The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair would welcome members' statements from: the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the athletic achievements of the Senior Boys Basketball Team from Lester Pearson Memorial High. The Astros, hailing from the New-Wes-Valley area, recently captured the 3A regional title by defeating a very capable team from Twillingate in the final game of the tournament.

The Astros are developing an impressive and certainly well deserved reputation as being one of the finest basketball squads in the Province. This year the team, coached by Mr. Bryan Green and Mr. Mike Tiller, has medaled on six different occasions. This impressive run has seen the boys add three Gold and three Silver medals to the school's impressive collection of sports awards.

Basketball is a relatively new sport in the area, and the Astros' rapidly developing program provides a clear indication of the true depth and breadth of talent that exists in rural regions of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Lester Pearson Astros on their tremendous achievements and wishing them continued success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize two remarkable young men from the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Michael Belben of L'Anse au Loup and Mark Freake of Charlottetown were part of a group of twenty-seven students from across Canada participating in a program called Global Vision Junior Team. This group travelled on an economic trade mission promoting Canadian business interests in Southeast Asia and visited the countries of Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam over a period of two weeks.

Mr. Speaker, these young people were looking to promote Canadian business interests in Southeast Asia and seek out opportunities for Canadian investment and do market analysis. During their time in Asia, they met with various business leaders including the CEOs of Nortel Asia, Talisman Vietnam and Manulife Asia, as well as government officials like the Canadian Ambassador to Vietnam and the Canadian High Commissioner in Singapore and Malaysia. They also took time out from their meetings to visit an Oxfam site near Hanoi, Vietnam, to help the children.

These two young men come from communities in Labrador with populations of less than 500 people, and yet ended up in some of the most diverse cultures in the world promoting our country through presentations and networking. Mr. Speaker, as their MHA, I am certainly impressed with their tremendous accomplishments and I would like to commend both Michael and Mark for the great representation they made on behalf of our Province and Canada while participating in the Global Vision Junior Team Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to congratulate the Flying Boat Festival International on receiving the Ambassador of the Year Award for 2007 sponsored by the Exploits Valley Economic Development Corporation.

This award is presented to a business or organization that has contributed significantly to increasing the profile of the region throughout the Province or Country.

The festival is a joint venture by the Towns of Botwood and Norris Arm, and the 2007 celebrations marked the seventieth anniversary of the first successful experimental Trans-Atlantic Commercial Flight between Botwood and Foynes, Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007 visitors from all over the world visited the area and the economic benefits to the entire region were very positive. Furthermore, the American Bus Association also designated the festival as one of the association's Top 100 events in North America for this year in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all member to join me in congratulating the Flying Boat Festival Committee on their accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Captain Leslie Cutler of Ramea on his retirement from the Marine Transportation Services division of the Department of Transportation and Works.

Captain Cutler has worked for over twenty-five years with the provincial ferry service and he will be sorely missed. He has been very well respected by his peers, his colleagues, and the travelling public.

In addition to his duties as Captain - most notably of the Gallipoli, which operates between Burgeo, Ramea and Grey River - Mr. Cutler has been heavily involved in volunteer activities in his home community of Ramea.

He is currently a lay reader with the church, a volunteer fireman, a member of the Ramea Community Co-op, a member of the Health Services Committee and head of the Orangeman's Lodge in Ramea. He is married to the former Millie Pink and they have two sons and one daughter.

There will be a retirement dinner for Captain Cutler at the Four Winds in Ramea this evening where he will be honoured by his colleagues from the Department of Transportation and Works, family and friends.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to Captain Leslie Cutler on his retirement. All the best to Captain Cutler and his family, and I wish you many years of a healthy and happy retirement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an individual from my district who was chosen as one of Canada's Outstanding Principals for 2008, and is only one of thirty-three from across Canada to receive this prestigious honour. The awards are the initiative of the Learning Partnership, a national non-profit organization dedicated to championing a strong public education system in Canada. Canada's Outstanding Principals Program honours the extraordinary contributions of the dynamic educational leaders in publicly funded schools.

Mr. Jim Lynch is the Principal of Mobile Central High on the Southern Shore and as well a former teacher of mine. I have experienced first hand his dedication to his duties as a teacher and the mentoring role he plays for the students of the past, and today.

The criteria for the selection of this award covered a wide spectrum of personal characteristics which highlight the professionalism of this individual and his commitment to the students, the school, and the contribution to the region as a whole.

This award highlights individuals who are champions of a strong public education system in Canada and honours the extraordinary contributions of dynamic leaders.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to congratulate Mr. Lynch for the outstanding contribution he has made, and is making to the students, staff, and the communities being served by Mobile Central High.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Mr. Lynch on his award and wish him continued success at Mobile Central High.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 11, 2008, I paid tribute to Robert Slaney of Upper Island Cove, a member of the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles Hockey Team, for being selected as one of five finalists for the Marcel Robert Trophy Award.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that Robert was the winner of the coveted Award for Scholastic Player of the Year in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. As winner, Robert received a grant of $500 and the Guy Lafleur Student-Athlete Bursary of the Year for $6,000.

The next stage is set, Robert will compete against the winner of the Ontario Hockey League and the Western Hockey League for the C.H.L. Scholastic Player of the Year Award.

Mr. Speaker, with fifty-five points in sixty-four games, and excellent classroom statistics, Robert Slaney is a force to be reckoned with on and off the ice.

I ask all members to join me, along with Robert's parents and family, in wishing him every success as he competes for the title of Canadian Hockey League Scholastic Player of the Year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the hon. House today to inform my colleagues and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of the results of a recent Chilean aquaculture mission that I participated in along with senior officials in my department.

The mission also included ministers and officials from the Governments of Canada, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.

While in Chile, I had the opportunity to visit Aqua Sur, the largest aquaculture trade show in the Southern Hemisphere and to attend a roundtable with officials from the Government of Chile, where I was able to promote to the Chileans the tremendous growth of our industry as well as its future potential.

The visit also included a tour of a number of farming sites and processing facilities.

Mr. Speaker, Chile is the second largest producer and exporter of aquaculture products in the world. At the present time, it is producing approximately 80,000 metric tons of mussels and well over 350,000 metric tons of salmon annually. The Chilean industry employs approximately 45,000 people.

Given the size of the Chilean aquaculture sector, this mission provided a tremendous opportunity to explore the challenges that are associated with the rapid development of a successful and sustainable aquaculture industry, as well as the solutions to such challenges.

This is very timely for Newfoundland and Labrador as we are currently experiencing a very rapid expansion of our own aquaculture sector. In five short years, the production and value of our industry has more than doubled.

A key objective during the visit was to explore best practices as it relates to fish health, an area where Chile has experienced some challenges. However, it became clear during the mission that the Chilean industry is certainly learning to overcome those challenges.

Mr. Speaker, our deliberations in Chile confirmed that our own fish health initiatives, including a $4.3 million Aquatic Veterinary Diagnostic Facility, are very strategic at this point in our development and that, in terms of fish health and environmental sustainability, we are keeping pace with our own expansion.

The mission also highlighted a key advantage of our Province in terms of market access. While Chile enjoys a very large scale production, its geographical location makes it very difficult for that country to export fresh product into key markets such as Europe and the North Eastern United States.

Given our proximity to both, it is increasingly clear that the export of fresh seafood into these markets provides Newfoundland and Labrador with a significant competitive edge.

Mr. Speaker, the mission to Chile was a very successful one. My department has approached the provincial industry representatives who travelled to Chile regarding a follow-up meeting to discuss how we can take the lessons of our visit and apply them directly to our continued strategic development in aquaculture.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the minister and his officials had a successful mission to Chile to look at the aquaculture industry. We certainly realize and understand that aquaculture is a very important entity of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think last year it had an export value of about $40 million and it is contributing to employment in rural communities throughout this Province and contributing to new opportunities in the fishing industry. We want to see it successful and we want to see it grow.

Mr. Speaker, an integral part of that is ensuring that is has a strong marketing division and being able to sell our product and export our product anywhere in the world. I guess I want to ask the minister: Has there been any progress made in establishing a new marketing arm for the fishing industry in this Province? As you know, with the dismantling of Fishery Products International, we saw one of the best marketing arms that we had in this Province practically disappear. That needs to be replaced. We need a strengthening division there, and hopefully, government is making some progress on that end.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is we support the fact of having a good top value product, ensuring that our products are one of the best that we put in the marketplace. We understand that a lot is happening in the sealing industry today and the depreciation of some of the seal pelts is due to the fact that we have not had the best possible quality that we could have been producing in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to move to correct that this year in that industry and I think that needs to be the norm throughout all industries, whether it is aquaculture or whether it is some other aspect of the fishing industry such as the sealing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, am encouraged by the minister and members of his department going as far afield as Chile to see what is happening in that country when it relates to aquaculture. The more that we can learn about aquaculture, the better.

We do know that in some parts of Canada there have been some adverse events with regard to aquaculture, so I encourage the minister – and I am sure he is – to be in touch with those events as well, and circumstances where aquaculture has run into problems.

I notice in the report that was released in February by the Minister of Environment, and I think jointly with the Minister of Fisheries, the report issue scans of selective coastal and ocean areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is concern raised, especially in the Coast of Bays area, with regard to aquaculture, and concern especially with regard to the ability of road infrastructure, waste management infrastructure, and existing support industries to support their growing aquaculture industry. So, I do encourage the minister to look to the reality of what is happening in our Province, too, and make sure that we have adequate assessments done, especially environmental assessments, with regard to the aquaculture industry, but I do support what you are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to acknowledge the valuable role that the Community Youth Network, or CYN, plays in helping youth succeed in our Province. Our government is firmly committed to expanding services for young people and to building capacity at the community level in support of our provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy.

In keeping with the goals of the strategy, the CYN helps address the need to decrease barriers to education and employment, and improve the quality of life for our young people. The organization continues to grow. Today, the CYN provides a positive and nurturing experience for over 14,000 young people in this Province, and now serves forty-eight communities directly while providing outreach to youth living in another forty-five communities across the Province.

Last year, government provided an additional $650,000 to expand the CYN to young people in the communities and areas of Cape Broyle, Bonavista, St. Lawrence, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, the CYN approach is built on partnership. There are over 200 working partnerships with community-based organizations throughout the Province. They assist each local CYN in the development and delivery of meaningful programs and services for youth.

The Youth at Promise Challenge Program is a successful example of a CYN partnership with Choices for Youth and several other agencies. This nationally and internationally recognized program re-engages youth who have not completed high school. It offers an innovative group teaching approach to meet the academic needs of participants while addressing the personal and social challenges they face outside the classroom.

The work of the CYN is important as it provides local access to learning, career and employment services, leadership, and community capacity building opportunities. As well, it offers an important social and recreational outlet for young people. It is a youth-centered approach. This means that young people are strongly encouraged to contribute their time, their insight and their energy to ensure that the programs they receive remain relevant in meeting their specific needs.

Going forward, this government will continue to work hard to ensure that young people are given every opportunity to succeed, to feel valued, and to have realistic choices regarding their future. The CYN is an excellent avenue to foster and encourage youth engagement within our communities, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to say that the Opposition, I can assure you, want to acknowledge as well the wonderful work done by the Community Youth Network to see that barriers that some of our young people do encounter here in the Province are lessened for them.

We also want to say congratulations to the government, I guess, on extending additional funding so that other communities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: There is nothing like a standing ovation, Mr. Speaker.

I want to congratulate government once again - seeing I heard it that way - on the expansion of this wonderful project to other communities throughout our Province, and to say that we would be remiss if we did not recognize the wonderful volunteers. We can have the organization, we can have the government funding, but we need the volunteers out there to help us make many projects - not only this one, Mr. Speaker - successful throughout our Province.

Having said that, I agree with the minister in his final statement where he says that the opportunity is there for success for them, and hope that better choices can be made for the future. I guess our only hope and prayer is that their choices will be made, and they will be able to obtain them right here in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for his advanced copy and congratulate him on the work that his department is doing with the Community Youth Network and the organizations that are part of that network. The minister and I both know that a major issue, especially here in St. John's, when not only is the issue of housing for the youth - while these programs that are outlined here are excellent, we also have to worry about the basic needs.

I encourage the minister to continue working with groups like Choices for Youth in looking at solutions so that young people have permanent places to put their heads down at night so then they can take advantage of these kinds of academic programs and programs that further their education that the minister is supporting.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today my questions are all related to the faulty ER/PR testing and the details that are unfolding around the Cameron Inquiry.

My first question, Mr. Speaker, the Province has been riveted by the testimony and other news coming out of the Cameron Inquiry, and I am sure the Premier has been kept up to speed on all of the details in his absence in the last week. So, Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier.

Have you, Premier, received a subpoena compelling your testimony at the inquiry at this stage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, if I might ask yourself, and Opposition, if there are going to be several questions here, if we can have some extended time for answers and extended time for questions, if necessary, because of the importance of this matter, I would ask if that is okay?

The other thing is my preference would be, quite frankly, not to discuss this matter at all because it is before the inquiry, but because of the importance to the patients, their families, and the issues, then I am certainly quite prepared to discuss them, as far as I can go.

In answer to your question, I do not think I have formally received a subpoena but I have certainly been asked to testify and have actually, in fact, appeared before commission council three months ago and gave them my full testimony at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier has asked for extra time to answer questions, and I guess the same can be said for asking the questions. The Speaker, as a servant of the House, will take guidance from the House. If that is agreeable to all members present, then we can allow for the questions to be asked and ample time given without trying to stay within the forty-five second time limit. I seek guidance.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no question with anyone on the other side taking an extended period to give an answer. In view of such importance, as well, we have extensive questions. So maybe the government would consider extending Question Period if we need to ask our questions.

It is one thing to ask the question, an answer might take ten minutes, and we do not want to circumvent Question Period either. So in the interest of fairness to all hands, maybe we could agree that if it takes longer than the usual thirty minutes, we would certainly go along with that, by all means. That is not to say it is contingent upon extending Question Period. We just ask for the same courtesy.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in terms of an extension to Question Period, that is another issue which we can deal with at the appropriate time. For now, I think there is an understanding that if questions are a bit longer than normal and if answers are a bit longer than normal, then there is an agreement that Your Honour will take under advisement, I guess, the fact that both sides of the House have concurred in that happening.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question to the Premier: Was your office advised in July 2005, as your former Minister of Health and Community Services has indicated, and if so, were you also advised as the head of the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: In July of 2005 - the nineteenth or twentieth of July, 2005 - the date of the e-mails, my office, the Premier's office, was advised and some of my staff were actually advised of the issue. I personally was not advised at that time.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume then, from previous questions in the House of Assembly, that the Premier was first advised in October of 2005. Mr. Speaker, that was eighteen months before any documents were filed in the courts regarding the matter.

