May 26, 2008              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVI   No. 32


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today: the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Provincial Gymnastics Team for their outstanding performance at the Atlantic Gymnastics Championships recently held in Moncton, New Brunswick.

Athletes from Campia Gymnastics in Mount Pearl, who are members of the team, brought home an impressive collection of medals which included five bronze, five silver and ten gold. I would like to recognize all of the athletes and commend them on a job well done. Their dedication to their sport is remarkable.

I would also like to recognize Campia Gymnastics for its role in assisting this team and assuring their participation in the Atlantic Gymnastics Championships in Moncton. The coaches, parents and chaperones should also be acknowledged for their contribution and constant support of those athletes that participated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Provincial Gymnastics Team and Campia Gymnastics on a successful Atlantic championship competition. We should all be very proud of these athletes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, earlier this session I informed members of this House that Robert Slaney, a native of Upper Island Cove, was one of the finalists for the Marcel-Robert Trophy, as the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League's Scholastic Player of the Year.

In April of this year, I was pleased to announce that Robert won that award and was now one of three players to be considered for the Canadian Major Hockey League's Scholastic Player of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, Robert Slaney has won it all. On Saturday, at the CHL's Golden Puck Awards gala in Kitchener, Ontario, he was honoured with the league's Scholastic Player of the Year Award.

A member of the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, Robert ended the season with twenty-six goals, twenty-nine assists for fifty-five points in sixty-four games, good enough for fifth in the team scoring. There is no doubt that with these statistics, coupled with his classroom accomplishments, Robert is headed for a successful career in whatever field he chooses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating yet another local hero from the great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to inform my hon. colleagues of a significant achievement for Woodland Primary in Grand Falls-Windsor. It has just been announced that Woodland Primary has received a grant in the amount of $122,000 from the Indigo Love of Reading Foundation.

This is a foundation designed to promote literacy and learning by offering children access to new books and materials in their schools, regardless of their social or economic status.

Darlene Sullivan, Principal at Woodland Primary, submitted an application to Indigo Love of Reading Foundation on behalf of the school with the help of its students and teachers.

When Ms Sullivan received the call from Heather Riesman of Indigo Books, she was not expecting what came next. Ms Riesman told her that the application she submitted for Woodland Primary was successful in being one of ten schools to receive an Indigo Love of Reading Foundation grant, and the only school in Newfoundland and Labrador to receive the grant this year. Ms Sullivan was ecstatic, and she said, "This will help to make our dreams come true. The library is the heart of our school and we want to make it an inspiring place for our students. A lot of our books are old and need to be replaced."

For the next three years, the school will receive $40,500 to be spent on purchasing new books and on literacy initiatives - $5,000 of that must be used for a special school program or initiative to inspire and promote the love of reading in its students. Literacy is so important and it is always encouraging to see such commitment to literacy and learning in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I offer my congratulations to Ms Sullivan and her staff, and best wishes to the students of Woodland Primary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this hon. House today to pay tribute to Derrick Lovell, a Level III student at Main River Academy in Pollard's Point. Main River Academy has a K-12 enrolment of 126 students.

Mr. Speaker, Derrick may be young but he has displayed an exceptional commitment to environmental issues in his community. He co-founded a school environmental group, Water, Air and Trees, to educate and empower his peers and community, in part through shoreline cleanups, an adopt-a-beach program, and events to discuss ocean-related topics.

Mr. Speaker, Derrick encouraged youth volunteerism as a treasurer and co-president of Allied Youth, and serves on the National Youth Council of the Primates World Relief and Development Fund, a national humanitarian organization. He is a public speaker on issues he witnessed during a tour of development projects in Mexico. Derrick is busy with the student council, school breakfast program, volleyball, choir, and church activities.

Mr. Speaker, Derrick has recently been awarded the TD scholarship, $60,000, was also a national Loran Award finalist, $3,000, and won the national Millennium Excellence Award, $20,000.

Mr. Speaker, Derrick will be attending McGill University in the fall, and I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to him for such outstanding accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of this government's commitment to student summer employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government supports two major student summer employment programs. These are the Student Work and Service Program, commonly referred to as SWASP, and the Level I, II and III Student Employment Program. In Budget year 2008-2009, a total of $2.5 million is being invested in these programs.

