact charged at one point and ended up being wrongly convicted. That person would have any information anyway, because under our system an accused person is entitled to all the information once you are accused under another system of laws we have called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So they do not need to get any information. If a person is wrongfully convicted they would have had - any information that was in an investigation must have been given to them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the response the Minister of Justice gave to our colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, in explaining why government is refusing 4(a), this is a decision not to prosecute to a person who knew of or was significantly interested in the investigation, including a victim.

My understanding is that the minister justified that by suggesting that a victim - in pretty well all the cases the Crown prosecutors would explain to a victim or victims or to families and relatives, why a particular prosecution cannot proceed. Perhaps it is the lack of evidence, perhaps it is some other reason, but I think that is where the bit of confusion with my friend, the Opposition House Leader, arises.

The minister explained that, no, he didn't feel it was necessary to do this because victims, as a matter of course - particularly victims, and families and relatives of victims. It would be explained to them by the Crown prosecutor the reason why prosecution was not an option.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that's a question maybe the minister will deal with.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The question then, is: If that, by a matter of course, is done anyway, then what would be the hangup in enshrining this in a piece of legislation? If it is a matter of course, based upon your commentary related to this section, then if that happens anyway, what would be the aversion to enshrining what is a matter of course into this legislation?

CHAIR: The Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: In response to the question, it is not a case of an aversion to enshrining it in a right. What I am saying is, we already have, in section 21.(1)(g), the reference to prosecutorial discretion. As a practice, the prosecutor would indicate to someone why the matter did not proceed to charges. The bottom line is we don't want, at any time ever in our system, to do anything that might compromise a future investigation.

Your suggested amendment is premised on the understanding that the investigation is complete, but as we well know, in the criminal justice system it is very difficult to define if an investigation is ever complete. That is the concern, that you may disclose something today when you think an investigation is complete and inadvertently compromise the future of another investigation. So, the interest of protecting society we feel outweighs in those particular cases, and we trust upon our prosecutors to exercise that discretion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

So, in section 21.(1)(g), you feel you have already covered it, and section 21.(1)(g) of the proposed legislation before us reads, "reveal information relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion". So, the minister is saying - again, correct me if I am wrong - basically, that you feel what we have asked for in the amendment to this particular section is already covered in section 21.(1)(g) based upon allowing this section to give more discretionary power to the prosecution to reveal whatever they may see fit to reveal. At the same time, I guess in trying to achieve the balance that you have talking about, and it is a balance, I suppose, what you are referring to, between not compromising any future sort of investigation by revealing certain aspects of information, that society generally, as a whole, would be much better served in these instances if your amendment stood.

So, it is a balance, if I can take your point directly - in refuting or refusing to accept our amendment you are saying that in certain situations the individual right to know is negated to society's general right to any future action that may or may not be taken on an investigation. Would that be a correct summary of what you are putting across here this afternoon?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: First of all, if I could restate again, section 21 deals with the head of a public body. It says he, ".... may refuse to disclose information ....", and he lists different groups of categories when he may refuse to do that.

In addition to the head of a pubic body, of course, section 21.(1)(g) talks about the prosecutorial discretion. We are not talking here about individuals who have been charged with a crime, and those persons getting any information. We are dealing here with persons other than the person charged with the crime. Because the person charged with the crime automatically has his or her rights protected by way of the Charter. There are also other avenues. For example, if someone feels there has been a wrongful conviction, there are civil rules of procedure. If anyone feels that they did not have all the information, even in the course of their investigation, we have a civil system that is founded on disclosure, whereby, irrespective of what might have happened in an investigation in a criminal matter, you can use your rights of disclosure to force any information that you want before the courts by way of a civil proceeding. The intent here is: leave the discretion there in the department head but, at the same time, let's not compromise the prosecutorial discretion, let's not compromise what might be future investigations.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 21, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

CHAIR: In my opinion, the nays have it.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 21 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) with regard to section 21.(1)(p). The suggested amendments were circulated. Under 21.(1)(p), it say, "The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to....(p) harm the conduct of existing or anticipated legal proceedings."

The concern here is on the word anticipated. You could anticipate, I guess, forever and a day, that there might be a proceeding. We thought we would give more clarity to that by using the word imminent rather than anticipated, because imminent gives it more of a guideline direction as to what we are talking about here. We would propose that the word "anticipated" in 21.(1)(p) be deleted and the word "imminent" be inserted in its place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That makes a lot of sense. We have no difficulty with that. This "anticipated" word is a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. I am pleased, and my colleagues are pleased, that the minister would move to close that loophole somewhat. The word "imminent" does that, and we certainly support the amendment in that regard.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just like to say as well, that is a good improvement to the bill. I think we have to really look everywhere we can in the bill and ensure that we are not creating barriers where none need to exist. By using the word anticipated, as the minister pointed out, somebody who wanted to hide something could anticipate and speculate about what might happen down the road. That would leave open an opportunity to deny access to information on all sorts of bases. Not that this particular minister would ever contemplate doing such a thing, Mr. Chairman, or this government or any other government, but you never know what might happen if someone was of a mind to keep something secret from a member of the public. That is certainly a positive amendment and we fully support it.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 21, as proposed by the Minister of Justice, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 21, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 22 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader is too anxious. The Government House Leader is always going around with a pair of hobnailed boots on his feet, trying to -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Deputy Premier reminds me, there used to be a creature in Newfoundland one time, a very useful creature, called the government ram. The Deputy Premier, when he was Government House Leader, used to remind me of the government bully. He was not a useful creature at all; he just wanted to bully and keep the Opposition down or go over them with the hobnailed boots, and his friend is now getting the same way. It is rubbing off on him, I say. Perhaps whomever is in charge of seating over there might want to move the Minister of Education up by the Government House Leader. I am sure there would be a little bit more of a civil comradery, a civilizing influence, rather than this bullish, ‘ramish' influence of the Deputy Premier.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not at all.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to word on the amendments that we proposed to section 22. I say to the Government House Leader: Have no fear, we will not be eating supper off the table here tonight. We are not going to go that far with it, but we do have a few more points to make and we will make them. We are not going to order bacon and eggs for breakfast, or anything of that nature.

On this particular clause, clause 22, section 22 lists the circumstances under which the head of a public body may refuse the disclosure of information when that disclosure is deemed to be harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations. Included in the list that we have here is the relationship - we have no difficulty, of course, with the proposal as it relates to the Government of Canada, government of a foreign state, an international organization, or things of that nature; we are not objecting to that. Included in this relationship, as defined in this section, is the relationship between the provincial government and local government body. In our case, of course, it would be cities, municipalities and other government bodies defined in the regulations; local service districts and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: ‘Ramish'.

MR. RIDEOUT: ‘Ramish'. This is close to ‘backupable', I would say. It came from the same neck of the woods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I will tell you something. (Inaudible) Lloyd Matthews.

MR. RIDEOUT: Is that right? I tell you, there are some old -

MR. HARRIS: They have the same lexicographer.

MR. RIDEOUT: The same lexi - how do you say that? That is a difficult word to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lexicographer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Lexicographer.

I tell you, when I look at the Government House Leader grinning, some of the old words - I just finished last night, I guess, reading Earl Pilgrim's, I think it is his latest book -

AN HON. MEMBER: Reading your own memoirs.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I haven't written them yet, I say to the minister, but they will be worth reading. There will be secrets that haven't yet been told in there, I say to the minister. You know what? One of them will have to do with the minister. One of them will have to do with the minister who wanted to become a Tory member of the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: One of them will have to do with that minister, and at the end of the day -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) card.

MR. RIDEOUT: Card? He had the bathroom walls papered with cards, I say to the Deputy Premier. He had cards for every political party. Did he have a card in your party? I think he had a card in every political party out there. He would wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and say: Which one am I going to support today?

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. member chose wisely and he chose well.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that he did, and caused a lot of us not to have as many heartaches as we would have had, had he stayed, I say to the hon. minister.

Anyway, I finished reading Earl Pilgrim's latest book last night on The Captain and the Girl, I believe it is called, and I hope a lot of it continues to get written down, because in White Bay in particular there was this large reservoir of sayings and isms and parts of the language that you do not find anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador. You know, the purist in our society will make fun and poke fund and go mad at a word like I just said to the minister, or ‘backupable', or something like that, but it was quite common where I grew up and I make no apologies for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I made no apologies for it in 1989, and I am sure that the hon. Clyde must have almost died when I uttered that phrase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Over in the studio, over on Logy Bay Road, the hon. Clyde must have almost.... The only other time I saw his colour change so quickly, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to get into a large - but I have to tell the House this. It was the time, in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I wasn't here then. It was a time in the House when I referred to him, as Premier, as the master of deception. You should have seen the bullets coming from his eyes to me across the floor. There was another Supreme Court Judge who told me, he was driving in from out off the Avalon when he heard that on CBC Radio, I believe, who were allowed to carry live feed from the House then, and he told me he just about went into the ditch because he could imagine the convulsions -

MR. TULK: That had to be Bill Marshall.