So my question to the Premier is: Why did you or your government not take the lead and bring information forward to the public during that eighteen-month period?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, for the record - I just want to make sure I am very clear. When I am saying I was not advised, I am saying I was not advised by the Department of Health or any officials in the Department of Health. My office was advised, and officials in my office were advised.

I cannot remember, I have no recollection whatsoever of any conversation between myself and any of my senior officials, whether my director of communications, my chief of staff, with regard to that matter at that time.

Having said that, as Premier of the Province, and as head of that office and as head of government, I take full responsibility for any messages or communications that come to that office or to any of my staff. Now, the fact that I cannot remember it does not mean it did not happen. What I am saying, from my knowledge, absolutely, honestly, sincerely, I have no recollection and cannot remember any conversation on that particular matter.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I guess for me, this is the same competent staff I think that the Premier talked about giving raises to just a year ago. Now we are learning they did not pass this information along, to his recollection.

Just to ask the question again. If you did find out in October of that year, 2005, that was eighteen months before this issue broke open in a major way in the public, again, I ask: Why did government not take a lead and bring the information forward to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out - and I am sure it is not lost on the hon. members opposite - is that this is about the patients, the victims, their families, their care, their past care, present care and future care.

When we called the inquiry we wanted to make sure that questions were answered, that they got basically to the bottom of it, that everything that was available was disclosed to the inquiry so that the commission could make findings, to make sure that these troubled victims had answers for what went wrong, those certainly who were impacted in any way whatsoever, and also to give the public an assurance that on a go-forward basis we were going to have the best system that was possible, that we certainly could afford to the best of our ability. That is why the inquiry was called.

What is happening - and that inquiry should be allowed to take its course. It should be allowed to go the process so that instead of plucking out one-tenth or one-fifth of the evidence and trying to sort of draw conclusions on that and lay blame - which the Opposition is starting to engage in. It is unfortunate. I have great respect for the hon. members opposite but the media are also playing a game. Last week, CBC, for example, basically had a question as: What do the public think, and who is to blame for this problem? Now, what kind of irresponsible reporting is that, at 20 per cent through an inquiry to talk about who is to blame at this stage of the game? They asked if politicians were to blame or physicians were to blame. A ridiculous question!

Then, building on the eighteen-month issue, my office was notified in July. In October there was something on the CBC Web site, I think there was a story on NTV, and there was a story in The Independent, it kind of laid this out and made it a public issue. Shortly after that there were ads taken out, I think in local newspapers or publications whereby this was very, very much a public issue. The hon. member now is trying to imply that myself, or the minister, or my government sat on information for eighteen months that would affect the health of people in this Province. Well, I can tell you quite sincerely, I can tell the hon. member opposite, and I can tell the people in this Province, that I, or nobody in my government, under any circumstances, would attempt to conceal or prevent the disclosure of information that would affect the health of people in this Province. I mean that sincerely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Now, to take that a step further, Mr. Speaker, the national news last week - and I received a call on this - the national news, last week, Peter Mansbridge, in his opening story, talked about - and I have the quote here somewhere. The National - I am just going to read you this paragraph, and I shake when I speak about this because it annoys me so much, and we have asked the CBC for a retraction of this: It is an astonishing admission from someone once in charge of the public's health. John Ottenheimer was the Health Minister in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2005. Today he told a judicial inquiry that he knew there were serious issues with breast cancer testing years before the public did; yet, he remained silent. What's more, the Premier's office knew it too.

So, the rest of this country thinks that John Ottenheimer, the Premier's office and this government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, sat on vital information and hid information from people for two years when, in fact, the time limit that is even in question here is less than three months.

The Leader of the Opposition herself is talking in terms of eighteen months. Nothing is further from the truth, and I think that does a great disservice to the people who have been affected by this wrongful testing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all it is important for me to point out that this inquiry was not a revelation of the government but rather, Mr. Speaker, we pushed for this in the House of Assembly. We asked questions on several different dates, in this House. We had a private member's motion here forcing the government's hand to go out and support and launch a public inquiry. So, first of all, I want to clarify that for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, irregardless of the fact that Eastern Health may have taken out an ad in the paper, irregardless of the fact that there might have been an article in a newspaper - and let me just say the articles that were there, government did not respond to those articles; it was articles responded to by officials at Eastern Health saying the situation was under control - notwithstanding that, the fact remains that government did have access to information for a period of eighteen months and had an obligation, in my opinion, to make that information known to the public.

Again, I ask the question: Why did this government not do so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There are issues here of patients' stress, patients' health, patient confidentiality, and government and health care department and health care officials have to be very, very careful to make sure that they do not violate those personal privileges and go out talking about diseases or problems or illnesses that people have. Government has to be very, very careful how it handles the information.

You need to look at the context back. The e-mail that was disclosed last week indicates that when the Department of Health actually notified the Premier's office, within hours in the same day, it came back with an e-mail that said, no action required, that the publication of this will be actually minimal or minimized.

So, in fact, there was a stand-down order, a stand-down statement, that came from the Department of Health that this issue was being dealt with internally.

Now, from another perspective, as you go to October, the assurance that was given to government by Eastern Health through the minister – and the minister at the time would have to speak to this – was that testing had stopped; that, in fact, retesting had been done, it was started back in May, or the May-June period; that, in fact, testing locally had stopped; that any new testing was going to be done at Mount Sinai, which we consider to be one of the best institutions in the country, to perform that; that present testing was going to be done there, future testing in the short term would be done there, and past tests would be re-tested at Mount Sinai.

So, government and government officials of the Department of Health, through Eastern Health, had the assurance that this matter was being taken care of, and at the same time were receiving advice from doctors who were treating these victims not to put them under any duress or put them under any strain.

In addition, we have not chosen, and will not do so and are not doing so, attempting to place any blame on other governments. As Premier of this Province, if this government has done anything wrong, or any of my ministers have done anything wrong, providing it is not criminal, then I will stand up, as head of this Province, and accept full responsibility on their behalf, on behalf of my government, for their actions or actions of officials or actions of people down the line, and will also be prepared to stand up on behalf of former premiers, Premier Grimes, Premier Tobin or Premier Tulk, and their governments, for any actions that happened on their watch if, in fact, government is wrong; because these patients and these victims have a right to know that someone is accepting responsibility, at the end of the day, for what has happened to them. They need to have that assurance. They need to know that.

The hon. member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, knows that in 2003 a letter which I presented to this House, within hours of actually receiving it, disclosed to this House a letter from Dr. Ejeckam, who is a doctor in the lab over there, who basically gave a letter to Eastern Health that said, "Diagnosis based on inappropriate immunostain will surely jeopardize patient care…" – now, this is in 2003; this was before this government came into power – "…and may even expose (HealthCare Corp. of St. John's) to litigation. Therefore, it will be ill advised to operate an unreliable and erratic immunohistochemical procedure in our laboratory."

A clear warning to that government - not to that government, necessarily - that there was a problem there. At the same time that doctor closed that lab for five weeks, approximately five weeks, so that laboratory was actually closed down and he put on the record his concerns.

You were in Cabinet at that time. I do not blame you for not knowing that, under any circumstances, and if that was not conveyed to you or to your government - and you were the Minister of Fisheries at the time - but if that was not conveyed to your government, or to your Cabinet, or to your Premier, then he or any of the members in there are not responsible because they simply did not know.

These problems were happening then. These problems go all the way back to 1997, when the Tobin government was in. This is a communal problem that we are trying to deal with, but it is not appropriate to turn around - like CBC are trying to do - and say who is to blame a few weeks into an inquiry. Let's go through this process. Let's get to the bottom of it. Let's find out what it is.

The people who were there along the way are dealing with it and trying to handle a problem that they did not cause, that they did not want to happen. I can certainly give you my assurance, on behalf of this government, that nobody is covering up information, under any circumstance, particularly that would affect the health of these patients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to the point that the Premier has made with regard to the letter from the laboratory to Eastern Health. It is important to point out that correspondence, to my knowledge, was never forwarded to the government at the time, in 2003, and not to the Ministry of Health and therefore not to the Cabinet, and there was absolutely no way that we could have been aware of an internal memo that circulated between the laboratory and the officials at Eastern Health.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to my questions, the Premier has said that they have taken the advice of professionals in making their decision in terms of what they would reveal to the public. I guess we also know that the Premier is on record as saying that any time the boards in this Province make decisions that do not sit in the best interest of the public then they are prepared to overrule it.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, my question is: What makes this case any different in terms of overruling the decisions and the advice of Eastern Health than it does with any other board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, you cannot compare the closing of a school and relate it to busing issues as being comparable to life-and-death issues for people with cancer.

Having said that, in this particular issue, it is my understanding of the legality of this, and I think it has been changed according to recent legislation, that government did not have a clear legal authority to overrule or tell boards what to do. Having said that, you and I know - and I was speaking to the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite - that if government disagrees with a position that a board is taking, it, even if it does not have a legal authority to do so, can express its displeasure about that situation or suggest that another alternative should be done. Boards will often follow that direction, but in this particular – it is my understanding that there was no legal authority, at that time, to tell the health board what to do.

Notwithstanding that, though, if, in fact, we felt that something was seriously wrong and we had all of the information, it would not be unusual for us to say to that board: Look, I think there might be an issue here; there might be something wrong. But, it goes back to what you said: What did we know? What were we told? What were we being told? What information was being provided to us by Eastern Health?

You are saying that your government did not have notice of the Ejeckam letter that went to Eastern Health Board. I believe you, I believe you clearly on that, but a laboratory was closed down over in that hospital for five weeks on the basis that a doctor in charge of that laboratory had serious concerns about patient care and safety. So, again, we have to look at what information was being provided to the Premier's office, to the Minister of Health, to the Deputy Minister of Health and to health officials by the Eastern Health Board. These are the kind of things that that inquiry and Madam Justice Cameron is going to get to the bottom of and is going to find out and find out where the communication broke down; where, in fact, information was filtered, or where, in fact, incomplete information was not provided. We can only make decisions and draw conclusions on the basis of the information that is provided to us, and we all do that to the best of our ability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, the difference here is that your former Minister of Health and Community Services, John Ottenheimer, has stated on the witness stand that he had the information, wanted it to be public and was prepared to release the information each day, but no one asked him. That is the difference, I say to you, Premier.

So this, do not ask, do not tell: Is this a policy of your government, or was this just a case where a minister did not know his legal responsibilities as a Cabinet minister and answer to the public in that way?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I cannot speak for Mr. Ottenheimer, but Mr. Ottenheimer is a lawyer and Mr. Ottenheimer knows the parameters of his responsibilities. Mr. Ottenheimer - according to what I have been told, I did not hear it directly because I was not here to hear the testimony - has indicated that his preference was to go public. This matter was not discussed with me so I cannot discuss any conversation or communication that I had with John Ottenheimer on this because we simply did not have one.

Having said that, he says, though, he also relied on the greater evidence from the medical profession and from the doctors and from his health care officials that said we should not go public with this now because it will either cause - I do not know his exact words - duress, or hardship, or stress, or anxiety on the patients.

If, in fact, a treating doctor said to me that you will affect the health of my client if you disclose to the public tomorrow that this is a big issue and he or she will have serious adverse health effects because of that, I would have to very, very seriously consider whether I would go public under those circumstances. As I understand it, that is the decision that John Ottenhemier had to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand that there may have been concern about fear and stress and anxiety in patients, but I also remember very clearly the statements of your current Minister of Health in terms of what the legal obligations or legal fall-out of this information could be for government, as well, in his comments that he stated in the House of Assembly on May 16, 2007.

Mr. Speaker, we know already that under the lead of Minister Ottenheimer, the Department of Health did inform officials in the Premier's office of the issue. On March 15, 2006, Tom Osborne took over the portfolio as Minister of Health and Community Services. Did he, as the minister, bring this issue to your attention, or to the officials in your office?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is a question - he certainly did not in March or around that time. That is a question I would have to check and have to get an answer for you, as to whether he did communicate that to officials in my office. That is something I have not actually looked at under any circumstances.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Oh, to me, personally? In what time frame?

MS JONES: After he became minister in March of 2006.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I would say at some time after he became minister in March, he talked to me about this. I cannot tell you an exact time. I would have to go back and see if I can retrace the records.

One thing I do want to mention, as well, with regard to the legal action, you have indicated Mr. Wiseman has indicated this is more of a legal issue. I do not want the public to think that there was suppression of information here because the lawyers had told us to do so.

Let me tell you something, I can speak, certainly on my own behalf and members of Cabinet, of specific experience. Minister Kennedy there, and myself, have acted for the wrongfully convicted, of victims, oppressed people who have claims against hospitals, insurance companies, whatever reason that they have been wronged, people who have had something negligent done to them, and we act on their behalf. Part of, I guess, a frustration through the years would be getting to the bottom of things and trying to find out information.

We, and this government, and myself, would be the last ones in the world who would try and suppress key evidence to help out an insurance company. I can tell you that straight from the heart. In fact, that is a big reason as well, why this Ejeckam letter was put out there. So that Mr. Crosbie and these victims would know that this letter existed and that they would have that to rely on, that the people in the system knew there was something wrong and they did not correct it quick enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, when you are able to, provide the dates that you would have been briefed on this by Minister Osborne at the time, or your officials.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, there either was a briefing note provided to me in August of 2006, which came from the Department of Health.

The other thing I need to put in context for hon. members opposite and the public: I have asked our office to see if they could determine the number of transactions, communications, interviews, briefings and contacts that get made with our office in the run of a year. Over 125,000 e-mails, phone calls, communications, briefing notes, meetings and interviews happen every year on the 8th Floor. Now, that needs to be put in perspective so people can get some understanding of the volume of communications that actually happen.

This doesn't count phone calls that are not recorded. I don't mean recorded in the sense of tape recorded, I mean written down and saying, Mary Smith called, you call her back; and any other conversations that happen with anybody in the office that are simply not recorded, are not written down. That is the magnitude of the number of transactions that take place in the office and I think people need to be able to put that into perspective, when somebody is trying to recall what happened on July 19, 2005 in that atmosphere.

I happened to find out today, or it might have been yesterday, that on that particular morning, for example, I was at Clayton Forsey's swearing in at Government House. Now, if you had to ask me what date Clayton Forsey was sworn in, with all due respect to the Member for Exploits I wouldn't have been able to remember that date. I would not have been able to say it was on that Tuesday morning.