A student summer job is often a young person's first exposure to the labour market. It is a great way to establish good lifelong work habits and to understand the value of earning a living.

The Level I, II and III Student Employment Program helps high school students secure work with not-for-profit organizations, community agencies, and municipalities in the areas of summer recreation, heritage and community improvement projects. Projects provide for three to eight weeks of paid employment at no direct cost to the organization. This year we anticipate that the Level I, II and III Student Employment Program will support approximately 480 projects and employ over 600 high school students.

SWASP provides a sponsoring employer with a wage subsidy of $4 per hour. In return, the employer is required to hire a student for a minimum of twenty-five to a maximum of forty hours each week. Under the program, the student can work a minimum of five to a maximum of fourteen weeks.

Mr. Speaker, SWASP assists individuals currently attending or who plan to go to a post-secondary institution in the upcoming academic year. It is available to both for-profit and not-for-profit employers. This year's program will enable 1,200 post-secondary students to be matched to employers and to secure a meaningful job.

In addition to the SWASP wage subsidy, the student also receives a $50 per week tuition voucher. For example, if a student works a maximum of fourteen weeks then a $700 voucher is provided to help reduce the overall cost of their tuition. This is a great way to both gain work experience and save for school.

In Budget 2008, $1.38 million is being invested to develop a comprehensive Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy to encourage young people to stay, live and work in our Province. We are moving forward with this initiative as it will complement other youth services such as the student summer employment programs, the graduate employment program, the Community Youth Network, and grants to youth serving agencies. Government is firmly committed to engaging and supporting our young people because when they succeed everyone in this Province benefits.

I encourage our students to be safe on the job this summer, to gain new experiences, to learn new skills, and to make sure that they enjoy themselves.

Thank you very much, 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.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say I congratulate him as well for continuing with those two wonderful programs, knowing full well that our federal government, I believe, this year has cut funding for the summer employment programs.

I know full well how important this is, not only to the students themselves but to the various groups and organizations in all of our districts, to know that they can hire on young people and do some valuable work that will help them to prepare themselves for the future.

Mr. Speaker, it also takes a burden off many families, knowing that a student can go out and probably make $800 or $900 or $1,000 over the summer to assist them when they are preparing to go back to school.

I do not have any complaints with the program but I guess, like us all, I would like to see more money and be able to see that more students were hired in the district; but it is a wonderful program, Mr. Speaker, and I want to wish all the students the very best and hopefully they will all get employment through those two programs. If not, maybe the can pick up work through the public sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I am very glad to see the government continuing these two programs for student employment in the summer. Both as an MHA, knowing constituents of mine who have received these grants as well as a person who headed up a not-for-profit organization, I fully know the benefit of this program and how important it is, both for the organizations who do the hiring, as well as for the students who get this really important employment experience. Besides the fact, it also puts money in their pockets and it also helps them, especially in the SWASP program, to look forward to their post-secondary education.

I would like to point out to the minister and to the government, that if we are going to keep our young people here, we need more than these summer employment programs. We need a plan for permanent job creation in this Province so that our young people will have permanent, well-paying jobs that are going to keep them here and not have them leave once they finish in the post-secondary institutions where they will go on after having done these summer programs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Natural Resources held a press conference on the Lower Churchill. During that press conference she indicated that the provincial government is considering suing both the federal government and the Quebec government for redress on the Upper Churchill.

I ask the Premier today: When did government first decide that it would consider this action?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is correct. Earlier today I held a press conference with Ed Martin, the President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and of our energy corporation and during the course of the news conference I was asked a question with regard to the Innu Nation and the fact that they are looking for redress from the Upper Churchill. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what I said, in a nutshell, was that if the Innu want redress for the Upper Churchill then we, as a government, have to consider who received the bulk of the benefit from the Upper Churchill, which is clearly the Province of Quebec and the federal government. We are trying to understand, as a government, if there is an action to seek redress for the Innu Nation through the parties who have benefited the most and received the lion's share from this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in the House of Assembly, I questioned both the minister and the Premier on this very issue regarding the Lower Churchill.