MR. RIDEOUT: As a matter of fact, it wasn't. Keep naming them and I might have to tell you who it was. Anyway, I say to my friend, the Minister of Mines, wait for the memoirs, they are coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: We believe that it would be useful to include in this because the relationship between municipalities and councils and so on in this Province is a statutory, intergovernmental relationship that was created by this House. I think that that puts that corporate group of people in a different category than with foreign governments or international agencies or things of that nature. That is the purpose for the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I would commend the amendment to the Minister of Justice for further consideration.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, the tact taken here in this legislation is to include local government bodies. Again, the year chosen was fifteen, which is acceptable in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia. We realize there maybe differences in years from different jurisdictions but we feel that the inclusion of local governments into this section is the way to go here. Every other jurisdiction in the country includes it in their section. With regard to the time lines, we feel that it is very reasonable, fifteen years, as opposed to ten suggested.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 22, as proposed by the Opposition, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: In my view, the nays have it.

On motion amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 22 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 23 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, clause 23, the disclosure of interests that are harmful to the financial or economic interests of a public body. Section "23.(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to harm the financial or economic interests of a public body..." and it goes on.

The amendment which is being proposed by the Opposition is intended to prevent government from denying information under this section about its finances, about the management and administration of a public body, and about negotiations by or for a public body.

In subparagraphs (c), and it is particularly in subparagraph (e). I will read subparagraph (c), it talks about "plans that relate to the management of personnel of or the administration of a public body..." and again, even more importantly is subparagraph (e) which talks about "information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body or the government of the province."

That particular exclusion is not in the old act and it has been inserted in the new act. Of course, the concern here is the issue on Voisey's Bay or on any other major negotiations that the Province is involved in. By virtue of this section, the head of the public body would be permitted to exclude information about negotiations carried on by or for a public body. This is of particular interest, in these times, Mr. Chairman, because of the Voisey's Bay negotiations which are going on. It has been a big issue for the Opposition, that in fact, there should be more disclosure to the public.

On several occasions we raised questions in the House. We spoke about it in debate. We feel that for an open, accessible, accountable and transparent government, as espoused by the Premier, there should be, in fact, open negotiations. By that, I do not mean that every single part of the negotiation has to be disclosed, but the people of this Province have a right to know what the parameters of the negotiations are. They have a right to know what the government is seeking to accomplish. They have the right to know if the government is going to allow ore to leave this Province. It is a very, very important issue. They have the right to know that if, in fact, ore is going to leave this Province, then the question on the minds and hearts of the people of this Province is: Will it ever come back? I think we know that it probably will not, and that is our concern. The reason it may not is that there may never be any processing in this Province. Inco have already reneged on their promise to build a smelter. So if there is no smelter in Argentia and Placentia, then there is no processing. Inco's new position, which was stated in Question Period yesterday by Mr. Jones, he came out and indicated that there is no proven hydromet technology. So if there is no smelter, and there is no hydromet, then there is no processing. All they are saying is that it has been proven in the lab. They are saying more work has to be done. They have even gone a step further and said we have to even consider what might happen in the event that it does not work. So that is our concern.

Our legitimate concern is that if the ore leaves the Province and there is nothing to bring it back to, then it will not come back. That is the fundamental issue on Voisey's Bay. This clause hides negotiations. It was not in the old Freedom of Information Act. We are trying to have a more open act, and now what we have, is a more secretive act. That is what we have accomplished, which is sad. The people have a right to know. They have a right to know what the government is negotiating on their behalf.

If we allow this clause to go through as is, without the amendment that is presented by the Opposition, then government can continue to have secret negotiations. So if the Minister of Mines and Energy wants to have secret negotiations about oil and gas, well, then he can do so. If he wants to have secret negotiations or negotiations in private about the Lower Churchill, our hydroelectric power, then he can do that as well. They can basically negotiate all the resources of this Province away, have the deals done and the people will never know what happened, what the reason were or why they did it. That is why this amendment is so very, very important to this legislation.

This is a piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information. The government is taking great pride in this legislation on the basis that information will be more accessible to the people of this Province. That is not what I see in this legislation. I see restrictions throughout this legislation. Time periods that are exhausted, but I will go through those. Time periods of over a year before you could possibly get information. Every step of the way that are hooks here to make sure that if government does not want to give you the information, then they do not have to. If the information is timely and is needed quickly, then they could put it off for as long a time so that you will evidently go away. The other way they can get you, they can charge you fees for that information. The Opposition had an experience - and I was not here at the time - whereby in order to get information on water samples, this government opposite was going to charge $10,000 - is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, 10,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten thousand dollars to get the information on water. Look at what has happened with the water in this Province. There is contamination throughout this Province. Look at the story yesterday on arsenic in our water samples.

An elderly resident of this Province had ten times the arsenic levels; ten times. A young child, I believe a nine-year-old child; four times. They do not want to release that information or otherwise, if you want to go look for that information you might have to pay $10,000.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

(Inaudible) to the general public, that every water test that is done in this Province is for public consumption. There is no need to make a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Environment. As soon as these tests are done, as soon as the samples are put on the Web site - before that, the towns are notified of what they are.

Mr. Chairman, for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place today and imply to the people of the Province that he has to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act is absolutely wrong. He should be ashamed.

CHAIR: There is a point of information but no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that in the past this government had attempted to charge people seeking information - whether it is the Opposition, whether it is the media, or whether it is a private individual - as much as $10,000 for that information.

MR. FITZGERALD: Shameful.

MR. WILLIAMS: These are the kind of things that we are trying to prevent in this legislation. These are the kind of things we want to make sure does not happen. If this is going to be open and accessible, as the government says it is, then open it up. Make the information readily available. Shorten the time frames. Let people get access to that information on a timely basis when they need it.

To come back to my original point; this particular amendment, which we are suggesting, would delete the section which has been added by the government which would allow continued, secret negotiations on Voisey's Bay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to politicize this issue, but when I first saw this amendment from the Opposition I called it the Voisey's Bay amendment for very obvious reasons. I think what is being missed here is the intent of this act. What is in here is being missed when you cherry-pick certain phrases, and I might say very small phrases, out of it.

Section 23, that we are talking about here, is a discretionary section. The premise under which this act works is that there is a right of access in this Province. There are certain prescribed exceptions where you shall not release the information and then the rest are discretionary. In this case here again, the Leader of the Opposition has omitted to say or he is not giving much credit to the Ombudsman being able to do his job. Section 23 is based on a discretionary section. It uses the word, may. As I explained to this House on Monday past, if the applicant is not satisfied with the information they get, they can certainly ask the Ombudsman to intervene. There is a safeguard here.

I would also point out that, if you look at the context of section 23, reasonableness, I think most people in this Province understand what reasonableness is. You talked about section 23.(1)(b) where is says may or may not disclose, "financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to a public body or to the government of the province and that has, or" - and these are the operative words - "is likely to have, monetary value."

There may be, for example, some tax changes that are being contemplated. It may not be appropriate, it may not be in the best interests of the public body, to have that information.

With regard to Voisey's Bay again, and the negotiations, as referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier has been quite explicit with the public as to the parameters of those negotiations. He said the public ought to know the parameters of the Voisey's Bay negotiations. I would suggest that anybody who has listened to the news in this Province, or read any kind of newspaper, or saw any press release, or saw this Premier in this House of Assembly enunciating on Voisey's Bay, he has always been very clear in setting out the parameters.

With regard to the details, that is what the obligation and the responsibility of the Administration is to do. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would like to have every nitty-gritty piece of detailed information about Voisey's Bay, but unfortunately that is not his call to make. It is the Administration's call to make, whether it is in the public interest, as a matter of policy, whether you should have every itsy-bitsy detailed piece of information in a negotiation out there. This Administration again, following the recommendations of the committee, are trying to strike a balance: What is the public's right to know versus what is in the public's interest by not disclosing it at a particular time. That is what is being done here; balance is being achieved.

We talk about cherry-picking. We did indeed cherry-pick. What we have done here is, we have cherry-picked the other jurisdictions and we picked the best from the rest, and that is what we have in this act.

We cannot support the amendment put forward by the Opposition.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to section 23, as proposed by the Opposition, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 23 carried without amendment.

On motion, clauses 24 through 28 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 29 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Basically, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a discussion, actually, with the hon. the Minister of Justice on this one. This is more a kind of housecleaning type of thing.

Basically clause 29.(1) as it reads, says, "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant." That is generally inconsistent with clause 38 which says, "A public body may disclose personal information only..." in certain exceptions.