We have to be fair here and things have to be put in perspective when people are trying to recollect and recall specific instances and specific discussions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate where the Premier is coming from. There are many dates that I don't remember specifically as well, but I guess my question is, during the period of time that individuals held offices as Cabinet ministers in your government. That is what I am looking for.

On January 19, 2007, Ross Wiseman was appointed as the Minister of Health and Community Services. Did he, as a minister, during that period of time following his appointment, bring this issue to your attention, or did it not become a major part of discussion between you and his department until the spring of 2007?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: My best recollection of that would be that it did not become an issue between myself and Mr. Wiseman until the spring of 2007, and the same with Minister Osborne for that matter.

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

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

I, too, would like to address a couple of questions to the Premier.

Premier, your former Minister of Health, John Ottenheimer, I think has been very forthright in letting the Commission know, and the people of the Province know, that he really did want disclosure. He wanted disclosure both in a public way and also to the patients, and he has spoken very strongly about his concern about the patients. We have also heard during the short time that the Commission has been sitting, that there were patients who had great difficulty in getting their results, and some who never did get directly informed by Eastern Health about the change in their breast cancer results.

I am wondering, once you did learn about this - which you have told the House was in October of that year, 2005 - did you and Mr. Ottenheimer ever discuss together his major concern, and how his department was monitoring that information getting out to patients? – because, obviously, it did not get out adequately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I can put that in context, the last information which my office had received was the briefing note which indicated that no action was required. That comes up on a lot of briefing notes, and quite often there are matters that come up at our office that appear to be a firestorm in a very short period of time and then just die out and within an hour, within the end of the day, more information is gleaned and the issues do not come back any more.

On this particular issue there was no action required and there was a clear indication that it was probably going to be minimal, anyway, at the end of the day. From that time on there were no discussions, and there were not any discussions between myself and John Ottenheimer on this matter.

With regard - and only Minister Ottenheimer can speak to this, but - with regard to his decision not to go public, it is my understanding - and you have heard his evidence and I have not, or I assume you have - that he basically said it was his preference to go public but he decided not to. He never came to me and said: Premier, do you think I should go public on this? Do you think it would be wise to go public? I have serious concerns it should go public.

I think that Minister Ottenheimer made a conscious decision based on the fact that he had medical advice which was coming to him, and advice from his officials that was saying we should not do this because this could affect people's health.

Now, that is a judgement call that Minister Ottenheimer made. If that was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, someone will decide that. At the end of the day, as a government, if Minister Ottenheimer made an error in judgement, we will take responsibility for that - I will take responsibility for that - but it was a weighted decision, a weighed decision, a decision, I think, that he considered and he decided, on balance, that he would not do that. As a matter of fact, like I said, he didn't come to me on it, either, to discuss it, so….

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

MS MICHAEL: Just for clarification, Premier, are you saying that even once you learned about this in October, 2005, that you and the minister never, ever, discussed it together either?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, there was no discussion.

The main issue was the article, of course, that appeared in the Independent, and at that particular point in time we received - I think it was the day after, I received, or a couple of days after, I received - a briefing note, on October 5, and that briefing note basically indicated that tests had been done; there was some improper testing but things were being retested; that this was basically in good hands, in the good hands of Eastern Health and the medical profession; that, in fact, people were being tested now safely; that testing had been terminated on a temporary basis at the Health Sciences; that retesting was being done; that people were being notified. This was really about the patient care, then.

Our focus was on making sure that the patients were being taken care of, that they were getting the proper results; because, in fact, when this first broke we did not know even at that stage whether, in fact, the tests were right or wrong, so they had to be actually retested to verify whether what was being discovered at the Health Sciences was accurate or not.

Then they had to be retested, Mount Sinai had to come back with accurate results, and that had to be conveyed to the patients. Otherwise, you could go to a patient and say, we think your test might be wrong when, in fact, with some of them, they were not wrong. Therefore, you are creating alarm and creating concern.

The clear impression that was being given through the article and through the briefing note was that this matter was certainly under control and was being handled, and certainly no action was required from us.

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

MS MICHAEL: I just really want to be clear, Premier, and if this is not a normal thing then I would like to have you speak to it.

Are you telling us, then, that this did not even come to the Cabinet table, that something of this magnitude did not get discussed at the Cabinet table even? Is so, is that a usual thing? I have never been at a Cabinet table.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, this did not come to the Cabinet table at that particular point. (Inaudible) to the Cabinet table until, in fact, it arose in the spring of 2007, so it had not come to my attention as Premier. The matter was under control within a department.

There are thousands of matters that get handled by each department over the course of a month, or over the course of a year, by ministers. They are the managers and they handle those departments themselves. Despite the opinion by some people that this might be a one-man show - which has been termed - in fact, these ministers are managers of their department and they are delegated with the authority to run their own departments. They, in fact, did this, and we were assured that things were being done right.

Now, even recently, over the course since this broke in May of 2007, numbers kept changing so Eastern Health were providing new information. Then, when it became a public issue, alarm set in by everybody because, in fact, we were realizing that these numbers continue to change and they are not the exact numbers that were given to us in the first place.

I have to rely on the information that is given to me by the experts. I am not an engineer; I am a lawyer. I have some sense, possibly, of what the legal issues are. I certainly do not know all of them, and do not profess to be an expert on all of them, but particularly with medical issues and health care issues, I mean, there is terminology in some of the briefing notes and some of the reports that I do not even understand. I can put them in context, of course, and obviously get an appreciation for them, but with health care issues, specialized areas, we have to rely on the advice that is being given to us by a group of doctors.

As well, there is another issue here: a peer review had been done. On that briefing note it indicated that a peer review, in fact, had been done and the results were going to be provided at some point in time.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question again for the Premier.

Robert Thompson, who is a senior civil servant, was Clerk of the Executive Council in 2005. He managed government's messages on the ER-PR issue as the Deputy Minister of the Department of Health and Community Services after John Abbott was fired from that position. Now he is in charge of government's interest in the inquiry. He is the top guy, determining what e-mails and what information is to be submitted, and has been also subpoenaed to testify at the Cameron inquiry.

I ask the Premier: Is his appointment affecting the confidence that people have in an open process when you have an individual like this, in my opinion, who is in a conflict of interest and yet he is managing the information going forward by government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows Mr. Thompson. Members of the Opposition - some members of the Opposition - have worked with Mr. Thompson. He was a senior public servant, a Clerk for Cabinet, again the highest public servant. He is a very ethical person. He has, in my opinion, an impeccable reputation. I spoke to that in this House when he was appointed. He is, in my opinion, singularly the very best person that we could possibly put in this position in order to assemble information, to put the information together, to provide it for the Commission.

I hope - and I am not implying this - I hope the member is not insinuating under any circumstances that he would be withholding any information or not providing any information because he is in conflict and he may be trying to do it in the best interest of this government; because, I can assure you, to the best of my knowledge and based upon my appreciation and understanding and my personal value of this individual, he is doing a tremendous service to the people of this Province by having him there. He has had all the experience; he is a former Deputy Minister of Health. He knows how government works. He is probably the single best person right now in the Province who has a complete grasp of all of those issues and can figure out on a go-forward basis how we can make sure that this does not happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The time allotted for question and answers has expired.

Before the Chair calls Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, the Chair would like to ask members for their co-operation.

Realizing that this has been a little bit of a different Question Period and that we have allowed members unprogrammed time to ask and answer questions, I would like to remind members that it is unparliamentary to read from newspaper ads, to read from letters, while asking or answering questions.

I would also like to ask members for their co-operation in referring to their colleagues in the House. This has been happening ever since the Forty-Sixth General Assembly has sat, and while we have not brought anybody's attention to it with maiden speeches by members - but I ask members for their co-operation. When they refer to sitting members of the House, refer to either the executive position where they sit or by the district that they represent. It is certainly unparliamentarily, not only in this Legislature but in all Parliaments of Canada and in the United Kingdom, to refer to members by their maiden name. I say to members, when it happens in the future the Chair will rise and ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, I guess - not technically a point of order but certainly a comment in that regard, Mr. Speaker.

I take it you are referencing the Leader of the Opposition used the name Ross Wiseman. If that is indeed the name you are referring to, the only reason it is mentioned - not to show any disrespect for the rules of this House, nor to Mr. Wiseman. The reason it is mentioned is because in this particular issue we are discussing here we have had, I believe, three different Ministers of Health and Community Services, and to make sure the public are aware of whom exactly the questions are referencing, and the person answering the question can respond appropriately. That is the only reason we are mentioning the persons name. Other than that - again, it is a name. It is never referring to it in any disrespect to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his contribution, but the minister he referred to can be referred to as the present Minister of Health and Community Services. There is no reason whatsoever to refer to any sitting member here by their Christian names. I ask members for their co-operation.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Last time we sat, Mr. Speaker, there was a question in the House from the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, with respect to voluntary agreements from Child, Youth and Family Services. I said I would gather the information and table it in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Am I on the wrong call?

MR. SPEAKER: I have not called that particular heading yet, I say to the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.

The headings that have been called is Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees, and the Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to stand and, according to subsection 52 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, table the members' handbooks and the rules manual as all members have received in the past. This manual is now tabled within the House of Assembly. I ask the Pages to put the manual on the Clerk's desk, please, for observation.

The Speaker would also like to table a list of reports and documents deemed tabled when the House is not in session. Those particular documents number approximately 100, and it is for the time period of March 24, 2008 to April 4, 2008. I ask the Page if he would make this available as well, please.

Further tabling of documents?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I finally got the right spot.

As I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker -

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is hoping to get in the spot which has to deal with answers to questions for which notice has been given, my understanding is before that Your Honour has to call Notices of Motion, and Notices of Motion has not yet been called. I would think that my colleague will have to continue to warm his seat for another minute or two.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 8)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider a Resolution Relating to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 13)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy. (Bill 18)

And further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider A Resolution Relating To Advancing Or Guaranteeing Of Certain Loans Made Under The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 19)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. (Bill 9)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 14)

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 17)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act. (Bill 10)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 16)

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce the following resolution: A resolution respecting the appointment of an Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Be It Resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

Whereas section 42(1) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on resolution of the House of Assembly;

Therefore Be It Resolved that Mr. Ed Ring be appointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I think that is the extent of the notices, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 63(3) of our Private Member's Motion of the Opposition to be dealt with this coming Wednesday. I would read it is moved by the current Member of the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, seconded by the current Member for the District of Burgeo & Lapoile. It reads as follows:

Whereas nurses are currently in negotiations with the provincial government on a new contract; and

Whereas nurses in this Province are the lowest paid in the entire country; and

Whereas there is a nursing shortage in our Province and little success has been achieved to address recruitment and retention issues; and

Whereas previous nursing shortages were cyclical, the current shortage is structural in nature characterized by such things as an aging nursing workforce and fierce market competition; and

Whereas job stress and dissatisfaction are driving nurses to leave the profession in record numbers;

Therefore Be It Resolved that this House of Assembly calls on the provincial government to end the practice of pattern bargaining when dealing with specialized professions such as nursing that are faced with critical recruitment and retention issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: After three attempts, I will probably get this out now.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, when we sat the last time, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about voluntary agreements for children in care, and I said I would undertake to present that information to her. I have that for tabling here today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

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

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

I want to present another petition which has been already read in the House and is the same prayer of the petition with regard to doctor shortages.

I know we are getting close to Budget time, so I will try to get my last couple of petitions in and hopefully the Minister of Health – and I am sure we are going to hear good news when the Budget comes down about the retention of doctors throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, today I speak with reference to the situation that we find ourselves in, in the Conception Bay North area - and I am sure the same can be said throughout this Province - where there is a shortage of general practitioners. I know, in our area there is quite a shortage. A lot of people had to travel to St. John's when their own general practitioners moved to this area for various reasons, and they find themselves now in a difficult position where they don't have a general practitioner, where the reports and tests that they have done, either at St. Clare's or the Health Sciences, can be sent to. It is very disturbing to them.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but when there is a shortage of doctors or someone doesn't have a doctor at all, all too often the workload on the general practitioners that we do have in our areas is tremendous, and the people automatically then go to the emergency units at our hospitals. The same can be said at the Carbonear General Hospital, and we have also heard it referenced on the open line shows and in the media, that the same thing is happening here in the city. That is understandable. When people have a problem, regardless of how minor it is, if they can't reach their general practitioner or if they don't have one, they go to the hospital and try to be dealt with in the emergency unit.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully we will see something come down in this Budget that will help us to get new doctors and to retain the ones that we have. We heard it in the media recently, about the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the concerns being expressed by the doctors. We brought up a situation here to the hon. House with regard to audiologists. We know there are audiologists at the Janeway Hospital, but I know there are three vacancies there, and hopefully this year they will be taken care of and then the testing has to be done for some of our young people who are finding it difficult in the schools, so they can be assessed and taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those who signed the petition, I ask that government try and come up with a plan where we can attract more doctors to our Province and also retain the positions that we have filled at the present time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. WISEMAN: I stand on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WISEMAN: I did not interrupt earlier today in Question Period, but when the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, stood in her place today and was asking a question, she made a reference to comments I made in Hansard on May 16. Her reference was in the context of government having done something, or not done something, because of some legal consideration. She framed that in her question here today.

I have heard her make a similar comment in the public domain in recent weeks, on several occasions, and I say, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite to either do one of two things: that she either point out in Hansard where I, in fact, said that, or she withdraw her comment both from this House today and what she has said in the public domain in recent weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order that the Chair can rule on. I leave it to the hon. member herself, if she has made those comments, to do the honourable thing and withdraw them if they are inaccurate.

It is certainly a point of clarification that is brought forward by the Minister of Health and Community Services. The Speaker has no way of knowing - the comments that were made - if they were accurate or inaccurate, but if they were inaccurate I call on the member for clarification.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do have copies of Hansard here, I say to the minister. I will check for the exact wording, if he wants it read into the record again in the House of Assembly, and I will also check to ensure that the date was actually May 16. If not, it was May 17. I do have it here in my notes. I just need a minute to find it.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the indulgence of my colleagues to revert to Tabling of Documents?

The Minister of Finance, I think, received some documents regarding loan guarantees after we had passed that point on the Order Paper. I know we could do it tomorrow, but I believe there is some statutory requirement that it be done today.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, for the House to move back to Tabling of Documents?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleagues opposite for allowing us to revert to Tabling of Documents. I received these documents subsequent to that item being on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, I wish to table the attached list of loan guarantees provided to local governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects. The total of these guarantees is $36.5 million. The projects finance include water and sewer of $23.9 million; recreation facilities of $6.1 million; street paving of $2.9 million; and municipal buildings of $2.6 million.