I ask the Premier again today: When did you start to consider these actions on suing both the federal and provincial government, how long has it been ongoing, and why there was no disclosure last week?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week when the issue was raised about the Innu seeking redress for the Upper Churchill, it was an issue that we decided to look at because, obviously, as pointed out by my colleague, in determining whether or not redress is appropriate, one must look at the profits.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will come as a surprise to no one that in 2006, up to 2006, the Quebec Government had a profit of $19 billion from the Upper Churchill while the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has received $1 billion. It was on this basis, Mr. Speaker, that we determined to look at this issue to determine if there is viability to the claim of the Innu and then to look specifically at the federal government and Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister where the figures came from that he just disclosed in the House, and if he could provide us the documentation of it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


I would obviously have no problem providing the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the energy plan, which is very comprehensive and which contains the figures outlined just then by myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Just a couple of details, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicates that the Department of Justice was doing this review.

I ask the minister: How many lawyers, I guess, within the Department of Justice are working on this court challenge and if government has hired or retained external lawyers as well to do this work, or will be doing so in the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that currently, right now, the only person looking at this is the deputy minister, who is one of the - if not the top civil litigator in our department. We are looking at - and again, I must emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that one has to distinguish between the issue of the Innu seeking redress and the Province seeking redress for the Upper Churchill. There has never been redress made for the Upper Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, if there was a thorn that sticks in the Newfoundland and Labrador psyche, than I would suggest to you that the Upper Churchill is that thorn. It is the biggest inequity that has taken place, and if there is anyway of ever redressing the harm that has been done to this Province, Mr. Speaker, then as a government we owe it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to do that and we will do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know of course, in any legal process that is followed, before you bring a case to court it involves giving notice to the parties involved.

I ask if the provincial government, through his department or any other department, have given notice to the federal government or the Quebec government that there could be a lawsuit pending?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, that before one gets to the point of giving notice in a legal claim, you have to determine if a legal action exists. At this point, the Innu Nation has raised an issue which we have undertaken to determine if there is a viability or validity to that issue. The Innu Nation is seeking redress for the Upper Churchill from the provincial government.

As stated by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, the redress being sought should be proportionate to the profits, and the profits, Mr. Speaker, as outlined earlier, are $19 billion for Quebec, $1 billion for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that inequity speaks for itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is typical in any questions that you ask in this House, you get two different responses from ministers.

This morning the Minister of Natural Resources said in a press conference that government was looking at, as one of their options, suing the federal government and the Quebec government. The Minister of Justice is now telling me that he is not sure if a legal claim even exists here. So first of all, I say to government, clarify your response please, in terms of what your course of action is here.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition will say there are two answers given for every question. Well there are usually two questions or three questions in every question put forward, so I will try to deal with what I take it to be the question.

We have not determined - the Province has not determined that there is an action for redress, that the Innu Nation has an action for redress against anyone. They came to the Province seeking redress. However, again, I must distinguish between a claim by the Innu for redress and a claim for the Province for redress. If there is to be an action in this case, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be by the Innu Nation of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Again, Mr. Speaker, in the minister's response this morning this had nothing to do with the Innu Nation. The Innu Nation is seeking redress from the provincial government who was the chief negotiators on that contract.

So, I say to the minister: Which is it, is the redress on the Upper Churchill and the lawsuits to the federal government and the Quebec government being pursued in the interest of the Innu Nation or in the interest of the provincial government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding, from discussions with my colleague, that today there was a discussion of the Innu Nation seeking redress. They came to the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: - seeking redress for the Innu Nation.

We are dealing with that; however, I can say, in relation to the hon. member's question, one of the issues that brought me into politics was the terrible inequity that exists in the Upper Churchill. If there is ever any way that we can rectify the problems, we will certainly do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Because the members opposite, in the number of years they were in government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: - I do not see any actions by the Liberal government, under Premier Wells to Premier Grimes, having taken any steps to rectify that intolerable situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Maybe the minister can tell me when the Innu Nation approached you to look at a possible lawsuit against the federal government, or the Quebec government, in terms of them getting redress on this project. Because my understanding is that the Innu is looking from redress from your government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Perhaps I am not making myself clear, perhaps my colleague did not make herself clear, but it is quite simple. The Innu Nation said that they would like to have redress from the provincial government before they will continue negotiations on the Lower Churchill. They were talking about the Upper Churchill. In order for the Province to determine whether or not there is any validity to that claim, we have to look at the issue of Innu redress.