The only concern there was, as to whether there was some inconsistency, whether in fact they should be read together or they should be combined. We are certainly very flexible on it; we just want to make sure the legislation is tight.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: The difference between section 29, which falls in Part III, is, it talks about disclosure of the information to the applicant, the individual involved. When we are talking about section 38, it is within Part IV, which talks about how any information that is in the system is used or may or may not be used by the public bodies, between one another; whereas section 29 deals with an applicant directly coming to a public body looking for information about himself or herself. Section 38 deals with: How do public bodies deal with any information they have about individuals amongst their different agencies?

We, in fact, had proposed - there was some concern raised in second reading by the Leader of the Opposition concerning that use within public bodies, and what information could or could not be given out. We have, in fact, proposed an amendment to section 38 to give greater clarity to the section 38 concerns that were raised.

I do not know if you want to deal with the section 38 amendment now, or deal with it when we get to it, because it is different from 29. Twenty-nine deals with an applicant getting information, whereas 38 deals with how information within public bodies is exchanged between public bodies.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I accept your comments, Minister of Justice, and I understand that they are from separate sections. My only concern was that there was an inconsistency in the actual statements between 29 and 38. If the department is comfortable with that, and the drafts people are comfortable with it, then we would certainly be in favour of it.

On motion, clause 29 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 30 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 30.(1), "Whether or not a request for access is made, the head of a public body shall, without delay, disclose to the public, to an affected group of people or to an applicant, information about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public...".

The amendment which has been suggested by the Opposition is to delete the word significant, and our concern it quite simple. Who decides what is significant harm to the environment or public safety? The question is, in whose discretion is it? Harm to the environment and harm to public safety is significant anyway, in our opinion.

The amendment that we are suggesting to the Minister of Justice if quite simple: Delete the word significant and just deal with harm to the environment and harm to public safety.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, we cannot agree with the removal of the word significant from that section. I would point out, first of all, that I do not know of any other jurisdiction that has the positive onus that is placed upon government here to release this information, mandatory, even above any exemptions that are given to Cabinet or anyone else. This is a very proactive, positive comment in itself by having this section in here, because oftentimes there were concerns raised in some jurisdictions about: What if government had information and did not release it and it caused the public harm? This section now puts the onus on government, regardless if it is in Cabinet, regardless of where it is. If it is a significant public harm, it must be released.

Now, I can appreciate the question raised as to who determines significance. That is, in fact, a legitimate concern, but we think again here, we are talking here, the onus is shall. So, there is no discretion here on a the public servant not to release it. In fact, the clear indication is that they shall release it. It is not a case of they get it and hold onto it to figure out: Well, we are not going to bother with this until someone asks. By having the mandatory provision on the public official that I shall release it, it forces the public official to consider: What does that word significant mean? If you just take out the word significant, we have no guidelines at all. Every piece of information shall positively, absolutely, be released.

There may, for example, be some cases where you may have information that may be of, I use the word, insignificant harm to a small group; yet, by releasing that information, you may cause chaos in the public. Just to leave it open with no parameters at all could have the adverse effect of what you are trying to accomplish. Instead of doing something in the public interest, you could, in fact, be doing the public a disservice by causing unnecessary concern.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have to disagree with the minister, and I will put this in the context of an actual event that occurred in this Legislature. We talk about significant harm. Let me say first of all, throughout clauses within this particular bill there are phrases like this that give government the broad discretion and allow government to define, for example, what is significant or what is not.

For example, Members in this Legislature would remember the debate that occurred with respect to THM levels in water. That whole debate did not result or come about as a result of information released by the government. As a matter of fact, information that government had, I guess, on the trouble with our waters within the Province, within the public drinking systems, on THM levels, government sat on the report for a significant period of time. The Opposition of the day, through probing and questioning, forced the government to release the information. It was some time after that it took that probing and questioning, and public pressure, I might add, to get government to release the report on THMs within the Province.

Now, if we wanted to apply the definition, as it is here - and I will pose this to the Minister of Justice or to other ministers who may be involved. If we wanted to apply that case to this particular clause in the legislation, then guess what? The report on THMs would not have been considered significant harm to the public, and that is the point we are making. That no matter if you had significant harm or just harm, Minister, it still allows very open, discretionary power for the government of the day - not just a public official, by the way. This is not just about officials within the bureaucracy, but political heads of departments. It allows that broad discretionary power to exist in law for you to decide what is significant and what is not. That is the point of the amendment that we are putting forward, in terms of opening up. If something is harmful, generally speaking, to the public, then why shouldn't the public have access to it, such as THMs in water levels in Newfoundland and Labrador?

I recall at the time, for example, as that debate was raging, I sent a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Environment. Within a day, I received a letter from the ministry, and signed by the minister saying: Yes, Mr. Byrne, you are allowed to have the information - I was Leader of the Opposition at the time - but the department is going to charge you $10,000 to have that information.

Now, just think about it, in the pursuit and exercise of our duty in the House - we have a duty in this House as the Official Opposition, a parliamentary role, a legitimate role - the Minister of Environment of the day did not see fit to say that the report and the information concerning THMs in water in the Province was of significant harm to the public, so they did not release it. Public pressure and questioning from the Opposition accomplished that. Then when we sought more information, the minister said: We are going to charge you $10,000 to get that information because it would take us such a long time to collate it and get it together for you.

What was interesting about the response is that the information we were looking for was the very information that the minister should have had on his desk at the time in order to make the decisions that he made at the time. So the question it comes back to is discretionary power. Whether you call it significant harm or harm, you are still going to have to provide a definition or a judgement call. Our take and our view is: Eliminate the word significant. What does that mean? Does it mean, for example, that the testing that is going on now or testing that has gone on, on any variety of matters, say on teepee incinerators out in Harbour Grace, for example, and the testing that may have gone on or should be going on, is that of significant harm? Will that be released? Does it mean, for example, information related to -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the Minister of Environment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I just want to point out for the Opposition House Leader, he brought up a question about the Harbour Grace incinerator, which my critic sent out a press release on yesterday, saying that I refused to do the testing. That, Madam Chair, is absolutely false.

The testing on the water supply in the Harbour Grace area is done. I am expecting the results in three or four days. When the town is notified what these results are anybody in the public, who is interested, can have those results.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Minister of Environment is an example of what a minister should be doing then. If that is the case, then he is an example and I applaud him for it. What the point is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, if. If that is what has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is fair enough, but the point is this: in terms of this section, section 30, the minister has decided, if this were true today, that if it is of significant harm, he will release it. What about another minister or on another issue? Our view is that it provides too broad of a discretionary power in this act, under Freedom of Information, for you, as government. Not you individually, you people or members here, but for government, whether it is today, next year, the year after, or five years from now, that it provides too much discretionary power for government to define what is significant and what is not significant. I think that is the point that we are trying to make. In our view, this is what we would consider a friendly amendment to this particular clause under Bill 49, the Freedom of Information Act.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I realize the difficulty with the word significant here, but I assure the hon. member opposite that this is a big step compared to where we were. We had no requirements whatsoever before. There is no other jurisdiction in the country that has a requirement in this regard. We have taken a step here, instead of even letting it be discretionary in a department head, we are mandating that a department head, who receives any information - we have to apply some practically here. It is not the department head, for example, who is not experienced in the scientific ways or what the medical means are, they are going to make their advice based upon the recommendations of their officials as to whether it is significant or not significant, but once those officials make those recommendations, those findings are made that it is significant, there is no discretion any further. The act requires that it shall be released. That is a far cry from what we had before, which was nothing in this regard.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, while that may be true, in terms that it is a far cry from what we had, we are debating now what we are going to have now and into the future. You cannot say with all sincerity: Yes, as a political head of the department, or any department, you take recommendations and advice from your officials. Yes, the bureaucracy provides you, as the political head of your department, with advice, information on a wide variety of topics. In all honesty, as a political head and a minister of a department, surely it is up to you to either reject or accept that advise. Isn't that right?

What the minister is saying now is that once the officials provide you with the information or a recommendation that this is significant or not, then it is done; you follow their advise automatically. Surely, we have enough examples by this Administration where advise from a variety of departments has not been followed, because ministers have exercised their parliamentary privilege, I suppose, in making judgements and judgement calls on what has been significant, whether it be dealt with a public tender, whether it deals with procurement, whether it deals with hospital boards, whether it deals with consultants, whether it deals with educational boards, whether it deals with the number of doctors and rural physicians, whether it deals with the number of nurses and nurse practitioners, or whether it deals with ferries and the use of the ferry service in the Province. Surely, you cannot stand up and argue that, at the end of a process if something is asked for under the Freedom of Information Act, you, as a minister or any other ministers, under this section will not have the absolute right to define for yourselves what is significant or not. That is the point.