Mr. Speaker, the last report under this legislation was tabled on November 23, 2006, and included guarantees issued up to and including 17 November 2006. The current listing covers the period from November 18, 2006 to March 7, 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to introduce Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection of Privacy Act. The bill amends section 23 of the act which creates a discretionary exemption from disclosure for any information that might harm the conduct of intergovernmental relations, or reveal information received in confidence from other levels of government.

Information of a sensitive nature is frequently made available by one government to another during the course of implementing interjurisdictional agreements or in the general spirit of co-operation. Access to Information legislation in all Canadian jurisdictions contains some form of exemption protecting this type of information, sensitive information, where intergovernmental relations may be harmed.

Section 23 currently addresses intergovernmental relations with, and information received from, the federal government, other provincial governments, councils of local government bodies, governments of foreign states, and international organizations of states.

On December 1, 2005, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement came into effect. This agreement set out a new regime for land ownership, resource sharing and self-government. With the agreement came the creation of the Nunatsiavut Government, signalling the beginning of a new government structure for the Labrador Inuit and for Labrador Inuit lands.

The Nunatsiavut Government has many of the responsibilities and rights of other governments in Canada, with jurisdiction over Inuit and Inuit lands, and in the Inuit communities, including the areas of health, education, child and family services, adoptions, and many other areas that have an impact on the health and well-being of the Inuit.

The exercise of these jurisdictions, and the eventual transfer of responsibility of provincial programs and services to the Nunatsiavut Government, will involve the exchange of confidential information between our two governments.

On October 4, 2006, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government held its first general election for Nunatsiavut assembly members. Since that time, Inuit community governments have replaced municipal governments in Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Rigolet and Postville. The original draft of Section 23 of the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, which received Royal Assent on March 14, 2002, does not recognize the Nunatsiavut Government. In this new era of independence for the Labrador Inuit, it is essential that Section 23 recognize the importance of intergovernmental relations between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nunatsiavut Government, and protect the free flow of confidential information between these two jurisdictions.

At the current time, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government is the only self-governing Aboriginal body in Newfoundland and Labrador. Should other Aboriginal groups become self-governing in the future, further amendments to the act may become necessary.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for support of all hon. members in passing this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, is now being read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act." (Bill 6)

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take an opportunity, if I might, to respond to the minister's comments that he made in second reading. I understand I have an hour to respond, if need be. I am not sure I will need all of that time.

This is second reading, and I usually preface my remarks by saying to the general public - because a lot of people watch this on TV and they wonder, what is this all about? They see a little notice on the bottom of their screen, second reading, and they get a title of a bill: Access to Information. What is second reading versus third reading, versus committee?

To the general public, and certainly to my good friend, Mr. Jack Simms in Burgeo again, who listens to this channel faithfully, this is second reading and the minister has just put forward his comments on Bill 6 and saying what the purpose of this amendment is. Of course, the Opposition now get an opportunity to respond, saying whether we agree or disagree.

We are not supposed to, I understand, under the parliamentary rules, go all over the map. It is supposed to be more specific than if we were talking about a money bill, which gives you pretty broad leeway to say whatever you like, but in second reading there is, again, usually some leeway, provided you are at least on the topic that the bill concerns. In this case, we are talking about the freedom of information or the access to information act and the specific piece of it is, as the minister indicated, to change the act as it currently reads so that certain confidential information that might transpire between governments, particularly the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nunatsiavut government, might under certain circumstances not be disclosed.

I would say, first of all, I guess, that we will be supportive of this particular bill. There is no question about that. Now, we do have some concerns, of course, from time to time about government and how they use or administer the Access to Information Act. I believe I was actually the Minister of Justice when we brought in the new act that we currently are working under, back in 2002. It was the first time the bill had been overhauled in ten years. There were a lot of changes needed and upgrades to reflect the new openness and transparency that is supposed to be evident in government institutions today. So, the former Administration brought in the ATTIP, commonly referred to, Access to Information and Privacy Act. It was not all proclaimed at the one time because the privacy piece could not be proclaimed, there had to be a lot of protocols and educational pieces put in place in our institutions and municipal affairs and so on and school boards in order to make that piece useable. That was just proclaimed, I understand, recently, or within the last number of months, probably last fall.

On the issue of openness and accountable, of course, people heard a lot about that. I noticed the words the minister used here, it is discretionary whether this is disclosed or not, and that is what causes the general public today a lot of concerns. This government has been preaching since 2003 that they are open, transparent and accountable. I just wonder, in the context of this bill, what that really means for this government? A lot of people out there raised the question: Are they serious, or is this just a phrase they utter that sounds good, this motherhood, we are open, we are accountable and we are transparent? Well, of course, whether someone means what they say is judged by their actions. There are serious concerns by the Opposition.

I see the media now are raising these serious concerns, and the public are certainly starting to ask questions about just where this government stands on the issue of openness, transparency and accountability. Does it mean we have the policy there but we paid lip service to it and we will respond when we feel like it? Does it mean they can stonewall whenever they feel like it? We answer if we are asked but other than that we do not have to say anything. We have had an experience with that in the last few days. I was not asked so I did not talk. That is a good one. I guess in some cases you are supposed to be mind readers. Some ministerial responsibilities certainly went out the windows in some cases.

Access to Information is all about managing the message. There is one thing of being open and being accountable but wrapped up in that is how you manage the information. How do you exercise that discretion about what does or does not go out? That is the true test of whether you are open and accountable. I will give you some examples of where I question, I seriously question whether this government is open and accountable. I will go on record as saying, based on these examples they are not; not at all.

There has been some talk on a federal level that Prime Minister Harper is a control freak when it comes to information and what goes out. Well, I have some examples of where this government is not much different. For example, there is a Workers' Compensation report that was done months and months and months ago. This government is on record in their 2003 Blue Book, and again in 2007, saying any report that comes in we will put it out there in thirty days. That is on record. The Premier is on record in the media in the last few weeks saying he stands by that. He scoured the cupboards to see what was up there that was not out there that ought to be.

What happened to the Workers' Comp report? We have asked in this House in Question Period where it is. The government again, it is in their actions that tell you what they are all about. We are open, we are accountable and we are transparent. Yet, if you ask a question in Question Period, or the media asks the question: How come we can't have it? The government says: Well, we did not commission that one ourselves. That was done by a board, so it is not our responsibility. Our commitment does not really apply then in thirty days or whatever because that is a board that did that, not us; for example, in the health care reports that were recently in the media, as to why they were not out.

We have issues, we are on record. I am the Critic for the Department of Justice, I had a staffer go to the Department of Justice and ask: What are the protocols that are used regarding this privacy piece? We have had several potential breaches of privacy and we have asked: Can you give us some information on this, just so that we are educated enough to be able to ask the question, if it warrants a question? Sometimes if you are given the information you don't need to ask because you have been informed. If I ask somebody a question and you give me the information and it is answered, I don't need to ask it, unless of course it is a public concern that should be raised. Well, that is a different issue. Then you have an obligation to do that.

We haven't heard back, and I hope this is not a case again of, well, you never wrote or you never put it in writing so therefore we didn't have to tell you, because that doesn't show the openness again. There is an implication, when you say that, that it is freely given, voluntarily given, that we don't put any roadblocks up in front of you. At least, if there is a reason you can't give it to someone, you would say, this is the reason why. If there is some reason, for example, that the Minister of Justice cannot reveal what the protocols are because it might, in itself, cause some security issues, say that.

When you are not given any answer, the perception is that: We don't want to give it to you. That is what is in the public domain there now, the perception that - why don't you want to give it to us? If there is a reason, say it. Maybe that is a very legitimate reason and we can accept that.

For example, under the Freedom of Information, some things I believe you ought to be able to ask for and if it is common courtesy stuff, sure, the government says, here look, it is informative, take it, way to go; but, no, not this government. We have to go through the Freedom of Information, the access to information, file the official application, just to get some basic information. They have it in the departments, they can easily give it to you, it is not subject to discretionary things, I would think, non-disclosure. If they were truly open and accountable, they would give it.

We have two appeals now. The Official Opposition has two appeals through the ATIPP commissioner because this government has refused to reveal the information, refused to give it. Now, one of them, I wouldn't think is a overwhelming burden to give it. I will say what it is. We made a request for the information pertaining to the Dr. FitzGerald who is the Premier's emissary in Ottawa.

That was the request, pretty straightforward: Can you tell us what it cost to have him? Can you tell us what his expenses were, and so on, and what he spent to be there?

We know, or the public has its own view as to, what he has produced. That is a different story. I will not even go there. My issue was, we wanted, as an Opposition, to find out, how much does it cost to have him there? That is a legitimate question. It is taxpayers' money. We were told, no, you cannot have it.

Now, you will recall that there were lots of questions in this House. I believe last spring we asked the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Member for St. John's East at the time, not in government now - we call him Dr. Feelgood because we said he had a limousine service, Dr. Feelgood's Limousine Service - but that information is being denied the Opposition; don't have it. So, I hope the discretion that has been exercised in those cases is not like the discretion we are going to see in the case of this amendment that is being called for here.

I understand and am fully supportive of what this amendment is supposed to do. We just hope government does not put the same cloak, shall we say, or the same impediments, and exercise its discretion in the same manner that they are doing in a lot of cases that, quite frankly, I believe, would cause a lot less trouble for everyone if the information were freely given. Because when someone puts a roadblock up in front of someone then you suspect, well, there is a reason they do not want us to have it. They do not want us to have it. Then you question: Well, why don't you want us to have it?

So, a lot of times, maybe it is unnecessary concern or suggestion that there is something being hidden. Maybe there is nothing being hidden, but the intent of the act, as I understood it from day one, was not for government to decide what they should or should not hide or give you. You give out the information. If it is out there, let anyone do their assessment on it.

We have had issues here in this House. I asked the Minister of Innovation and Trade, three weeks ago, repeatedly: Minister, can you tell me the names of the three companies reference in the Auditor General's report as A, B, C? No, he said, I cannot tell you.

I said: Minister, the Comptroller General has also named a bunch of companies in Schedule B. Would those three names be in that schedule? Can't tell you.

That is what his answers were, when I asked here, simple questions. Who are the companies that received over a million dollars of government funding, that went down the tubes? The money went down the tubes. Can you tell us where the million dollars went?

The Minister of Innovation and Trade said in this House: No, I am not going to tell you. Then he said: Come up behind the Chair where the Speaker is and I will tell you.

Now, I do not know what kind of game that is, and I do not know where that section fits under the Freedom of Information Act: I won't tell you, but come up behind the Speaker's Chair and I will tell you. I missed something in the translation here, as to what the intent of the act was.

I said to the minister: I am not prepared to accept that condition. I do not want to know the information so that I have it in my head and I cannot reveal it or discuss it or do anything with it. Why don't you just tell us? We can go through the Freedom of Information. Are you going to deny us again there? Anybody with common sense could look at the AG's report, compare it to the schedule from the Comptroller's report and pick it out. I just wanted him to say it. Even there, when it was so obvious, this minister's view was: We are not telling you at any cost. Why? The bottom line is, a million dollars is gone. That is why the people have a right to know.

Just to finish that story, three days after I started my questioning on it - the simple question of who were the three companies - the Minister of Innovation and Trade sent a note across the House one day, on the third day, fourth day, before Question Period had started – I guess he knew I was going to ask him again – came back to me in a little note and he had the names of the three companies written on the note. I knew what he was talking about because I had picked the companies already out of Schedule B.

So, I wrote him back a note and I said: Why are you giving me this information? Am I allowed to disclose this? He wrote me back again and he said: No, I gave it to you in confidence. So I went back to him and I said: You never said you gave it to me in confidence. You wrote three names down on a piece of paper and passed it over to me. What is the game you are playing? What is the game? You are either open or you are not.

To this day, this minister has not stood in this House and answered that question. Yet, he has put the names on paper for me and passed it over to me, playing these cat-and-mouse games. Well, the people do not like cat-and-mouse games any more than I do. It was a sincere, legitimate question; it deserved a sincere answer, and certainly an answer one way or the other: either you are getting it or you are not getting it. Don't say you are not getting it and then turn around and be slipping notes across, or inviting the member to go up behind the Chair. That is totally unacceptable and inappropriate, and that leads to the question again of the openness.

I guess it comes down to the individual, who is the minister, or what department, at what given time, under the act, that is being requested - what information – does it or doesn't it go out?

I have given examples here where we asked Justice for protocols and never got them. We asked ITRD for company names; we never got them. We have asked for workers' compensation stuff which, I do believe, comes under Human Resources. I was a bit lost there because I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources the last day the House was open before Easter and the Minister of Government Services responded. I don't know if he misunderstood the question or what, but I didn't know workers' compensation was under the Minister of Government Services. I thought it was under the Minister of Human Resources. Anyway, I guess the Minister of Government Services wasn't too busy so he figured he would answer it anyway, whether he had it or not.

In any case it just shows, across the broad parameters of government, different departments. I have mentioned Justice, I have mentioned Human Resources, I have mentioned Intergovernmental Affairs when it comes to Dr. Fitzgerald's information, and health care.

The Department of Education, when you talk about openness and accountability again - and I am not saying it is only this Administration - sometimes governments go too far in what you do. I am going to give an example, now. There are a lot of members in this House, for example, who were former teachers or principals and so on. You talk about the privacy piece of this act. I had an occasion - I have been going to graduations in my district every single year. I cannot get them all in. Sometimes they all have them on the same night. I went to Burgeo for a high school graduation in 2007. I sat on the stage, took part in their dinner, church service, knew most of the kids who were there, certainly know all of their parents who were there, know all of the teachers, have been doing it since 1999. The individual teacher sat next to me, who was the co-ordinator for the evening - this was at their awards night, rather, not their graduation - read out the names of all the children and the students as they received their awards, what their name was, what grade they were in, what their mark was, and so on. I got up and presented the certificates to every one of them - or congratulations to every one of them - gave out medals and trophies. It took us about three hours to do it.

When I left, I said to the teacher in question: By the way, would you mind giving me a copy of the list you have there, because I usually send out a little congratulatory certificate to the student as well, as MHA, saying, congratulations upon winning the highest marks in science or the highest marks in mathematics. I have been doing it for nine years. The teacher said: I cannot give you that, Mr. Parsons. I said: Excuse me? I am sitting in the auditorium next to you reading it, shaking hands with every single person you gave it to, I know every one of their parents, and I am telling you the reason that I want it, i.e. to do up a certificate for them - and by the way, I did not want their phone numbers, I did not want their post office boxes, I did not ask for any of that. I asked for their name and the award they won, and you cannot get it.