Again, I come back to the basics, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be redress, one must look at those who have reaped most of the profits. In this case it is clearly the Province of Quebec and certainly the federal government, because these figures do not take into account that there would have been less equalization paid to Quebec by the federal government. So both the federal government and Quebec should be the primary targets of any action if one exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to ask the minister how much profit Quebec Hydro would have earned on the Lower Churchill project in 2007, knowing that 12 per cent of the capacity they sell in power comes from the Lower Churchill Project, knowing their total profit for the whole year was $2.9 billion - the Upper Churchill. Maybe he can tell me what the actual number was in terms of dollar value on profit on the Upper Churchill last year for Hydro-Quebec.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have those numbers with me immediately but I can certainly provide them to the Leader of the Opposition - and happy to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we already know in our history in this Province there have been two court challenges on the Upper Churchill. If the minister claims it came to politics all over this issue, he will know all the history about it as well. Both of those claims were dismissed: once under the recall provisions, and the other under the cancellation of water rights.

I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: What part of the contract will be used by your government in any potential court challenge this time that was not used in previous challenges that were dismissed in the courts?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, I have not said there is any court challenge pending in relation to the Upper Churchill. What I have said is that we are dealing with here today, as did my hon. colleague, with the issue of redress for the Innu for the Upper Churchill.

Since the Liberal Leader seems to be steeped in history here today, one would look back to around 1967-1969 and look at whether or not the federal government and Quebec consulted the Innu or any other Aboriginal rights. Because it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I could be wrong on this, that Aboriginal rights are not extinguished but there are no time limitations, and so the Innu are certainly within their rights to seek redress on the Upper Churchill. What we are trying to determine, Mr. Speaker: Is there a legal action which would call into play any responsibility on the part of the provincial government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister might want to read Hansard and see what his Premier had to say last week, because it was a very different response, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some professors at Memorial University who have recently suggested - and I think only in the last two weeks - that government would launch a court challenge on the Upper Churchill contract, based on the renewal clause.

I ask the minister: Is this one of the options that the Department of Justice is now considering for this particular challenge?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I have reviewed that article, Mr. Speaker, and it makes for very interesting reading, but unfortunately we do not look to university professors in political science or elsewhere to determine if we have legal actions.

What we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, are any and all options that are available to us, and I say to you again that here today we are looking at a request by the Innu Nation for redress in relation to the Upper Churchill.

Again, I can only repeat myself so often, Mr. Speaker, but the issue of Innu redress is separate and apart from any provincial claim for redress in relation to the Upper Churchill. The Lower Churchill and the Upper Churchill in relation to Innu are not particularly related, other than they are seeking redress.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly would not expect the Minister of Justice to take advice from anyone, including professors at Memorial University.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, should this go before the courts, it would take a number of years, I am sure, to reach a decision, and it could also impact negotiations with Ottawa and Quebec, and the timelines for any developments on the Lower Churchill.

I ask the Premier today: What are the timelines that are now being considered for any potential legal action, and what impact will that have on the overall project, or an overall deal on the Lower Churchill development itself?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is just one of the many challenges that we face in terms of dealing with the development of the Lower Churchill. We have overcome many challenges; we are sure we will overcome this one as well. Because, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, what has happened on the Upper Churchill and the development of the Lower Churchill are not linked. So, while the negotiations with the Innu Nation are on hold for the moment, we expect them to progress and our timelines have not changed. We are looking forward to the beginning of construction in 2010, and first power in 2015.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the Province had been hopeful of getting a loan guarantee from the federal government, but I say to you, Minister, if you are to launch this particular lawsuit, do you think that is going to have an impact upon you being able to secure any kind of deal with the federal government in the future for any funds to develop any part of the hydro development industry in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing that we have reiterated time and time and time again is that this project will proceed, with or without the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous project – one of the best left in North America - and we will not be asking for a handout from anybody. Anybody who has the opportunity to invest in this project will have a good deal, and it is in the best interest of the federal government because not only is this good for Newfoundland and Labrador but this is good for Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Last week, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier about negotiations with Quebec, or the potential for transmission of power through Quebec, he said that they would keep all their options open.

I ask you today, Minister: Launching a lawsuit against the Quebec Government, is that keeping your options open for the transmission of power through that part of the country?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said here in the House last week, because of the commercial arrangements that Quebec has with the United States, there is a process called open access transmission tariff, in which Quebec has to agree to allow other states or provinces to wield power through Quebec, the same way that it wields power through states.