This is not just about the bureaucracy providing ministers with information and saying, this is the recommendation, and you automatically follow it. That is not necessarily so. The point of the matter is that the definition, under clause 30, in terms of significant harm: What does it mean? It means that you, as the Minister of the Department of Justice -

MR. RIDEOUT: The definition (inaudible) says the minister is the head.

MR. E. BYRNE: As my colleague from Lewisporte, who has a tremendous amount of Cabinet experience, has correctly pointed out for me, it is right in the act. I mean, the minister is the political head of the department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is the head of the department. No, is the head, period. Exactly.

The problem is that under this section, as you go from department to department, the definition of ‘significant harm' can change from what you believe it is, what the Minister of Government Services and Lands may believe it could be, or what the Minister of Health may believe it to be. Not only that, that could be driven by what the issue is. Is it in the public interest to have this information out now or is it not? Is that somewhat intertwined with what may be in the government's interest and what is not? So, it leaves that door open for definitions to change from department to department.

I agree with the minister, this is a step forward in terms of what is here already, but, having said that, if we are going to make a step forward, then may we have an opportunity to make a huge step forward, for everybody in the Province. After all, that is what we are here for.

So, that is the point I would like to make in terms of, you know, speaking directly; that while you as a minister may get recommendations from officials and staff, you still have the discretionary right to define for yourself, on any particular issue, should this section stand, on what constitutes significant harm, and that may change from department to department. That is the problem we have with it.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 30.(1) carry, as proposed by the Opposition?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 30 carried without amendment.

On motion, clauses 31 and 32 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall Clause 33 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition was probably addressing the same amendment that I was. We had referenced them earlier. We made a couple of similar changes back in 16.(1)(c). We would delete the words "shall make a reasonable effort" from section 33 and substitute the words "shall make every reasonable effort".

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have already debated this issue. This amendment has been put forward and we are in agreement with this amendment.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 33, as amended, carried.

On motion clause 34 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 35 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I believe that is a similar amendment, Minister of Justice, "make every reasonable effort". The amendment we made was similar to clause 33. If that is the case, "The head of a public body shall protect personal information by making reasonable security arrangements...". Is the intent to amend that? I understood there was some discussion in Committee on that.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: We are not agreeable to the amendment in this particular section. We are dealing with section 35. "The head of a public body shall protect personal information by making reasonable security arrangements against such risks as unauthorized access, collection, use, disclosure or disposal."

The onus here is on the public official. They cannot not comply with the provision of information. We did not feel it was appropriate to put staff in a situation where, even though they had made reasonable efforts to do something, because they had not made every reasonable effort they could become subject to some kind of penalty or prosecution themselves. We didn't think it was appropriate in that case.

On motion, clause 35 carried without amendment.

On motion, clause 36 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 37 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, we had, in fact, proposed an amendment to section 37. It had been circulated earlier. It is proposed that we would renumber 37 to be 37.(1) and add a subsection 37.(2).

This concern was also raised in second reading. The concern that was raised in second reading was, you have all this personal information here in Part IV that is contained in different government agencies, and the question is: What rules or regulations govern how it may be directed between the agencies? There was concern raised that one department might need or require information legitimately for some purpose, but in that case you should only have the information that you need for the legitimate purpose and not have access to information that has nothing to do with the legitimate purpose.

The concern was raised, and what we are suggesting is, we could go through each of the subsections but the generic clause to prevent that, we propose, would be: The use of personal information by a public body shall be limited to the minimum amount of information necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it is used.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, this section and section 38 are two sections that give me particular concern. I am going to deal now with both sections, if that is acceptable, in the sense of just speaking to both sections.

When this was introduced and on second reading, I referred specifically to section 38 which says, "A public body may disclose personal information...". What becomes important, then, is: What is personal information?

Under section 38 it says, a public body may disclose personal information under nineteen different sets of circumstances, from (a) to (s), nineteen separate categories when personal information can be disclosed. I am not going to go through every one of them because I think it would be wasting the time of the Legislature and I do not intend to do that, but it is an area of very serious concern here because it allows public bodies to disclose personal information.

Some of the situations where they can disclose personal information are: if the Attorney General wants to use this information in civil proceedings started by the government. So, if the government has sued me personally, or some citizen of the Province, then they can use this personal information. For the purpose of enacting a legal right that the government has. So, if the government has any right under any piece of legislation in this Province, then they can use that personal information for the purpose of enforcing that right.

Another example: for the purpose of collecting a debt or fine. So, in the minor situation where you have a traffic ticket which you have not paid, that this a fine, that is an outstanding fine. Therefore, under that circumstance the government, under this particular piece of legislation, could use or could disclose your personal information. That does not become important until we decide what personal information is. What is the personal information that they may use or may disclose? That personal information is defined under section 2 of the act. Madam Chair, allow me to read what the definition of personal information is "2.(o) "personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual..." - the first few are relatively harmless. It includes 2.(o)(i), "the individual's name, address or telephone number" - general information readily available.

Then it gets a little more serious. It talks about 2.(o)(ii), "the individual's race, national or ethnic origin, colour, or religious or political beliefs...". So, if I have a traffic ticket, should the government be able to disclose or use information about my religion or my political beliefs?

The suggested amendment is the minimum amount of information, but the problem is: Who decides what the minimum is, and when do you decide what the minimum is? Is it after you are in a court or after the information has been disclosed? Now, somebody in that courtroom or somebody in that general setting understands and knows what your religion is, what your politics is. That is not information that should be used on a traffic ticket.

More personal information is 2.(o)(iii), "the individual's age, sex"- these are obvious; that is information that is readily available, but - "sexual orientation...". There is no reason why the sexual orientation of an individual should be allowed to be disclosed if the Attorney General decides to sue that person in a civil suit. That information should not be permitted. That is private information. It should not be public. It is personal; it should not be disclosed; "...marital status or family status..."

Subsection 2.(o)(iv), "an identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual," (v) the individual's fingerprints, blood type or inheritable characteristics." Now, fingerprints and blood type should not be necessarily made available to identify somebody who owes money to government. If someone out there has an outstanding debt to government for, say, $10,000 and government decides that in order to properly trace this person or track this person, or identify this person, then under this section they could use their fingerprints or their blood type. Now, there are sections in the Criminal Code that only allow the use of blood type or fingerprints under very, very, very special circumstances, so that shouldn't be allowed.

The lists goes on. It gets even more serious, 2.(o)(vi) "information about the individual's health care status or history, including a physical or mental disability...". So, if I have some physical impairment and it is in the public records somewhere, or I have some mental impairment and it is in the public records somewhere, and someone in a minister's department decides that, for some reason, in some action by the government, to enforce a legal right or to collect some money or to give information to an MHA under one of the sections, then my physical or mental impairments become relevant information and they can be disclosed.

Next, 2.(o)(vii) "information about the individual's educational, financial, criminal, or employment history." Now we are talking about political beliefs, religious beliefs, fingerprints, blood type, physical disability, mental disability. Now we are talking about a person's educational history, their financial history. If somewhere there has been some disclosure to some government body of the financial situation of a person, then that could be considered relevant, minimum information in an action by the Crown against that person, because they need to know what the net worth of that person is.

Criminal or employment status or history. This is information that your mother would not know. That is the truth. This is information that the mother or the father or the brother or the sister or the son or the daughter of an individual probably would not know, but under this section government has a right to use it or disclose it. That is clearly wrong.

The last couple take the cake. I do not know where these two come from, but the last two sections talk about disclosure of personal information. Personal information that can be disclosed includes the opinions of a person about an individual. If somewhere, sometime, someone gave an opinion to government about me, my colleagues, or hon. members opposite, which was a personal opinion, and that is on the record, then that can be disclosed. According to the amendment which is being suggested by the hon. Minister of Justice, it will only be the minimum amount of information. But, who decides what is minimum, and at what point? This is very serious stuff. Very personal information, but it has gone beyond that. It is not only the facts about the person, it has now gone to somebody's opinion about that person.

Finally, the final clause is the individual's personal views or opinions. If you have personal, private views or opinions and you have disclosed them to government for whatever reason you disclose them, they are on the record, and under section 38 government can ask to use that information and can use it and can disclose it. The point that is being made by the Minister of Justice is that we will only use the minimum.

I consider this, Madam Chair, to be a very significant amendment. Without going down through all of the amendments that the Opposition have suggested, and I do not intend to do that, it is suffice to say that we feel there should be significant limitations on this right. We are not satisfied by the fact that the Minister of Justice is proposing the minimum use of that information. This type of information should not be provided to government. It is very personal information and it should not be disclosed under any circumstances.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, this is, indeed, a very important section, section 38. I think it probably requires some clarification so the people understand clearly what we have now in this Province and where we are going with this, and make sure that what we have here is in context. That is not to suggest that it has been deliberately taken out of context. We have absolutely nothing in this Province right now when it comes to the protection of privacy and the information that is in government hands vis-à-vis how one department uses it or another. If the Department of Fisheries has information and the Department of Finance has information, there are no controls that exist right now in this Province. That is why this privacy piece, Part IV, is so important to this act. For the first time we are going to put rules and regulations on what information you can collect and once you collect it, how you can use it.