I wrote to the Minister of Education - talk about openness again! - and the Minister of Education passed it on to the Minister of Justice who wrote me back. Do you know that an MHA today - if you want to do that - unless you write down, yourself, the name of every child and the award because you are personally there or have someone do it for you, you cannot get that information from a principal. By the way, besides not wanting any personal information on them other than their name and what award they won, I do all of the certificates and take them all back, seventy or eighty of them, take them back to the principal. I do not even communicate with the child directly except for that night that I am there. The teachers distribute them to the children. You cannot do that now.

I do not know where it is going to go. I suggested to the Minister of Education and to the Minister of Justice who got that correspondence that there needs to be something done here. There are some things you go too far with. When an MHA cannot recognize a child who gets an award in a high school because the teacher is not allowed to give you the actual name and the name of the award so that you can do up a certificate, we have gone too far somewhere.

I fully agreement with this amendment we have here to the act, but something needs to be done on that issue as well. It has just gone too far. I do not know if it is going to come or not. I think it is common sense. I did not get a response back saying, yes, that makes sense, I appreciate where you are coming from. There has to be a way to get around that. We will amend it to allow that. I never got that back. I got back, we cannot do it. We will look it up, think about it. How much time do you need to think about something as straightforward and common sense as that?

That is another example of sometimes we do not go far enough and disclose what we ought to and other times we go too far to the other extreme. Again, I guess, a little telltale - and the media has gotten on to this lately, the media is on to this now in the last two or three weeks - this member has been asking this government for quite a number of years now about openness issues and accountability. My first opportunity after the new election I asked the Minister of ITRD those questions about companies, and it is continuing. Now the media are in the fray and the media want to know about the openness and accountability. I am not even going to raise the issue of the health care inquiry because that is a very sensitive. Justice Cameron has a job to do and the whole issue of openness and accountability is going to get thoroughly questioned and analyzed and investigated in that regard. That is another issue that the public are watching now to see what exactly is openness and accountability.

It does not take much. We have raised questions in here, I have personally asked a dozen questions about the openness and accountability of this government - not telling you, will not give it to you, you cannot have it, appeal it under the ATTIP Act, and yet we are open and accountable. As I say, the people are finally starting to judge that issue of openness and accountability. There is only so often that you can get up on the other side of this House and say, we are open and accountable and preach your Blue Book commitments. When enough examples are brought to light where you are not that, that is when people question it.

One little example - and by the way, I am not a big believer or accepter of everything that comes out of The Telegram, like some people - but The Telegram had a poll on Saturday. Now there has been all kinds of talk in the past of course about these Telegram polls and whether the government, in fact, managed the polls by having people specifically instructed to call in and give a certain answer. We have seen that too in the past, where that has been the suggestion. Anyway, the poll on Saturday was very telling. The question was: Do you think this government is open and accountable? Eighty-five percent of the respondents said, no, this government is not open and accountable; 85 per cent. Now I thought that was pretty telling, because it is either one way or the other. If government was in to the management of that Telegram poll, they did not do a very good job because they still lost at 85 to 15, or as I more accurately suspect, everybody was on Easter holidays and the government did not have anything to do with it and therefore the truth came out. The truth is that 85 per cent of the people polled as of last Saturday's Telegram said, this government is not open and accountable.

It is very pleasing to see that after a while, as many times as we ask questions in this House - it might not get any traction the first time you ask, it might not get any traction the second time, but if you ask the questions often enough, of enough departments, of enough ministers, it becomes a pattern. Sometimes, then, when something happens, it goes over the edge, people come to a conclusion on their own.

That is what the HR inquiry has done, I would suggest. Even though it is only 20 per cent done, as the Premier says, already the people who are asked that question have come to their conclusion; probably unfairly. They have come to a conclusion only having heard 20 per cent. That is how the public reacts. A lot of times the public do not need all the information to come to a conclusion.

Yes, we would definitely be supportive of this amendment here, under the ATIPP Act. What we are saying is that Government should be as quick to respond to other changes in the act, such as the privacy piece, about whether you can acknowledge a child in school and get the information so as to provide them with a certificate. There has got to be some way of doing that, even if the information is provided on a confidential basis to the members. I am sure there is nobody here who wants to do that, wants the name of the child. It is not earth shattering stuff to be able to do that.

I just hope the Government is as quick to bring forward another amendment in that regard. I just hope that we do not have to have a bunch of questions anymore of ministers in the House. If we ask a question, if it is fair ball, the information should be voluntarily turned over. Sometimes, in fairness to ministers, I do not believe it is always a case of, we want to cover up. I do not think that is always the case. I think it is a case sometimes where it is an attitude that becomes prevalent. The automatic instinct is to say: What do they want that for? Sometimes it is automatic, shut it down, don't give the information. Maybe it is just an attitudinal thing, maybe it is not coming on the express orders of the ministers. In the case of the Minister of Industry and Trade, now it was very directly on the minister. He was asked here and said no. Maybe it is a case where the staff just feels that is the name of the game, say no.

We will be supportive of this. I am not sure if - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi I understood did intend to have a few words to the legislation. I noticed she left the Chamber briefly. I can certainly keep talking if need be until she returns. I do understand she did wish to respond in second reading to this particular bill.

In any case -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, the Member for Port de Grave did not intend to speak. If you wish, I can just sit down and reserve her right. I just did not want her to be left without an opportunity to comment.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That is fine. She can finish her comments. That is fine.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure. (Bill 4)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure. It is a new act which will be replacing the Consumer Protection Act that is currently in my department.

The Cost of Disclosure act will require lenders to provide a clear statement to borrowers as to the cost of borrowing. I think this act is an absolutely fabulous act in regards to - all of us in this House, and people across the Province, often borrow money. When they go in, sit down and sign off on the final documents et cetera, when they walk out yes, they know what their interest rate is and that kind of stuff but they actually do not know in essence what the total cost would be to that borrowing if they went to term. This act certainly gives them a clearer statement in regards to that. It will define the interest rate. It will define the different costs of borrowing. It also will reference the total cost to the borrower if they went to term, in writing. I think it is very important that they have that on file in regards to their homes and places of business, et cetera. Then everybody is absolutely clear in regards to the amount, the principle, and the amount that they have borrowed to the amount that they are actually going to pay back to the borrower.

Again, this replaces an act which is called the Consumer Protection Act. I also want to say that the values and most of the items that were currently in that act will also be included in this act and reflected into it. This act was also developed over a number of years by the consumer measures committee, which consists of representatives of the consumer affairs departments of all provinces and also the federal government. So this act also is a piece of harmonization where people who move and do business in other regions and other jurisdictions across provinces will all be dealing really on the same field and on the same level. They will be harmonized across the provinces where the same principles and same regulations will be used with regards to disclosure of any borrowing costs that might be entailed in regards to what they have asked for.

There were extensive consultations on a national basis with the financial services industry and the consumer groups during the development of this piece of harmonization and this piece of legislation. This was done a number of years ago and the actual act has taken a number of years to bring forward, but certainly the consultations were done. They were supported by the various industries and the consumer groups because they could actually see the value into it. As a matter of fact, in times of business and times in regard to my own personal affairs, I would have loved to have had this type of act and this kind of regulation in place where at any given time, two years, one year, eighteen months down the road, that I could look back and make sure exactly what I was paying for and what I was paying on in regards to what I had borrowed.

The provisions of the act are also similar to the federal bank act. So our local lenders, such as credit unions, will be on a level playing field with other banks. This is a very good thing as we move forward and grow our economy.

As I said before, the other safeguards to protect consumers that existed in the Consumer Protection Act are also included in the Cost of Credit Disclosure act as well. So, we did not just replace or develop a new act, we actually governed the principles of that act as well. That act will be repealed in regards to when we finish the legislative process and the Cost of Credit Disclosure act.

There are also additional provisions under this act, such as charges or penalties being prepaid on a loan for prepaying a loan. I remember back a number of years ago I paid a loan out before the actual due date and then I was subject to certain charges, et cetera, that I was not aware of at the time. It certainly pissed me off when I had to pay them, but now these will not be there as well. They will be covered off. Anyway, the consultations did take part in the late 1990s and certainly they were covered off by all the interest groups, et cetera, across all jurisdictions.

It is a pleasure to get up and introduce this act. Certainly, I am open to and interested in what the Opposition may have to say in regards to this act because I see it as a very good act in regards to the protection of consumers, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 4, An Act Respecting the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, speaking to Bill 4.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to an act respecting the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure. I have to agree with the minister, but I will try to change the terminology. I think the comments that he made - yes, I would say there are a lot of people in the Province who gets ticked off from time to time.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that from what I have seen so far and maybe as we go along in the other readings there might be some other questions, but we think this is a good piece of legislation. We know that this was started back some time ago. I think it was back in 1996 when the various provinces and territories came together with this piece of legislation and it is good for the consumer, there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. The other thing I noticed with interest, it is also intended - that it is good for the business community as well.

I just want to touch on a few issues with regard to what is in this legislation. One of them is under item 4(1) which is the delivery of the disclosure statement. All too often we hear from constituents, and I am sure each and every member in this House feels the same way and have heard the same stories, about how people sign up for various agreements and they do not get the information accurate and on time and they find themselves in a very difficult position as the term of the loan should go on.

Another key component - and maybe at the end of the day the minister can explain it, but from what I understand - is with regards to the credit guarantor. A lot of them go and get their own insurance. The guarantors sometimes want to outline who they want to insure them with but I think this piece of legislation states now it is up to the borrower, that he can go and be covered off on whatever insurance company that he would wish to deal with rather than being told by the guarantor who he has to go with. So, that is a good item as well in this piece of legislation.

The other one is with regards to the borrower being entitled to repay the full outstanding balance. I think the minister outlined it very well himself, that people, sometimes when they pay off their loans in full are tapped with another penalty for paying it off and they are not aware of this when they take out the loans. So, disclosure in the beginning I think is very important when it comes to this piece of legislation.

The other one, Mr. Speaker, is advertising interest free periods. We see this all too often in our local papers from various companies, that you can borrow for a certain period of time, maybe you can wait twelve, sixteen or eighteen months and you do not have to pay the interest. A lot of people do not pay attention to it when they are doing it and at the end of the day, probably when they start making their payments, the interest is a lot higher or it is under a different scenario than what they thought it was in the beginning. From time to time that is a difficult situation that people find themselves in, but with this piece of legislation now it has to be disclosed right from the very beginning.

The other one, it also mentions here about application for credit cards. I have had constituents call from time to time who say: I received a credit card in the mail. There is a line of credit, maybe for $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 and those people just take the credit cards and use them. Then all of a sudden they realize the interest rate on that is probably 28 per cent or 30 per cent. They were not told that. They just received a credit card. This piece of legislation, thank goodness, is outlining to those people that you cannot get a credit card unless you make application. I think that is a good piece of information that is in this piece of legislation.

There are a couple of questions, I guess, I would like to note to the minister with regards to - the Explanatory Note at the beginning of the bill was very vague. There was very little information there. I think it was in Saskatchewan, when they put this similar bill - and maybe ours are just little changes because it is a national bill. They put out a 180-page document explaining everything in it. It is a very compact and difficult thing to explain and understand for a lot of people.

I was just wondering why we didn't receive that. I called the minister's office and the very next day one of his officials called back. I went over and had a meeting with him and I must say it was a very cordial meeting. I received a lot of information and understood things that I didn't understand before I went over there. I think that is what it is all about, when we come up with the legislation.

The only thing I want to say to the minister – and I know he said they consulted with various groups and organizations. I was wondering if there was any public input into it or if there was any negative feedback in any way. Personally, I don't see anything there, but maybe some of those groups did.

Where other jurisdictions, over the past year, a year and a half or two years, have brought in this legislation, I was wondering if there were any amendments put forward from the general pattern that was put forth, I guess, by each jurisdiction. Have those amendments been changed or implemented in the legislation that we have before us today?

Apart from that, Mr. Chair, the only other thing, I suppose, you could ask is: Does it go far enough? I know some jurisdictions with regard to what we call the payday lenders – I know our legislation doesn't cover them as long as they are complying and reporting what they have, but some jurisdictions have gone beyond and outlawed them. I am not saying that, but maybe there should be something in this bill to make sure that the rates and the fees and the interests are, I guess, at a level where people understand what they are getting, and probably not as large fees are being charged.

Having said that, the only other comment, Mr. Chair, is, hopefully when this bill is implemented there will be an education program, whether it be brochures or literature, going out to the general public explaining it to them and what they should look out for when they apply for credit, so that they can go through the means whereby they can get the best deal for themselves, because that is what it is all about.

I have to say, Minister, we on this side will be supporting this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

Just a quick comment: I was very delighted, actually, to see this piece of legislation come to the Table. We have a lot of examples in our society where the average consumer does suffer because of lack of legislation in some of the areas that are outlined here. I am just going to take a quick moment to say I do support the legislation and will be voting for it, and thank the minister for bringing it to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: I would just like to close debate and try to answer some of the questions that my hon. colleague in the Opposition raised.

I think one of them was on the consultation process. It is my understanding the consultation process was extensive, was held nationally and included both industry people and consumers alike. Most people had an opportunity to partake in that consultation process and I think mostly everything was covered off during that process and resulted in this legislation today.

As to any changes, I think over the years, if you logically looked at it - this piece of legislation transpired over a number of years. It has taken a number of years to be tabled in this House and other Houses in other provinces across the country. I would think that, as we went forward, any necessary changes were looked at and also taken care of in that process and during that time. Certainly we are always open to changes in legislation and amendments in the legislation.

The other suggestion and question was in regard to any communications to the general public that we partake in, in Government Services. Yes, we will. In the department we have plans to develop a very plain language brochure so consumers can understand the Cost Of Credit Disclosure Act and what it will mean to them, and know their rights under the act in regards to borrowing money. This act will also apply to all lenders, including payday loan companies, but we have no plans to implement specific payday loan regulations at this time. There is a consultation process and a process happening under other provinces and other jurisdictions, so we are following that very closely. Certainly we will be open to bringing in such legislation if we deem that it is necessary to the public at some future date.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. I think it is. I thank my hon. colleagues for their comments, and certainly I appreciate their comments and their support in regard to this act. I, too, think this act is very important to the public of the Province and also the consumers, and even the industry for that manner.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

DEPUTY CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to forward this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Granted.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, by leave. (Bill 4)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will now revert to second reading debate on Bill 6. I believe the Opposition House Leader had concluded his remarks and it would be the turn of the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to speak to the bill if she so wished.