We are going to have two situations here and we have to understand those. We are going to have a situation of fifty years of pooled information that exists in government departments that we have no rules on how it was ever collected or what rules are going to apply to it after. Now we are going to have rules on a go forward basis as to any private information accumulated in future: How does it come into the hands of public bodies? How do you collect it and how do you use it? It is very clear, you have to understand the difference between what was there pre-act and what is going to be their post-act.

I cannot emphasize enough that we cannot overlook section 31. Everything is premised here. Once we get that act and tells us what we are going to do in the future, and I will deal with that first. It says very clearly what we are going to have in the possession of public bodies.

"31. No personal information may be collected by or for a public body unless (a) the collection of that information is expressly authorized by or under an Act; or (b) that information is collected for the purposes of law enforcement; or (c) that information relates directly to and is necessary for an operating..." a public program.

Section 32 goes on to say, you cannot get it. You have to have the consent of the individual in the future, if you want their information. You cannot get any information in the future, a public body can't, without the individual knowing. You have to go to the individual. They have to consent. What do you want? What do you want it for?

Those items referred to in the definition section are very broad. It tells you what personal information is and contrary to deluding it, or government using it for improper purposes, that is the whole purpose of having a wide definition for personal property, because someone's sexual orientation is none of government's business. Someone's opinions on something is none of government's business. That is why the definition of personal is so broad that: government it is none of your business. Instead of staying out of the bedrooms, stay out of these things as well. That is why it is intentionally very broad.

The difficulty we are going to have here, and we have to face this upfront - we are not going to have any concern about on a go-forward basis how information is used because we are only going to have the stuff that the individual gave us. You can only use it then if you have the consent of the individual. That should not be overlooked in section 37. You can only use it if the individual consents to it, in section 37.

What section 38 says is: in certain prescribed circumstances. So even though government has your information and even though government has to tell you before they can do anything with your information, section 38 says there are some exceptions where government will be allowed to use it. For example, the traffic ticket reference referred to. By the way, that is why we are putting in the amendment to section 38, because if an individual has a traffic ticket owing to the Crown, for example, it is none of government's business what the person's sexual orientation is. It is none of the government's business what the person's public opinion was. That is why we propose this amendment to section 38, so that if you are doing one of the legitimate exceptions under section 38, you can only get information. That is assuming you even have it on schedule or have it in your possession, because you are not supposed to have it if they did not give it to you in the first place. Even if you have it, because they gave it to you, you can only get the information. If you are collecting a traffic ticket, what do you need to collect a traffic ticket? Now we may take a position that government should not be going out collecting its fines. I wish, in fact, we were more successful at our fine collection.

The issue is: What do we need to collect a fine? We are going to need the person's name. We are going to need the person's address. We do not need to know the person's sexual orientation if we are collecting a fine. The government does not need to know that type of information anyway. Your mother does not know and government should not know. That is why the parameter here is set up to make it so broad. You cannot have it in government or any public body without the person's knowledge and consent. If you are going to use it, you only use the amount that you need to use for the purpose that is expressly accepted under section 38.

The difficulty we have, and we are going to have and we fully realize this, is in terms of implementation. I mentioned on the last day about the information management system. A major problem trying to get the information management system up to scratch whereby if people want the information, you can get it to them in the time limits here. A major undertaking.

Another big problem we have here is we have all kinds of information in government that probably was not here with the person's consent because these rules did not exist. So we realize there is going to be a trial period. What do we do with the fifty years of information that we have, that was not collected pursuant to the privacy rules? That is why we have to have reasonable parameters here if the government is going to make use of it. The act only deals with the stuff we get after this.

I think this is a very relevant section that comes into play and a lot of the comments that are being made here. We realized when the committee recommended - I believe it is in section 73 - a statutory five-year review. That is very critical to a lot of these, albeit, worthwhile amendments. In a lot of acts, it is discretionary. Sometimes government does not get around to looking. If you want to review them, you do it depending on whether you have time or not.

The committee recommended here, and it is specifically included as section 73, that there shall be a mandatory review of this act after five years. That is very deliberate. It is deliberate because we realize, when it comes to the privacy piece of this legislation, that we never did it before. We do not know the impact of getting the information in, we do not know the impact of using the fifty years of information that we have, and we realize that we have to do it right and proper. That is why we do not want to have an act that goes on without any time lines without review. We want to mandate it here. There shall be a five-year statutory review.

I appreciate the concerns, but I think the way the Act is geared here, the intent is to protect those things from disclosure, not to have those things disclosed. That might be harmful to someone.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will attempt to be brief, but I am extremely concerned about these two sections, to a point where I would prefer, and I am sure the Opposition would prefer, if they were deleted in their entirety. They are extremely dangerous. We are not trying to cast any reflection whatsoever on the Minister of Justice or hon. members opposite. However, the question is: Who is going to exercise this discretion and, if it gets exercised improperly, then the cat is out of the bag, all this information is out. This information is already there. People have probably quite willingly consented to it being provided and being provided for a proper use. Once it is in the jar, it is in the jar. Then it can be taken out and it can be used again.

My concern is not so much a fine. A fine is an example, but you could use fingerprints or blood type to try and identify somebody for purposes of a fine. That is a stretch. But an action by the Attorney General for a civil proceeding or for the enforcement of a legal right: I mean what would prevent you from deciding that the physical or the mental disability is important, or perhaps an opinion which had been expressed was important, and becomes relevant? You see, any of these things can be used in a trial.

I just went, last year, through a lengthy trial with the Crown, a motor vehicle trial, a young woman who was seriously brain damaged. That action was taken because we felt, at that particular point in time, that the roads were not properly maintained. In fact, at the end of that trial there was a partial finding that the Crown was partially contributory, being negligent for that particular action. In that, over the course of two months, we covered a whole spectrum of things. It could quite legitimately be argued that, because the person I was representing was a person who had been brain damaged in that accident, then her physical or mental disability or any information that was on the public record could become very, very relevant.

So, you know, to say it is restrictive or to say you could use a minimum amount of information is very, very dangerous. I would trust the hon. the Minister of Justice to use that information properly; no problem. He is an honourable gentleman. However, we can't allow broad discretion to be given to people in departments who could take this information for their own purposes. I mean, that is what can happen.

Even section 37 that talks about, may use personal information for the purpose for which it was collected, the person has consented, or for a purpose under section 38. So, it can be one of those purposes under section 38. I mean, once that information is in the hands of government, then it could be released. And I go back. I mean, the things that are listed here are very, very private, personal matters: the sexual orientation; the political beliefs; religious beliefs; fingerprints; blood type; physical and mental disability; educational, financial, criminal or employment history. Educational, financial, criminal or employment history could all be used in a civil action by the Attorney General. It could all be relevant information. Employment history, financial history, criminal history could be very, very relevant.

I think these two sections are extremely dangerous, and it is my feeling, and I suggest it would be the feeling of the Opposition members, that these two sections should be deleted. I really think that it is an invasion of privacy, rather than protection of privacy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 37 carry, as proposed by the minister?

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: Against, nay.

Motion carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 37, as amended, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Clause 38.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Madam Chair, we propose - and this has been circulated, I believe, some time ago - with regards to section 38, a similar amendment as we just proposed for section 37, adding subsection (2) to read that the disclosure of personal information by a public body shall be limited to the minimum amount of information necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it was disclosed.

Also, with respect to section 38(i), it is proposed that we strike out the words ‘an individual' where they twice occur, and substituting the words ‘the individual the information is about'.

The purpose of that to section 38.(i) is, of course, that it would clarify that, personal information released for the purpose of collecting a debt, or making a payment, must be about the person who owes the fine or to whom the payment is to be made.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 38.(i) carry as amended by the Minister of Justice?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Aye'.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Nay'.

 

MADAM CHAIR: Amendment carried

On motion clause 38.(i), with amendment carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 38, as amended by adding a subclause, as proposed by the Minister, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Aye'.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: ‘Nay'.

MADAM CHAIR: Amendment carried.

On motion, clause 38, with amendments, carried.

On motion, clauses 39 through 43 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 44 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: There was an amendment put forward by the Opposition asking, with respect to section 44.(1), that the extension of time for review by the Citizens' Representative be changed to twenty days in the case of a third party, and thirty days to one year. We have agreed to change it to sixty days.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, I believe it was the Opposition's preference that we have a year to give people maximum time. Under these circumstances, we feel that the sixty days is a reasonable amendment. We concur.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 44.(1)(a), as proposed by the minister, carry?

All those in favour,‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

MADAM CHAIR: Carried/

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 44, as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 45 through 46, carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 47 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clause 47 states, "The Citizens' Representative shall complete a review and make a report under section 48 within 90 days of receiving the request for review. This is just another one of the sections where the Opposition feels that the time frames should be shortened. There are several matters that are of concern to the Opposition in the Act, and in situations where we feel that Cabinet documents and Cabinet confidences and that, the time period should be reduced so that we have access to them as well.

The other thing is the whole process, the timing of actually getting information; going into the system and coming out of the system and getting the information that you requested. Another major issue which we will deal with is the whole question of the teeth and the Ombudsman. The fact that the Ombudsman, once he gets it, has the power to order, not recommend. This particular section deals with the power of the Ombudsman, and says that person then "shall compete a review and make a report under section 48 within 90 days of receiving the request for review."

The problem is, of course, that once the review is completed, the Citizens' Representative, or the Ombudsman, then only has a power to recommend and not to order. So, basically, the exercise, from our perspective - it would be unfair to say its futile because there may be some resolution, but the Ombudsman, the Citizens' Representative, has no power.

What I would like to point out is, this is one section in the time frame, and I would like to just go quickly through the process that is involved here, if I want to start or anybody else in the Province wanted to start or the media wanted to try and get some information out of the system. According to my calculations, it could be at least a year or more if you go through all the process in order to get the information that is required.

Under the existing Act, the minister has thirty days to respond to a request. So, I make a request for information, the minister then has thirty days. Before that times starts ticking, there are certain hurdles, of course, that you would have to get over. You have to get over certain sections under the Act whereby the minister can refuse to proceed. That is if the request is comprehensible, in the minister's opinion; if the request is repetitive, in the minister's opinion; if there is a question of reasonableness; or if it is unreasonable, in the minister's opinion. Assuming that you get over those hurdles, then that clock starts to tick.

Under section 16, then, after the thirty days, a minister has seven days to transfer that request, in which case the clock starts at zero again. So, he has seven days to transfer it and if it is transferred, you start all over again.

Under section 10, the minister then has thirty days to make a reasonable effort to respond, but it is up to the minister to decide what is reasonable. So, you have thirty days to commence the request and then thirty days to respond.

Under section 15, the minister can then get a thirty-day extension. Our practice has been, of course, you have seen ministers have basically pushed this to the end because it is a nuisance, I guess, because you have to get this information. It takes time, it is time-consuming, so ministers are going to push that to the end. So now that can get to a sixty or sixty-seven day boundary under the act. If you assume that ministers can take this to the extreme, they can now go sixty-seven days before that information is obtained; or, quite simply, they can say: This is unreasonable information; we are just not going to provide it. They can take you out two months and seven days.

Under sections 26 and 28, if a third party is involved, now another thirty-day period begins, so sixty, sixty-seven. If it is reasonable then you can get over that hurdle, but if there is a third party now you have another thirty-day period you have to get over.

Under section 13, a minister can say that the information is going to be published anyway within ninety days, so therefore now we have another extension. We agreed two days ago that would be reduced to forty-five days. We have now amended it to forty-five days, so we have gone sixty-seven days, thirty days, plus forty-five days.

Now, under section 13 the minister can also decide for a period of time that he or she does not have to publish that information at all. That then throws it back to day one again and the clock starts ticking all over again. A brand new request, another thirty days, another thirty-day extension. If the information had been transferred among the ministers in the first seven days, we will be talking about a period of more than three months before we can even get to the appeal process.

Under section 47, which is the section we are considering right now, if a person appeals the decision, the Citizens' Representative has ninety days to consider that matter. So we have now gone more than three months, if you can get their unreasonableness, and now you have to wait ninety days for a decision from the Citizens' Representative who has no power to order anyway. It is a meaningless decision. If the government does not want to listen to his recommendation then it is meaningless, absolutely meaningless, so we have now gone on six months.

Your recourse after that is, then you go to the courts. We know how long it takes to get through the courts. You could conceivably be well beyond a year. The Citizens' Representative makes a recommendation, government does not listen, then you have the option of going to the courts, and you are now well beyond a year. In our opinion, that is not access to information. That is wrong.

All our efforts in these amendments that we put before the hon. members over the last couple of days is to shorten that time frame, to make information more accessible, to make it accessible to the general public, to make it accessible to the media.

I think we saw that story that was in The Telegram, I think, a couple of years ago, where there was a big exposé about the inability to access information. That was one of the same articles in which it appeared that it was $10,000 to access information.

MR. E. BYRNE: They charged us, yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. We were charged $10,000 to try and find information on water samples.

There is all kinds of discretion in all the ministers; they can decide what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. They can stretch the time limits out for a full year. They can charge you fees that are prohibitive so that if you do not have enough money to pay the piper to get that information, then you do not get it. Then they throw out the Citizens' Representative as being the be-all and end-all. You can appeal to the Ombudsman, to the Citizens' Representative, and that person has no power to recommend. This piece of legislation is nothing but a sham.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, I will not regurgitate the rational logical reasons I gave Monday past for why we have accepted here a recommendation procedure as opposed to an order-power. It was made quite clear. There are some jurisdictions that have order-powers; there are some that have recommendation powers. The phrase I used on Monday was, I guess, like many things in this act, particularly the privacy piece as well: you have to learn to walk before you can run; and, I guess, don't jump in a puncheon if a barrel will hold you.

We have had it recommended to us. The committee members with whom I spoke went to Ontario and they gave evidence before this committee, by the way, the House committee itself. Ms Dawe, who was the chair of that committee, came in here and explained that they went and spoke to the officials in Ontario who administer their act. That is a jurisdiction where they have an order-power. They commented there, that if you are getting into this the first time around, you are better off starting with the recommendation power rather than jumping in both feet into an order-power situation. It is just so complex. If you do not have your privacy piece done, if you do not have your information management systems done, it is useless and hopeless for you to try to get this thing off the ground.

That is another reason, I might add, that we put in section 73. We have taken the recommendation of the committee here regarding a recommendation power. As I say, that comment came even from Ontario, where they have an order-power. They said: Learn to walk before you try to run. That is the purpose here. It is not being evasive. It is not wanting to do what is right. It is a case of following the recommendations which we had from the people who did the checks and did the review on this. It is not a case of hiding anything. It is a case of wanting to do it right. We realize this is a major, major undertaking.

Regarding section 47, I would comment again, the reference to ninety days. The suggested amendment was to reduce the ninety-day period. Again, this outlines the amount of time that the commissioner has. The commissioner shall complete a review. If someone is not satisfied when they ask government for information, they have made a complaint to the commissioner, the commissioner has ninety days. It is commented in the act here that the commissioner, part of his role is to try to resolve the complaint, not only to review it; he has a mediation role. That is referenced right in section 43. The suggestion is - and again looking at other jurisdictions - why did we pick ninety days? Manitoba, Alberta, and B.C. all have ninety days. Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan and the federal government do not have any limits. They leave it open.

The information commissioner in those jurisdictions, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and the federal government, do not have any limits on when he or she must report back from a review. We think, rather than leaving it loose and open-ended, when a review commissioner may have it, and have it forever and a day, and there is no obligation for him to review and report, ninety days is a very reasonable period of time.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 47 carry, as proposed by the Opposition?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 47 carried without amendment.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clause 48 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clause 48 of the Freedom of Information Act, proposed act, deals specifically with the Citizens' Representative. This part of the act deals with reporting by the Citizens' Representative. Specifically, clause 48.(1) says, "On completing a review, the Citizens' Representative shall (a) prepare a report containing the Citizens' Representative's findings on the review and where appropriate, his or her recommendations and the reasons for those recommendations; and (b) send a copy of the report to the person requesting the review, the head of the public body concerned and a third party who was notified under section 46."

Madam Chair, this is yet another section where we have talked about, throughout the discussion on this bill, where the Citizens' Representative in this view really has very, very little teeth, if I can put it that way. It is the power to review, the power to recommend, but it is not the power to order. Again, in terms of drawing the dividing line on our view on this particular piece of legislation, one of the fundamental differences from what is proposed and what we have proposed as amendments is to try to give the act some more power, more teeth, and the Citizens' Representative, in particular, the power to order, not the power just to review and recommend.

Practically speaking, what happens if the Minister of Industry, Trade and I send over a request, or a citizen in the Province sends a request, and we go through the time frames as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, which could conceivably happen, and I predict will happen in some cases. Guaranteed! Absolutely! It could happen with anybody, depending on the issue. Here is the problem: It may not happen five times out of ten chances, but you can bet your bottom dollar, Madam Chair, that if it comes to a contentious issue, that a government of the day, and in particular this government, does not want released, what will happen? The act can be used in such a fashion, in such a way, that the review process, or the information that we are looking for, or a citizen is looking for, the time frames could be extended - no need to review the time frames on what could happen, because the Leader of the Opposition has done it - of what could happen, that we could get to the point where the Citizens' Representative gets involved at the end of the process and has the power to recommend. What good does that do to anybody looking for information when the Citizens' Representative has the power to recommend only after all of the hurdles and roadblocks that could be put up for people looking for information, or the Official Opposition looking for information - great - we should take little comfort in the fact that the Citizens' Representative, given the powers outlined in section 48, that we have the power to recommend.