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

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

I appreciate the flexibility that the House Leader had in breaking the discussion on this bill so that I could get the time to speak. I was called outside of the House and had to take care of business outside of the House.

I am happy to take some time to speak to this bill. The provision for the amendment, of course, is a very logical one. We have to have amendments to bills accordingly as things change in our society. Because of the new Nunatsiavut government naturally this House of Assembly must recognize that government. It is wonderful to recognize that government. It is wonderful to be able to vote as well for this amendment so that they get specifically named in section 23(1) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I want to use this opportunity of looking at what this amendment is about to speak to some broader issues with regard to disclosure. That is what this section of the act is about. It is about disclosing information to an applicant. If somebody goes to the head of a public body in our Province, a public body that is responsible to government and looks for information, the public body has to give that information to the applicant who comes, but there have to be restrictions as well. This section, of course, in this chapter of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is talking about disclosure that can be harmful to intergovernmental relations or negotiations, and that is why the new government's name has to be put into this section.

What is really important for me, as I read this, is that it is so important that we have an act that recognizes the need to allow people to have access to information, and that we have an act that, you know, puts actually in Statute our responsibility for and our commitment to openness and transparency. It is so important.

I would like to point out, again, for people who are watching who do not have documents in front of them, that this piece in the act, this section in the act, is very serious, it is not frivolous, that if the head of a public body refuses to disclose information to an applicant, they do it because there could be harm caused to the relationship between the provincial government and other governments, and those governmental bodies are named. We go everywhere from the relationships with our own country through to the relationships from municipality, through to international relationships and to the relationship with the aboriginal government that now exists in our Province. As has been pointed out already, there could be a day when we will have more aboriginal governments in this Province and we would have to amend this act again.

I think it is timely that we are dealing with an amendment to the Access to Information and Privacy Act, in the light of what we are dealing with in the Province today. What we are going though in the Province right now with the Commission of Inquiry, with regard to hormone receptor testing, is a difficult time for all of us. It is a very serious time and it is a time that none of us is taking lightly. One of the biggest issues that has come out in the inquiry to date is the issue around disclosure, disclosure both on the level of disclosure to the individual patient and on the broader level of disclosure to the public.

Now, I find it interesting. Disclosure to the public I would have thought would be called disclosure, but I want to inform people about a document that was tabled at the Cameron inquiry last week actually, on Monday. So that would have been March 31. I encourage people to look up the website if they have the ability to do that and to look at this document. It was the very last document tabled on that afternoon of March 31, a week ago. It is a document from the Canadian Patient Safety Institute which is a fairly new institute in Canada. It was set up to make sure that patients are protected and that when there are adverse effects, or adverse events rather, that something happens in the health care system that has adverse effects on people, that there need to be guidelines with regard to how information is disclosed to the individual.

They also talk about - and this is the part I want to refer to –

Mr. Speaker, if I can point out, I think the clocks have stopped. That has been 3:32 ever since I stood up, so I don't know who is watching my time. I think I have been speaking for six minutes now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Okay. I won't need more, but just to point out that the clocks are stopped. I think we need to know that.

I found it very interesting in this document, on page 12, they talk about creating a culture of patient safety, and they make a distinction between disclosure and reporting. By that I mean, when they are talking about disclosure, they talk about the one-on-one, the doctor with the patient, or the doctor with the family of the patient, or the doctor with the representative of the patient, the one-on-one disclosure. Basically, this document gives all the guidelines with regard to that kind of disclosure, and that kind of disclosure is absolutely essential. Ultimately, it is the very first one; it is the most important one. How patients find out that they have been affected by an adverse event is the number one consideration.

This document also says that reporting is a different process from disclosure, and refers to the communication by health care providers of information about an adverse event for the purpose of reducing the risk of occurrence, and that the reporting should be both within their system and outside of their system, and that is what I want to talk about.

When something of an adverse nature happens to one patient, that is one thing, but when it happens to a multitude of patients then it is something that belongs to the public realm because, number one, the public are going to find out about it and, number two, they want to find out: Is this going to happen again? Will I be affected?

So, we do have to be concerned about the reporting on the public realm. I am rather concerned, actually, that this document by this new organization only deals with the one-on-one disclosure. They recognize the issues around reporting, so I hope - and I am going to be following this up and maybe the minister will think about following this up as well - I hope that this organization is going to look at the reporting nature of the work that has to be done by a group like a health care group - they are not the only ones - and that they will also come out with guidelines with regard to dealing with the public, dealing with the broader group of people who are also affected. This is something that, as I said, I invite people to have a look at, invite them to read, and recognize that there are many dimensions to the issue of disclosure.

One of the things that concerns me, and I want to mention it because we do have to think about not allowing to happen again in the future what happened in the current situation that we are dealing with, one of the main reasons why, in the spring of 2007, all the information became public, all the information with regard to the mistakes around the hormone receptor testing became public, was because the lawyer for a class action suit posted his documents on his Web site, once he had presented them to the courts, which is quite acceptable. So, the publicity happened not because the government said the time has come to go public; the publicity happened because of the legal documents becoming public legitimately, and I think it is very unfortunate that the government had not prepared itself to mitigate against the news coming out the way that it came out.

So, I see this as a moment not for blaming each other, not for beating up on each other - to use a common parlance - but as a moment to say: What do we have to put in place so that this does not happen again, so that if we ever have a major event like this - and I certainly hope we never do, but if we ever have a major event like this happen again - are we ready, as a government? When I say as a government here, I mean all of us who are elected. We all have a responsibility. Are we ready to make sure that the information gets conveyed to the public in a way that will be thoughtful of the individuals who have been affected, but also thoughtful of the need of the public to have the information?

There are organizations around - I am hoping this new organization that I have referred to, once again, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, groups like this, groups like the Canadian Medical Association - many groups out there who deal with these issues, and if we are going to assure that the next time, if there is a next time, we know how to deal with the issue that we are faced with today, that the government was faced with, that the minister was faced with, that the Premier is faced with, we will not be going around saying we do not know what to do; we will literally have systems put in place so that no matter who the government is, no matter what the stripe of the government, we have a system in place for informing the public of events that should be of concern to them, and events that could affect them, and events that have to be dealt with publicly.

So I encourage us, in the spirit of openness and transparency that we all say we want to have, that we use the moment that we are in right now in this Province as a moment to learn, as a moment to put systems in place to deal with adverse events, as a moment for finding out how to do public reporting in a way that meets the needs of the individual and meets the public needs at the same time, because that is what access to privacy and information is all about. We have to make sure that not only do we tell people as individuals that they have the right to have that information, but that, when we have information that we know is going to affect the public, that whoever is in power in government knows that it is incumbent upon them to make that information public and that there are systems in place to help do that.

That would mean, for example, that a public body, in this case like Eastern Health, that a public body like Eastern Health or like a school board or any of the public bodies that we have, would also have to have systems in place that I would suggest would be worked out with government, that the system that would be put in place by government would be a system that would be worked out with many stakeholders, among whom are the public bodies.

That is what I wanted to speak to, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to stand to blame anybody for anything. I wanted to use this moment - when I saw what we were going to be voting on, I said: Well, this is a chance for me to share with my colleagues, and with those who are watching us, some of the thoughts I have had over the last couple of weeks with regard to how the public could have been alerted with regard to the issue, instead of it happening the way it happened, which then became, in itself, an adverse event. The way in which the information came out was an adverse event in and of itself.

I thank my colleagues for listening. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. minister that if he speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a background, as does yourself, where we live in an adversarial world. The role of the trial lawyer is one where it is more of attack than working together. When I got involved in this political arena, I assumed that what we would all be doing is working together, working together for the betterment of the Province, working together to ensure our future, not speaking to people out there in TV land, as the hon. House Leader put it, in an attempt to score political points. I contrast today the comments of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party with the comments of the Opposition House Leader. What I hear coming from the Leader of the New Democratic Party are constructive, positive comments. It is not about blame; it is about working together. What do I hear from the hon. House Leader of the Opposition? Again, negativity. Always criticizing, never looking or accepting the good. That is why sometimes situations arise.

Now there is one comment, I will tell you, I do agree with from the Opposition House Leader is that people come to conclusions on their own. Well that is what happened, Mr. Speaker, on October 9, people came to conclusions. That is why we are up and down these rows and across there and there is three Liberals sitting right there, sir, because that is what happened, people came to conclusions on their own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The Opposition House Leader referred to the serious concerns of the Opposition. Well I am going to refer you in a second, to how he outlined those concerns in a letter when we are dealing with privacy.

The Opposition House Leader said: Well, what is openness, transparency and accountability? It is what Premier Williams did today when he stood up in front of this House and said: We accept responsibility. What we are looking for is the truth, and it is the truth that we want to come out. That is what we want from a leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We did not hear the Premier say it is someone else's fault, or I am not responsible for what the previous Minister of Health said. He said: as the leader of this

government and the Leader of this Province, it is my responsibility. Now that is the beginning, Mr. Speaker, to the regime of openness, transparency and accountability. We do not have our leader hiding behind excuses.

When you look at the term openness, transparency and accountability, there is no magic. Open: to be honest, to be frank, to let the world look in at what is going on. That is what we, as a government, are attempting to do. As the Leader of the NDP rightfully pointed out, sometimes, unfortunately, we learn from our mistakes, and unfortunately there are mistakes to learn from. The key, Mr. Speaker, is to acknowledging when mistakes are make, to accept responsibility and to fix those mistakes in a spirit of co-operation. That is what I heard from the Leader of the NDP today. That is not what I heard from the Opposition House Leader. Why is that? This is the same Opposition House Leader who sat in the chair I sit in now. He realizes the difficulty. He sat in Cabinet. He realizes the difficulty in providing all information to the public. There has to be certain decisions made in Cabinet and in government which we are entitled to protection from. So, what the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act attempts to do is balance the public's right to know with the government's right to govern. Because that is what we have been elected to do, is to govern this Province and to ensure that we do it in a way that is in the best interest of the public. Open - again, you heard the Premier today. You have heard Minister Wiseman accept that, as minister, responsibility. What more can we as ministers or members do when it comes to open?

Transparency; this is what we are doing and why we are doing it. We are not going to hide behind excuses, rationales, empty reasoning or illogical - I was going to use a rather nasty word there but in my new approach of not being adversarial I am not any more. I am going to try to work together with the Opposition and I am going to try to do it in a way as the Opposition House Leader says which shows that we are doing it by actions and it is not simply talk.

Let's look at the logic of what they are saying. I am going to take you through this in a second, but first I am going to come to the accountability. What more accountability is there than when a Premier stands up and says I, and my government, accept responsibility? Because accountability means exactly that. It means that if I have personally done something, whether it be by mistake or intentional, I accept responsibility for it. That is the basis, Mr. Speaker, of the criminal justice system, that if you have committed a criminal act then you are held accountable, whether by guilty plea or by judgement. So what we have tried to do in this government is to accept and acknowledge that there has to be accountability. It does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we lie down and impale ourselves upon the cross. It means that we examine our actions and we say: Did we take all of the reasonable steps that would be required in this case? Then if I have made a mistake, well that mistake is one that has to be addressed. All of us in this House have the same goal. Now, I understand the role of the Opposition. I understand it is a difficult role considering their numbers. I understand that it takes a lot of preparation every day to come in and I certainly hope they can continue it for the next six or eight weeks, or however long we are here because I look forward to their questions and look forward to their comments. But, let's look at what - I am going to use two examples very quickly.

During the Throne Speech the Leader of the Opposition in talking about privacy and our failure to adhere to the principles outlined in the ATTIP Act, again: openness, accountability and the protection of privacy were pillars of this government's platform. Not only were they pillars of this government's platform, Mr. Speaker, they are and will continue to be pillars of this government's platform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: She goes on to say a government who claims to be masters of their own house. We do not claim to be masters of our own house, we are and will continue to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Unfortunately, these promises have floundered - well, tell that to the majority of people on October 9 because they did not seem to have floundered in their views - and that the public were left vulnerable and without full disclosure of information. Then she says: I want to encourage the government to get back on track, to protect the privacy of our citizens and rebuild people's confidence in the fundamental commitments that you have made. That is pure, political rhetoric. It is an empty comment without substance. It is like the Opposition House Leader saying he has serious concerns. Well, I have been waiting here now, sir, for two weeks for a question on privacy. I have not yet received it. Now I know the Opposition have been busy but what does the hon. Opposition House Leader do? He comes in and starts talking about the privacy breaches without outlining to the public how we have dealt with these.

Then, in a letter, Mr. Speaker - and one, I have to tell you, I have grave difficulty with, as I come from my adversarial world, trying to work collaboratively with the Opposition – in a letter to Minister Burke, he used his example of the graduation, and wanting to send out his certificates, and he could not get the information.

Well, on the one hand we are being criticized by the Opposition Leader because we are not protecting privacy enough, and on the other hand we are protecting privacy too much. Now, which is it, members of the Opposition? What do you want?

Then, to use this kind of language in a letter dated February 4: It appears we have reached the heights of foolishness, and what was and is a well-intentioned piece of legislation is having an unintended negative application.

Now, is there any need for that kind of comment? Every comment we hear from the Opposition: It is ridiculous. It is disgusting. It has reached the heights of foolishness. Now, which is it? Do you want us to amend the act? He brought in the act. Excuse me, the Opposition House Leader was the Minister of Justice when the act was brought in. There have been very few changes to the act. With the Opposition House Leader's years as a seasoned politician, one would have assumed he would have seen this coming –

AN HON. MEMBER: A lawyer.

MR. KENNEDY: A lawyer also, yes.

So what we have is a situation that can be resolved by common sense, as the Leader of the NDP stated, by us working together - all of sudden becomes a bombastic attack here today on this government's failure to adhere to the principles of openness, transparency and accountability. What we have seen from the Opposition are always personal vitriolic attacks. Why does it have to be like that?

The Opposition House Leader, in writing a letter to Minister Burke, does not simply say: Can we work this out? It is used as a platform whereby the Opposition House Leader says: I intend to raise this matter in the House of Assembly to demonstrate how legislation sometimes has untended, unnecessary and impractical consequences. To prevent such an activity as presenting students with certificates and impose such an unnecessary bureaucratic process is mind-boggling.

Well, I would not want to boggle the minds too much, Sir, but I would make a suggestion - again in my, perhaps, naivety and inexperience – come, work with us. Work collectively, work collaboratively, as we try to do the best we can.

Then we have the privacy breaches. There is no better example of how this government has dealt with these privacy breaches than the first one, Sir, the public health lab. Right away, the public is informed, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, the public is informed. Before we even had the details, Mr. Speaker, we were out there saying to the public: We don't know the full details but you have a right to be informed. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that meets any definition of openness. It is perhaps too open.

Then they raised the question: Why are we having all these privacy breaches in this Province? Because we are telling you. If we did not tell you, you would never know. That is the difference between this government, Sir, and other governments, whether in this country or throughout the world: that we tell people what is going on; and that, by its very nature, meets the criteria of openness.

Then, what do we do next? Right away, we retain experts in the area to examine the process. People work around the clock so that within three to four days we know the extent of the privacy breach. What do we do then, Mr. Speaker? We immediately inform individuals of what is going on. We inform the public. We say to them, at such-and-such a time, the privacy breach was discovered. These are the steps we took. This is what we found. Transparency? How can you be any more transparent than that, Mr. Speaker?

Accountability? Well, if you take openness, you take transparency, and you put them together, you are getting close to accountability, because we are saying that we now accept that mistakes have been made, whether it be as a government department or an agency, board or commission, and we are making changes.

So, how can the hon. Opposition House Leader stand here today and criticize this government for failing to be open, transparent and accountable, in light of the way we have dealt forcefully, expeditiously and thoroughly with the privacy breaches that we have encountered?

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what more we could do. We did not come forward and try to lessen the effect. We outlined it as it was, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the approach that has been taken by this government. One of the approaches that attracted me to this government was the positive way in which things were being dealt with. In other words, it is the truth that we are looking for; and, in finding the truth, let the chips fall where they may.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know, I say to the Opposition House Leader, what more can we do than follow this type of protocol?

In relation, Mr. Speaker, to the actual bringing in of the amendment, ATIPP was – the protection of privacy provisions were brought in on January 16, 2008. As the hon. House Leader would know, in dealing with any legislation, you attempt, as best you can, to identify the problems, identify and foresee consequences, and address situations as they arise. There are more amendments on the statute books of this Province than there are pieces of legislation because it is when we learn of a difficulty or a problem that we address it.

The three pieces of legislation that I introduced today in terms of first reading – I do not have all of the terms down yet, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the technical terms - they were all an act to amend. That is what the nature of the legal process involves. There is a changing dynamic and we have to be able to address that dynamic. If and when a situation arises, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out, we have to address it because we do not want these types of things to happen again. What we have to do is address issues forcefully, thoroughly and expeditiously, and I would suggest, Sir, that as a government we are doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed today, in my first piece of legislation that I introduced into the House - I thought it was a very positive piece of legislation. Here we are; we have a government, a self-governing Aboriginal body in Labrador. After the Land Claims Agreement we have the communities of, I think it was Nain, Hopedale, Makkovik, Postville, Rigolet, coming together to elect a government. I thought - perhaps again in my naivety, and the longer I stay here perhaps the less naive I will become – that I would hear good things today. I thought I would hear everyone stand up and say, this is absolutely wonderful that in Labrador, considering the issues that we have up there, the Inuit people have self-governing. They are a self-governing body. That is exactly what it means; they are governing themselves.

Again, I know the role of the Opposition cannot be to give government its due because, I guess, that would not be opposing us then, but I thought they would say, and look at all the other steps, the positive steps, that are being taken by this government in Labrador; Minister Pottle and Minister Hickey sitting behind me. The steps we have taken, the number of trips we have made to Labrador, the meetings we have had as we attempt to work our way through the issues, I would suggest to you, so far, in my short tenure as the Minister of Justice, is the most positive aspect of this job. Do you know why this is working, Mr. Speaker? Because we are working collaboratively and collectively.

When I hear the stories now coming out of Natuashish, that the alcohol ban is working, that crime has gone down, well that was a step taken by the people, the Innu people themselves. That was a step that was taken by the Band Council in Natuashish and the Innu Nation, supported also by the people of Sheshatshiu. What is so amazing about that is that they are the ones coming forward and saying, as a community we have to accept responsibility and can you offer us any assistance you can. How did we do that, Mr. Speaker? The RCMP agreed to enforce the ban, the federal government agreed to prosecute breaches of the bylaw, and as a Province we agreed that we would use our court facilities to hear cases involving any breaches of the ban.

As Ministers Hickey and Pottle will tell you, our dialogues have been very positive. When I stand up today and say, look at this major accomplishment on behalf of the Nunatsiavut government, look how far they have come, what I see, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think it is in the too distant future, I see the Innu Nation also obtaining this status. I see the Innu Nation and I am so impressed with the leadership that they are demonstrating and I am so impressed with the leadership of the Nunatsiavut government. Perhaps as a somewhat jaded criminal lawyer after twenty years, it does my heart good to see people accept responsibility and say we are going to work with you to improve our situation. That is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that is so good so far about this job, is to see that these people want to protect their cultures and traditions yet they accept that they have to work collectively with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as we do it.

I thought today, by introducing this amendment, that there would be not only support for the amendment but actual recognition of the steps this government has taken as we work our way through these difficult issues.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the Aboriginal issues: There was an Aboriginal conference just held in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in North West River. I have to commend my two colleagues, Ministers Hickey and Pottle, for the leadership that they have shown in Labrador. Minister Pottle was only, like myself, elected in October and the fantastic job she has done so far is quite amazing. It is one that shows a dedication to her community and an understanding of the needs of her community. Minister Hickey has also brought those same kinds of leadership skills to the table in working with both the Innu nation and the Nunatsiavut government. I see nothing but good things in Labrador. We have work to do, but as we move towards Aboriginal justice initiatives like restorative justice, land based justice and Aboriginal offender courts we are certainly going to dedicate our time and effort to it.

Before too long, hopefully I will be in a position to inform this hon. House that the introduction of Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, is just the beginning of a long string of accomplishments that this government is going to see happen in Labrador.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, openness, transparency and accountability versus stonewall. It is very unfortunate when we see terms like stonewall being used. It implies, at a minimum, if not expressly states, that as a government we are hiding things, we are deliberately obstructing, we do not want the truth to come out. Well, as Premier Williams said today much more eloquently and forcefully than I can ever say it, there is nothing further from the truth. What we are looking for is the truth and the openness, transparency and accountability will help us get there.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close debate on this act and move the second reading of the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of this House that Bill 6 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, Bill 6.

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

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave granted.

On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I propose that we move into Committee for discussion on a couple of bills that we have already dealt with, I have spoken to the Opposition regarding doing first reading of a number of bills we gave notice of today solely for the purpose so that the bills can be distributed. I understand that there is leave for me to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move first reading of Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Cooperation, wonderful stuff!

The Minister of Justice is duly noting the cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move first reading of Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 8 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra minded.

Carried.

On motion, the hon. the Minister to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowance Act," carried. (Bill 8)

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowance Act. (Bill 8)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading, on behalf of the Minister of Justice that is, of bill 9, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, bill 9, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 9 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006," carried. (Bill 9)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. (Bill 9)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move that Bill 10, An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act, standing in the name of the Minister of Government Services, be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Repeal the Bulk Sales Act, Bill 10, and that the bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 10 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act," carried. (Bill 10)

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Repeal the Bulk Sales Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 10 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move first reading of Bill 12, standing in the name of the hon. Minister of Education, that the minister have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act and that this bill now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 12, and that the bill be now read a first time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act," carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move that Bill 16, standing in the name of the Minister of Natural Resources, An Act to Amend the Forestry Act, now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Forestry Act, Bill 16, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 16 and that the bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend the Forestry Act," carried. (Bill 16)

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Forestry Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move that Bill 17, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, An Act To Amend the Fatal Accidents Act, now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Fatal Accidents Act, Bill 17, and that the bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 17 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend the Fatal Accidents Act," carried. (Bill 17)

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move now that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain pieces of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I now leave the Chair.

Give me a minute please, I have to confer with the Clerk.

[Speaker confers with the Clerk]

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Collins): We are now debating Bill 6.

The hon. the Government House.

MR. RIDEOUT: If it is all the same, Mr. Chairman, I would like to first begin with Bill 4, in numerical order anyway. So, Bill 4. Committee consideration of Bill 4, An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure." (Bill 4)

CHAIR: We are now ready to debate Bill 4 in Committee of the Whole.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 51 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 51 inclusive.

Shall those carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 51 inclusive carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to propose Committee consideration of Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act." (Bill 6)

CHAIR: Bill 6.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I want to speak to the clause.

CHAIR: Speaking to clause 1?

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate, again, an opportunity to have a few comments here and I appreciate the response of the Minister of Justice. It is good when somebody is challenged as to what they say in these Chambers, particularly when it is coming from a new member and a new minister. That is very nice to see, because sometimes accountability does not only apply to the government of course, anybody in this Chamber should be held accountable for what they say or what they do not say sometimes.

First of all, I would comment regarding the issue of the role of an Opposition, as the minister said, in this Chamber. Now, I do not know what his understanding of the role of an Opposition is, and he uses words - and I said, I swore, at the beginning of this session of this new government, that I will not get personal. I refuse to do it. Any comments that I make will be factual and if I am not factual and not correct, by all means bring me to task for it.

To say that what I asked about was absolutely negative – now, what is negative? What is the role of an Opposition? Is this government going to be so sensitive and thin-skinned that you cannot ask? Is it expected that we are supposed to be muzzled? If that is the expectation that the current Minister of Justice has, that this member is going to be muzzled, he better start over, because I am not going to be muzzled by anybody on that side if I have a legitimate question, and the questions I raised were indeed very legitimate, not negative. In fact, they were constructive which I believe is the role of an Opposition.

For example, the minister never once addressed a single example of what I put forward as an example of this government not being open and accountable. I put forward the issue of our requests for information concerning the protocols; he did not comment on it. I put forward the information about ITRD and the minister's refusal to disclose the corporate names; there was no response. I put forward the issue of the Workers' Compensation report and the government's non-disclosure of it; there was no response or comment to that. As recently as this week - I did not even refer to it - in the Independent there is a story where this minister, I believe on the first few days on his watch back in the fall, initiated a report, and the media asked for it last week. It has been in there more than thirty days and they have not gotten it. That is another example.

I say to the minister, if anything that I said about any of these examples about this government not being open, not being transparent and not being accountable is not true, show me. You are a trial lawyer who deals in fact, presenting facts to the court. I gave at least five or six examples, and what did I get in response? That, you are negative. Because we have put forward facts? Not one thing I said in the second reading of this Bill was not factual, and I challenge the minister to show that it was not factual. Those are the facts. Now, whether that means Government was not open, not accountable and not transparent, that is for the people to decide. I have my opinions, but my opinion is only one.

I have an obligation and a right to let the people of this Province know that there are things going on, there are situations and examples, that we feel as an Opposition are not open and are not accountable, and if the Government or any minister of the Government is going to get in a tither and get sensitive when we raise those questions and accuse us of being negative, we are going to have a long watch here for the next four years.

The reference, for example, to the letter I wrote to the Minister of Education, suggesting that the tone and the language I wrote in that letter was inappropriate. Inappropriate? I wrote to the Minister of Education and I said and I meant it, that it is absolutely foolish that we would have such a provision in the ATIPPA. I acknowledge, by the way, I was the minister when ATIPPA came in, I acknowledge that governments make mistakes. I acknowledged that ministers let pieces of legislation go through, that you do not cover off every eventuality. That is why we have amendments. That is why we come back here from time to time when we know that things were not done right in the first place. I have no problem with that. But to suggest that the language I used to the Minister of Education was in some way inappropriate, sounded terrible - what other language would you use, other than to say it is foolhardy. It is foolhardy. I thought there was going to be some startling revelation from the minister, that I said something in the letter that was absolutely earth shattering, vulgar in some way; absolutely vulgar. I asked the minister a simple question: Must we live with such foolhardy type stuff? I did not expect such a sensitive response. He doth protest too much, I think Shakespeare said.

Again, suggesting that because we are asking questions, we are automatically being negative, not dealing with the facts that we ask, that is part of the problem, I say to the minister. It appears to the public that that is the Government attitude and response when an Opposition asks even constructive things. I agree, there have been lots of things asked in this chamber that have not necessarily been constructive from time to time. But, even when the Opposition asks something that is constructive, ministers here, now it seems, take the attitude, you are being negative, don't ask me about it. What ever happened to the good old, yes, that is a question, I think your question is right or wrong, it is not appropriate or whatever, and give an answer or not give an answer and say why you cannot give an answer.

By the way, the minister says he was here in this House for two weeks and he never asked me any questions about the privacy issues. I say to the minister, the same as your former minister used to say to us, stay tuned. Stay tuned because we have a long time to go here yet. It so happens, Mr. Minister, that there are lots of other things on the radar screen that the Opposition have had to ask given that this House was not open until March of this year, which I do believe was some seven, eight or nine months after the election. There is only so much you can do in a twenty-six minute period, and we have only been here, as I understand it, since this new government was elected last October, I believe we have been here five days, six days maybe. There is lots of time and we will get to the questions to the minister. Keep your briefing notes nearby. Don't worry, you will get your questions in due course. Have no fear about that, you will get your questions.

The minister, of course, talks about what this government did and is going to do. I thought it was a love in, the comments he made about the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Torngat. I thought they were having a love in over there, about how good and how great everybody is. By the way, just for the record in case the minister missed it the first time around, I believe I prefaced my remarks by saying I am supportive of the bill. I believe that will be in Hansard. I did say off the top that I am supportive of this bill. In fact, when they just called it earlier on in second reading I said yea, and I will say yea throughout this process. I agree wholeheartedly with this bill. My comments were wholly and solely directed towards the issue of openness, accountability and transparency.

There is another issue, by the way, another example. The minister might not be aware of this because it is not in his department, but for the record, besides the seven or eight that I gave, the Opposition currently wrote to the Minister of Health and said – or called actually, one of the researchers called and said: Can we have a meeting? We would like to discuss about the ambulance service in the Province. The Director of Communications has come back now, after an exchange of emails, to that researcher in the Opposition office and said: We want to know who you want to meet with, you have to tell us in advance what it is you want to ask, and you have to tell us all of the questions before we even agree to have a meeting with you. That is not rocket science. That is a pretty straightforward question: Can we meet with you to discuss the ambulance services in the Province? The word stonewalled is not too strong, I say to the minister. That is not negative. That is a very apt description of what has happened there.

When a research person in the Opposition office is trying to compile some information so that we can be constructive, we can be informed with our questions, and we meet that kind of barrage of, you have to jump over hoops and through hoops to get a meeting, what else can one conclude other than you are not open and you are not accessible? That is all we are saying, as an Opposition. You can call that negativity. I call it factual.