A power to recommend does what? It gets to an annual report by the Citizens' Representative in some Question Period, almost up to a year later, and what happens then? The issue is gone. The information that people were looking for, that government promised, will be provided to them in a timely fashion; in a fashion that they should have the information in, in terms of time wise, has been expired.

Somebody said to me one time: You know, the Opposition are always talking about what could happen when it comes to legislation, or what might happen.

MR. LUSH: The sky is falling down.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. The Government House Leader is talking about the sky falling down. That is his phrase, not ours.

I recall one night in the fall sitting when my colleague from Waterford Valley delivered a speech that was given by the Government House Leader back when he was in the Opposition. I believe he still might have it. The point is this, when we introduce legislation or when legislation is introduced into the House of Assembly by government, what is our role? What is our constitutional obligation and role in this House? To plan about the best case scenarios? Absolutely not. The best case scenarios are exactly that. They are the best case scenarios where each and every citizen with respect to this particular piece of legislation will be satisfied. In the ideal sense, if we can take the minister at his word, that if a request goes in - that in the minimal amount of time expires according to the act - the minimal amount require that the information will be provided to them.

Our role here, and the Leader of the Opposition has correctly pointed out, is that if a contentious issue is brought before the public, where people are looking for information, then in a very punitive way roadblocks can be put in place up to a period of six months - even before we get up to six months before we get to the Citizens' Representative - having the power to do what? Having the power to recommend. What good is the power to recommend to the person, individual or group, looking for the information? Do you know what good it is? It is absolutely no good, because in the final analysis they still will not have the information they are looking for in their possession. As a result of that, the public will still not have the information that they were looking for six months ago.

That is the point of our objections to proposals and amendments to this particular piece of legislation, and every other piece of legislation. I say to the Government House Leader, it has absolutely nothing to do with talk about the sky falling but it has everything to do with maintaining public integrity and ensuring that the sky is open, transparent and accountable for every citizen in the Province to see. That is what it has to do with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: This debate has occurred on this particular piece of legislation on the fundamental difference between our view, the PC Party and the Official Opposition view, as articulated by our Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, in a nutshell, it is simply this: that government has allowed themselves, on the one hand, in promoting a new Freedom of Information Act; and this did not come about overnight.

Three years of transparency and accountability has been talked about in this Legislature. It took up many Question Periods, and members in the Legislature know it did, and when it finally became such a burning public issue that the now Premier, former leadership candidate for the Liberal Party, decided to make part of his mantle. I can tell you, in the three years that it was here he was not the guardian of public trust, accountability and transparency, that I can tell you, Madam Chair, because that is the truth of the matter. Any honest, forthright look at Hansard would be transparent and show exactly what I am saying is true. What has happened? On the one hand, in introducing this new act, promoting it as the most accountable government in the country, on the other hand - and here lies the difference, the pith and substance of it all - they sought and put into the language such as ‘significant harm' as opposed to just ‘harm'. They have allowed themselves such broad discretionary uses that if it comes right down to it, that if there is information that is explosive, that could be injurious to the governing party, in this case the Liberal Party, the government of the day, that could be injurious to public opinion, that they have the opportunity and the legal right - because they have the majority right now. They have the legal right because they have enshrined it in their discretionary use of language to give them the opportunity to block any request at any time that they see fit.

MR. TULK: That's not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is true, I say to the Deputy Premier, you know it is true.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely not. The Deputy Premier sings out to me and says he knows it is not true. I can only say -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Deputy Premier can make all the allegations he wants, but I can tell you, it was your government that wanted to charge this party $10,000 for information that we should have had in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It was your government that wanted to charge us for information that was in the public interest, that was of significant harm, so I am not going to take any lessons from you or your government when it comes to this issue. None whatsoever!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, is that -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to give the hon. gentleman a lesson. I am not trying to do that to him at all. I am just asking him to state the facts as they are, not as he sees them; not with his Tory-colored blue glasses on.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The facts of the matter, as I am referring to, are built into your language in this piece of legislation. They are not my personal opinions. They are situations that could happen because of the way the legislation is written. You cannot argue with your own Minister of Justice's view point when he said this, earlier in this debate, that the difference between - it was a direct decision made by the Cabinet and government that would give these broad discretionary powers under the act. The pith and substance of it all is this, that we want to see it tighter than it is. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined that clearly, that in this regard, section 48 is, in a nutshell: what separates our view of this act and yours, and that we want the public to understand and want the public to have the absolute right to have information. That is why in this particular section, section 48, we want to have the Citizens' Representative not have the power to recommend, but when it comes to that line where roadblocks could be thrown up, we want the Citizens' Representative to have the power to order the information to be made public. There in lies the difference.

Mr. Chair, with respect to section 48, we have proposed amendments outlining our philosophy that indicates, self-evident, I suppose, where we want to see - as we have with all other amendments in this particular piece of legislation. From that point of view, it is our role in this House, as the Official Opposition, to ensure that where we see clauses are effective and will meet, in our view, the public good, then we pass them and do so expeditiously, and we have done that. The record clearly shows we have done that, but where there are those clauses where we feel go against the very name of the bill, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy, when, in fact, clauses can be used in such a way to deny the public access to that information, then it is our obligation, not only to debate them and put forward amendments, but to do it in the strongest terms possible. I believe we have done that in this sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is, I guess, the pith and substance. There are two models, as I explained on Monday, that can exist - or I guess we can be like P.E.I., they don't have any model. They are not even advanced to the point where they have any kind of Freedom of Information or privacy legislation. Right now, in our country, we have four who have order-powers and we have the balance who do not. They have recommendation powers. Even one of those who have order-powers, the Province of Ontario, has recommended to the committee from whom we have taken our advice, who toured this Province, met with every group imaginable in this Province, many of the media representatives who quite often use the Access to Information legislation - that committee came back after talking to Ontario and they said: Go with the recommendation power first. You do not have your blocks in order, in order to do the system proper. You have a big piece of work on privacy here. You have a big piece of work to get in place here when it comes to information management systems. That is why this recommendation was adapted as put forward by the committee.

You talk about openness and accountability: That is the idea here. We have had the media - one of the principle users of freedom of information legislation is the media. Who else to determine whether this administration is accountable, or transparent, than the media? We have individuals who make requests for certain information, but principally it is the media. Does anyone here in this Chamber, or in this Province, think, that if the media makes a request, and a Review Commissioner, who, all of us, by the way, unanimously endorsed as the Citizens' Representative, as being fair and full of integrity, and calling it like it is - I believe he, himself, said he could not believe. It is like putting the fox in the henhouse.

I do not think there is anybody out there who has any doubt that the commissioner, the Ombudsman, is going to do what he feels is proper, make whatever recommendations he feels are appropriate. If this government, or any administration, goes back to that commissioner and says, we are not going to accept your recommendation, what state would any administration be in who rejected the recommendation unless there were very valid reasons under the act to do so? We are gone past that day of frivolous rejections of information that has existed for fifty years. We are to the point now where, if you do not release you must justify why you are not going to release. In fact, if you tell the Review Commissioner no, he can take you to the Supreme Court and you are required to go to court and justify why you are not giving out the information.

There is a lot of accountability here in terms of the power and the persuasion of the Ombudsman, the courts and the media. That is what is going to be the yardstick by which this Act is judged when it comes to the administration. Therefore, we reject the amendment put forward.

CHAIR: Shall clause 48 pass, with amendments, as proposed by the Opposition?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated

On motion, clauses 48 through 59 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 60 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, there was an amendment put forward here that the word "only" be deleted from section 60.(3), and we are certainly agreeable to that.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 60.(3) carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against.

Motion carried.

On motion, clause 60, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 61 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Moving a bit fast there, Mr. Chairman. I thought you had voted on the amendment for section 60 first. Have you called the vote on the amended section 60?

CHAIR: Yes. To be clear, we have done this, yes. If the Minister of Justice would like, we could do that again, but it is my understanding that section 60 was approved with amendment.

To be clear, section 60 with amendment. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Carried.

On motion, clause 60, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall section 61 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chair, there is an amendment being proposed by the Opposition to subsection (3). It gives the Trial Division discretionary power to determine whether or not to conduct its affairs on a matter in private, instead of requiring the Trial Division to conduct its affairs on the matter in private. That amendment has been suggested and, I think, the government is in agreement with the amendment which was put forward.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: In section 61.(3) to follow, after the word "including", would be "where the court find appropriate".