So, I say to the minister, in conclusion: Don't worry about the questions; they are coming. Don't worry about my negativity, so-called, because you are going to think I am a very negative person for the next four years if anything I ask is going to be construed as negative.

I would like to think that I either have the information to ask a sensible, constructive question, or else I will ask for the information so that I can formulate a question if need be. You have seen how I have operated, and that is what I intend to do in the future; but, as I said when I started this session: number one, I am not going to be personal, which I have not been; and, number two, I am not going to be muzzled.

If the minister thinks that anybody is going to stand up in this House from the government side and tell this member that he is being negative, and try to in any way suggest that what he has asked about is negative and that he should not be asking about it, that is not on. That is not on.

I can appreciate the minister. In fact, I enjoy seeing that a junior member can get a bit political. I do not mind that; that is part of the fun. That is how you sharpen your spurs here. It is a lot different than a courtroom, and you sharpen your spurs politically. I do not mind that. I appreciate that, because it keeps one on his toes and that is part of the job if you have to represent your government. I understand that. I am a bit surprised at this good cop-bad cop thing, as if the Leader of the NDP is the good cop and I am the bad cop. I am a bit surprised at that.

In any case, I will just conclude by saying we will be supportive. I have been and will continue to be supportive of this bill, but what is happening here in this particular amendment is not, in my humble opinion, reflective of what this government has done since 2003 when it comes to openness and transparency, and I have given a number of examples to show that.

All we ask is: be what you say you are going to be. Be open. Give the reports if they are done. Obviously, if they are done, you people have the best advice in the Province, or in the world if need be, and there should not be any problem if they are disclosed for anybody on this side of the House or in the media to ask members questions. The perception again is - maybe unfairly, but the perception is - that this government is closed and does not readily, openly, make things accessible to people. I realize there are cases where you have to exercise your discretion and you cannot give out some things, it is not in the public interest or it is a privacy issue and you cannot do it, but the perception in the public right now, in my view, is that this government is closed and they are not open to giving it out.

By the way, contrary to the statement of the minister that I do not give credit where credit is due, that is absolutely not true; because I believe, even since we have sat in this House, I stood up in a couple of responses to Ministerial Statements and said, when I believe the government has done something good, I will be the first one to stand in line and compliment you, because credit due will be given here. You will not find this member, if you have done something that is just and good, saying it is not. If it is good, it is good, and you call it for what it is.

I will call the good with the bad, but I just hope - I realize the minister is only new at this - I just hope that the suggestion of me being negative and so on might not be in any way intended to intimidate or muzzle me, because the minister has to understand that is not going to be on for this session.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few more words to this bill, and some of it in response to the minister's comments.

I am glad the minister recognized the constructive nature of the criticism that I made, and the two things do go together. I did have major concerns that I voiced, and I do want to repeat because I think it is important that I do deplore that the government did not have enough foresight to realize what it should have done with regard to public disclosure and reporting.

I am hoping very, very sincerely that the statements that are being made in the House today, both by the Premier and by the Minister of Justice, are going to be indications that the government is going to be willing to work with and listen to some of the ideas that those of us who are not in government have.

Some of us have quite a bit of experience. I think, whether we are elected as part of government or not, that experience should be sought by government, and the ideas and thoughts that we have, that come not just from ourselves but from other people who speak to us and share their ideas with us, is something that would benefit government in putting policy together.

One of the big difficulties that I find in our Legislature, and I have only been here not even two years so I am not that much older in the House than the minister is, really, but the fact is that the only way in which we get to discuss with each other is in the confrontational nature of the Legislature, whether in Question Period or whether in the debates, which are not really debates as we realize, but we do not get a chance to sit down and discuss issues together. Now, we can seek those times and I am happy to say there have been ministers that I have been able to sit with and discuss issues with, and the Minister of Justice is one of those, and I have found those to be very, very helpful moments as a person who has been elected to be in this Legislature.

One of the things I think we could do, and I am challenging the government to think about this, and I have been saying it now for a while, is in our Standing Orders we have quite a number of Standing Committees. We have our Social Services Committee and we have our Resource Committee, to name two that are policy oriented, and we have the Government Services Committee, and these committees we only use again in an adversarial way because currently we only use them to do the Estimates discussions after the Budget, and that in itself becomes adversarial because we sit quizzing the bureaucrats and the ministers about what they have in their Budget, so it is an us-them kind of thing again. So, we use our Standing Committees, especially our three that are policy Standing Committees, in an adversarial way as well.

I would really like this House to start thinking about how we could use the Standing Committees where we sit together - all parties sit together, through representatives - and discuss together the various policies that government is looking at. It is not just the House of Commons that have those Standing Committees. We are all aware of the Parliamentary Committees - they get a lot of profile nationally because they are on television, et cetera - but the majority of provincial legislatures across this country also have Standing Policy Committees that meet regularly, that are in place all the time, that have resources to call experts to meet with them, that contribute together co-operatively - and that that is what I want to emphasize here - that contribute together cooperatively to the legislation that Government brings in. I would really encourage the Minister of Justice, because I think he really does sincerely want to have a cooperative approach, he really does want to work with everybody in the House, I encourage the Minister of Justice to support this notion when he sits at the Cabinet table, that you bring forward the notion of having standing committees that are full-time standing committees, where we can sit together in a constructive way and discuss policies. As I said, we all have experience and knowledge that we can bring to every issue that comes to this room. I like it when I can stand, as I did today, and bring the constructive thoughts that I had with regard to what we could put in place to ensure that we never again have the fiasco that we had with regard to public disclosure.

In my spirit of constructive criticism, I really implore the Government to look at the fact that we do not use our standing committees. The standing committees, for example, in one of the sections around standing committees - section four says the standing committees may sit at all times during the assembly for which they are appointed, whether or not the House is in session, adjourned or prorogued. So, our standing orders have a spirit of standing committees that are places where we can work together. I think if we were able to sit in committees and work together then we would find that we would be able to listen more to each other's questions when we are in this room.

I am not going to take any more time than that, Mr. Chair, but I encourage all of my colleagues in the Government, but particularly the Minister of Justice, who I think understands this concept, to start promoting this notion at the table of the Cabinet, and let us see if we can't become more active as a group of people in this room, through standing committees.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in legislative session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendments?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report bills 4 and 6 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report bills 4 and 6 carried without amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report bills 4 and 6 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: (Fitzgerald): Order please!

The hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's and Acting Deputy Speaker.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 4 and 6 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 4 and 6 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bills be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that bill 4, An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 4 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has been now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper (Bill 4)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that bill 6, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, now be read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 be read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call order 4, second reading of Bill 5, An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision of Architectural Services. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House again today in regards to the legislation that provides architects with a new governance criteria. They have an act now called the Architects Act of 1995 and An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision of Architectural Services will be the new act that will be replacing this act.

This act is certainly an act that comes forward in regards to the protection of the public interest. It falls out of a White Paper that was done back in 1995-1996 that certainly set some criteria, some suggestions, in regard to some of the regulations and protection of the public when it comes down to self-regulating occupations such as architects and other such groups in the Province.

This act would certainly set up a structure in the best interests of the public, in that the governance structure would be separated from the disciplinary structure. The disciplinary structure would deal with such things as complaints and that kind of thing that might be made to the association in regards to one of its members. It will be a clearer separation of these two particular bodies in regards to the disciplinary structure which would then have no infringement by the governing body on that particular group in regards to their recommendations and anything that would be decided in regard to any complaints made against any member within the association itself.

The public interest again is protected through the legislation as set out in the criteria and will require the association of architects to file such things as annual reports, establish a conduct and complaints committee and appoint lay people to the board through the minister who is responsible for the act itself, and the Minister of Government Services.

The department conducted extensive consultations and the provincial Association of Architects is very supportive of the new act and certainly have been very vocal in regards to that. As a matter of fact, they have made statements I believe to the effect that they have been waiting a long time to see this act tabled in the House of Assembly and hopefully, passed within this session itself.

We have a duty in the Province in regards to these different associations, a duty as a government to protect the public, and that is what this act is all about. We do not think it is restrictive to the different associations in regards to conducting their business. As a matter of fact, in my former profession in pharmacy, we were one of the first groups to go down this path in regards to embracing and supporting the government of the day in regards to tabling a piece of legislation to set the industry up or set the association up on a self-regulatory basis. It has worked very well, as a matter of fact, and there are a lot of benefits derived from it.

There is some question - if my hon. critic wanted me to address the issue in regards to the technicians now or do you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Okay.

Back on March 25, 2008, we received a letter in regards to the architect technicians wanting to be included under this act. Also, if they could not be included in the act, that they be exempted from any provisions under the act. First off, we are very interested in regards to sitting down and having my officials sit down with this association to explore ways we can address their needs and also address our needs in regards to the self-governing position and also in regards to the public interest. They cannot be included under this act for the simple reason they are technicians, they are not architects. So, this piece of legislation only governs architects itself. In that way they cannot be included under the act itself, but, again, we are certainly willing and very interested to explore the opportunity to actually have them become self-regulating themselves. In that case, I propose that we would not stall or delay this act from being brought in and proclaimed and debated, that we move forward in regards to those consultations with that particular association.

The second thing is that if they were not included in the act, that they would be exempted. Well, they are exempted now as it is today. They would not suffer any recourse in regards to this act at all. They would not be subject to any penalties or any lawsuits, et cetera, because they are not architects. They are technicians and they are governed under their own legislation and also under - you know, they do not provide architectural services now. They are technicians, but, again, they may very well need and there may well be a need to help them with self governing. We have to explore that opportunity in regards to making sure it is in the best public interest to do so. So, we certainly are open to that and I will instruct my officials to start that process and move it forward in the future.

Again, I am glad to be here in regards to the minister responsible to this act and certainly look forward to any discussion, any suggestions by my hon. colleagues across the House and hopefully move this forward and have it passed in this House in this session.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to stand and make a few comments with regards to Bill 5, An Act Respecting Architects and the Provision of Architectural Services.

I want to say to the minister that when this bill was first tabled in the House, even though we only got a copy of it today, I can assure you we did not have anything and we still do not have anything against this particular bill. We will be supporting it, however we have received a copy of a letter which the minister referenced dated March 25, and being an open and accountable Opposition we called those people and we met with them. We received their letter on the twenty-fifth and we met with them on April 4. My understanding is that up to that point in time, I do not know if they had had a meeting with government or with the department and probably they have since then, the minister can confirm that. But, anyway, we met with those individuals and they explained to us that - and they had nothing against this act in particular. The only thing is they were hoping that where they stated the act does not reference exemptions for members of the Newfoundland Association of Architects and Technologists of Newfoundland and Labrador - anyway, they asked us if we would bring this forward and that is what we agreed to do because under the present circumstances there are various types of design and construction projects. Like, for instance, assembly occupancy, institutional occupancy, residential, business and personal service occupancy, and mercantile occupancy.

A great portion of some of those various areas where projects are done, people outside, the architects can do this work. They were looking, I guess, to be included so that they would not be liable. They were hoping - and my understanding was that they had a good rapport with the architects and thought this may be included, but then they got word that it was not. What they are asking for is to be recognized, their ability to design projects which do not require a licensed architect. The association has drafted two alternate amendments. One is in the form of an exemption, as the minister mentioned, similar to other provincial legislations, and the other is a statement of inclusion, which is the associations preferred amendment.

I will just read those for the record now, even though I want to thank the minister for being very open. He understands the role that we have to play. We are bringing forward issues on behalf of people throughout this Province and I am glad to hear him say that he will meet with those individuals and his officials. What they have put forward to be considered - and I know he said they could not be included at this time, but I would just ask him, before this bill is finally passed, that he would reconsider. That is all I can ask the gentleman on behalf of this association.

Mr. Speaker, I will read what they put forward to us. The proposed wording for the amendment to the architects act would be either inclusion for work included under part 9 of the National Building Code but not covered by section 29 of the architects act. A qualified person shall be defined as a professional technologist or a certified technician who is a member in good standing of the association of engineering technicians and technologists of Newfoundland and Labrador Inc.; or the exemption subsection from the architects act, does not apply to a professional technologist or a certified technician who is a member in good standing of the Association of Engineering Technicians and Technologists of Newfoundland and Labrador and who is engaging in activities normally performed by a professional technologist or a certified technician unless that person holds himself or herself out as an architect.

Mr. Speaker, like I mentioned when I took my place, with regards to this act, Bill 5, we agree with the bill, but after meeting with those people we agreed that we would bring this forward and ask the minister and the government to reconsider, even though the minister has given me his answer here this afternoon before we put this forward, but we are just asking him to reconsider it on behalf of the Association of Engineering Technicians and Technologists of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now he will close the debate on Bill 5, An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Certainly, again, I would like to apologize, I guess. The letter arrived March 25, and with the Easter Season, et cetera, I did not have the opportunity, or my officials have the opportunity, to meet, but that will happen in the very near future because, again, two things. Number one is that they are not architects, and under this act we cannot see a provision there of inclusion, but certainly we would like to explore the opportunity to have them self-regulating themselves. I think that would be more beneficial to the association itself than being included under this act. Again, in regard to the exemption, this act would not result in the association or its members from being prosecuted for anything that would be governed under this act.

Again, we will have a look. We will make contact within the next very short period of time, if not today, and we will explore that opportunity.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 5 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services. (Bill 5)

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

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Architects And The Provision Of Architectural Services," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 5)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m., and that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the motion, I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition if she is standing on a point of order.

MS JONES: A point of order.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today, the Minister of Health stood on a point of order with regard to a statement I had made in Question Period. I just wanted to clarify for the record of the House of Assembly that the statement I actually referred to was made by the minister on May 15, within the parameters of the House of Assembly. A search of Hansard did show the actual quote on May 16, but the quote was being put forward by the former Member for Humber Valley, in a question to the minister at that time.

I would like to read the quote in Hansard, directly made by the minister on May 15, so that there is no dispute. He was responding to the issues around Eastern Health when he said: I understand and I appreciate the dilemma they found themselves in trying to balance their responsibility to the patients who needed a change - and that was referring to their treatment - and their responsibility to protect the interests of the organization in the event of litigation.

That was the direct quote of the minister, and that was the date and the place in which it was made.

MR. SPEAKER: As the Chair pointed out earlier, there is certainly no point of order; it is a point of clarification.

I thank members for their comments, and the Leader of the Opposition for bringing forward her thoughts and her reply to the point of order.

The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow being Tuesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.