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 61 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 61, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 62 through 67 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 68 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, there was an amendment put forward that there be a requirement to list employee (inaudible) in a public directory. We have no problem with that. At the present time, they are posted anyway by way of the web. We have no problem with this suggested amendment.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 68 carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: All those against?

Motion carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 68, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 69 through 71 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 72 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, we are agreeable to amending section 72 with regards to subsection (2), reference to retroactive regulations.

CHAIR: Shall amendment to clause 72 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contrary minded.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 72, as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 73 through 76 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill, with amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, for clarification here, I guess, in our haste of going through, in section 60.(3) we made reference to taking out the word "only." The intent was to remove all of subsection (3) in section 60, so there would be no limitations - we didn't want to place any limitations on his right to appeal.

CHAIR: So, we go back; we revert.

MR. PARSONS: Let the record show that all parties are in favour of deleting subsection (3) of section 60.

CHAIR: It has been brought to the Chair's attention that, in voting on section 60.(3), the amendment that we have before us deleted only the word "only"; whereas, in actual fact, it was the intent to delete the entirety of subsection (3).

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

CHAIR: Just for the record, we shall now vote to amend section 60, which would mean that we remove section (3). Just for clarity, shall section 60 pass, with amendment, the amendment being the deletion of subsection (3)?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 60, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have asked me to report the approval of Bill 49 with amendments, copious amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments read a first, second and third time, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, while we are waiting for the Lieutenant-Governor to come and give final approval to our bills and to prorogue the House, we had an agreement of all parties. The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, and I, had discussions with respect to a couple of bills not passed, namely: Bill 45, An Act Respecting Environment Protection, and Bill 44, An Act Respecting The Control And Management Of Water Resources In The Province.

Normally it is a situation, when the House prorogues, that the orders left on the paper die. We did not want the work of these committees to be in vain and futile. They did a tremendous amount of work. We have an agreement whereby we will maintain the integrity of these bills in that they will be brought forward in the new session of the House at the stage that they are at now. We have agreed to that. In other words, they come in at the Committee stage and we progress as we have done with this bill today. We have agreed to that, but we were told that we should do the motion in the new session. We are just giving notice of that, saying that there was an agreement.

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

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

What we are presented here with, really, is a parliamentary technicality. Upon proroguing the House, which means a new session is opening up in the spring, what happens if there is any legislation left on the Order Paper, in parliamentary terms, it dies. We have no interest in making government go through Notices of Motion, first reading, second reading. We have completed all of that on Bill 45 and Bill 44, Water Resources and Environment Protection. Certainly, from the concurrence of our point of view, once the new session begins, the Speech from the Throne is over, Budget Speeches are done, Interim Supply is done, and we are back here after Easter. We are certainly in agreement in beginning debate on those two pieces of legislation, exactly where we left it off, which is at Committee stage.

Just to reiterate, I know that the Government House Leader in his role has to reintroduce that, I guess, in the new session. For clarity, so that all members agree, this was done by consensus and agreement. We will certainly honour our commitments on that front, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We know that His Honour is on his way. He should be here shortly. Is it the wish of the members that we recess until His Honour arrives?

Recess

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Ladies and gentlemen, it is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request your Honour's Assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act." (Bill 65)

A bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy." (Bill 49)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (A.M. House, C.M., M.D., LL.D., FRCPC):

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Assembly:

In Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Your Honour, Honourable Members have asked me to inform you of a Resolution passed unanimously by the House of Assembly yesterday, a Resolution of congratulations and loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I would like to read the Resolution and then ask you, Your Honour, to transmit it to Her Majesty.

To The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty

Most Gracious Sovereign

We, Your Majesty's loyal and faithful subjects, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, now in session, beg to extend to Your Majesty on this year of celebration marking the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Accession of Your Majesty to the Throne, the warm and heartfelt congratulations of the Government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the completion of fifty years of devoted service to Canada and to all the peoples of the Commonwealth, and we express to Your Majesty our constant and unswerving loyalty and allegiance to the Crown.

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR :

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

In her Majesty's name I thank her loyal subjects for this expression of congratulations and loyalty. It will be with much honour that I will convey it to Her.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

The Third Session of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly of this Honourable House of Assembly is about to be prorogued, but before releasing you from your duties, I wish to thank you for the careful and sympathetic attention given to the important matters brought before you by My Ministers. Your commitment to your work and diligence deserve our appreciation and acknowledgment.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

Sixty pieces of legislation were enacted during this Session of the Honourable House of Assembly. In particular, legislative issues were taken in health, justice, finance, labour, fisheries, consumer affairs, energy, tourism and culture.

Following passage of a resolution in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada to change the name of our Province, this Honourable House passed the Newfoundland and Labrador Act so that our laws would be consistent with the changes to the Constitution of Canada.

As stated in My Address opening this Session, My Government would introduce legislation to establish the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Office of the Citizen's Representative, and the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate.

The Order of Newfoundland and Labrador has been established by legislation. The Order will recognize individuals who have distinguished themselves by exceptional achievement and sacrifice, unique skills and talents or by noteworthy contributions to their communities and the Province.

The Citizens' Representative has been appointed. As an Officer of this Assembly, our new Citizens' Representative has the mandate to investigate and deal with complaints by citizens who feel aggrieved by administrative decisions, acts or admissions done by a department or agency of government or an officer or an employee.

The Child and Youth Advocate Act also passed this Honourable House during this Session. Members will soon be asked to consider the appointment of an advocate whose responsibility will be to ensure the rights and interests of children and youth are advanced and protected.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

My Government continues to be concerned by smoking in public places and especially among our young people. As members will recall, this Honourable House passed legislation to deal with these issues during the year 2000. As part of My Government's continuing effort with respect to this problem, An Act To Provide For The Recovery Of Tobacco Related Health Care Costs was introduced last spring, referred to a Select Committee of this House, and evidently enacted. An Act To Permit An Action By One Person On Behalf Of A Class Of Persons was enacted to cure an anomaly and an inequity in the law.

As part of My Government's efforts to make Government more accountable and transparent, a new Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection of Privacy was enacted into law. This new act, when proclaimed into force, will replace the old Freedom of Information Act, which, when enacted in 1981, was considered progressive legislation at that time.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

In an effort to provide a legal framework and rules to facilitate commerce and communication by electronic means, the Electronic Commerce Act was enacted. My Government is very much aware that our Province must do everything in its power to provide our consumers and businesses with protection when they use electronic commerce. Amendments were made to the Securities Act in order to bring our security regulations in line with regulations in other provinces, so that issuers of securities and investors in securities in our Province have access to the markets on the same equitable basis as insurers and investors in other provinces.

The Economic Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act was amended to further stimulate growth and diversification of the Province's economy. The Fisheries Products International Act was amended to give effect to the recommendations of the All-Party Review Committee resulting from the recent public consultations on the act.

During this Session, the Petroleum Products Act was enacted. This new law provides for a regulatory regime which will assure the public that heating and motor fuel prices are set in a rational and fair manner. Also, the Petroleum And Natural Gas Act was amended to provide the statutory royalty regime for petroleum products under a lease issued under that act.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

During this Session the Endangered Species Act was enacted to provide for the designation of species as vulnerable, threatened, endangered, extirpated or extinct, and for the management and protection of designated species and their habitat.

The Historic Resources Act was amended to clarify the role and responsibility of the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also to protect the fossil resources of our Province.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

As noted in My Speech opening this Session, My Government renewed its relationship with labour, business and community groups through the creation of a new Department of Labour. Also, upon the advice of an outside consultant, amendments to the Labour Relations Act were introduced in this Honourable House in order to focus on building a strong labour relations framework for the Province as it relates to offshore oil and gas, fabrication and construction projects.

In order to be responsive to the needs of business and labour, My Government also introduced significant changes to the Labour Standards Act. Important amendments were made to the Occupational Health And Safety Act, as well as the Workplace, Health, Safety And Compensation Act, following a review through public hearings held by the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. Emphasis on the prevention of workplace accidents and injuries is highlighted in the amendments to those acts.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Farm Practices In The Province was enacted during this Session. An Act To Revise And To Consolidate The Law With Respect To Municipal Elections In The Province was also enacted during the spring sitting of this Honourable House.

Among other legislative measures enacted during this Session were: An Act Respecting The Practice Of Massage Therapy; An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997; An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act; An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act; An Act To Amend The Forestry Act; An Act To Amend The Motor Carrier Act; An Act To Amend The Lands Act; An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act; An Act To Amend The Child Care Services Act; and, An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

I thank you for the large measure of supply you have granted. I assure you that the appropriations that you have granted have been and will be expended by My Ministers with care and efficiency.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

It is my pleasure that the Third Session of the Forty-Fourth General Assembly now be prorogued, and is prorogued accordingly.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Pursuant to the Speech of His Honour, this House stands prorogued.