We do not have to depend on goodwill, because goodwill from the federal government has not gotten this place very far, Mr. Speaker. So we are dependent on the rules and regulations that are in place, not from the federal government, I am sad to say, but because of the commercial arrangements that Hydro-Quebec has in the United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would think that a lawsuit against the Province of Quebec is really ruling them out as an option, I say to you, Minister, so that brings me to the question of looking at the Maritime access route which, as you know –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - will include wielding power through two other provinces in Canada and four states in the United States, all of which do not have transmission capacity right now to be able to handle that power.

I ask you, Minister: What are your other options?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition get a lot more informed before she starts raising those kinds of questions in the House.

Not only is the subsea route absolutely possible - and I can point to Europe if you want examples as to how that works - but we have Nova Scotia hungry for our power, we have New Brunswick hungry for our power, and we have the New England states hungry for our power.

We have no problem in finding purchasers for renewable green energy that is going to be available to customers for hundreds of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says they are hungry for power. Well, I ask you, Minister: Are they hungry enough to build the transmission lines to access that power, or is that part of the deal that this Province will have to look at as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we do not give our resources away. If there is one thing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know, and something that the Opposition should know by now, is that we do not give our resources away.

When we develop a resource in this Province, whether it is the Lower Churchill or any other project, you can be guaranteed, Sir, that there is going to be a good return to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Minister, I don't put a lot of credence in many things your government says. You talk about being open and accountable. Last week I asked for six particular documents related to the Lower Churchill Development project and none of them were tabled in this House. This morning you reiterated time and time and time again the words you like to use, about openness and accountability.

I ask you minister: Will you now table those reports that have been completed on the Lower Churchill project in the House of Assembly so we can see the information for ourselves?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: All I can say is, thank God, Mr. Speaker, that they are over there and we are over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Let's make all the information that we have on the Lower Churchill available! Let's make it available to Hydro Quebec, our biggest competitor! Let's make it available to people who are trying to undermine us! Let's make it available to people who are trying to access our power! And, we will be left here at the end of the day with no better deal than we got on the Upper Churchill, thanks to the crowd opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was alright back in 2002 when your Premier was standing in this House demanding information on the Lower Churchill and on the Voisey's Bay project. He wanted everything available, everything out in the marketplace, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week Justice Cameron ruled against the government's application to limit questioning at the Cameron Inquiry.

Today I ask the Premier: Now that this decision has been made, will you and the Minister of Justice commit to no further interference in this Inquiry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We sought clarification from the Commission, we have received that clarification, and we are okay with the ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Justice Cameron also requested additional resources and an extension to February, 2009, to complete her work at the Inquiry.

I ask the Premier today if he will commit to provide for the time and the resources, as was requested by Justice Cameron.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We received the letter, as previously outlined, from Commissioner Cameron. We have sent a letter back requesting some information. As the Premier has previously stated, and as I have stated, there will be an extension forthcoming. The extension being sought by the commissioner at this point is to February 28, 2009. We will be replying in short order, but the commissioner will be granted an extension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

For the third successive week and for the fifth time I will ask again, Minister: Will you table the names and the dates of appointments of the members of the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was put to me last week, not three weeks ago, and I am happy to table the document today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So much for openness, once you pry it out of them like teeth.

My next question is for the Minister of Business.

The minister has a fund of $32 million in his department for business start-up in the Province, and that fund has not yet provided any funding to prospective companies.

As reported in The Telegram this weekend, Credential Consulting Inc. was looking to this fund to help establish 150 jobs in Central Newfoundland. The proposal was rejected and the company relocated to New Brunswick where they received both funding from the New Brunswick Government and ACOA to the tune of in excess of $1 million.

I ask the minister: What was missing in this proposal that prompted our Department of Business to reject it, that you are aware of, whereas the other province and ACOA came to the plate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, because of confidentiality issues, we will not be speaking to this particular company or what any company would do in terms of what they are doing with the Department of Business.

It was very clear in The Telegram article that they would not give any comments on this particular file, and we certainly will not be doing anything as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the people of this Province deserve an answer as to why 150 potential jobs are not in this Province and have gone to New Brunswick, next door. I think you can certainly tell us that, Minister, without breaching any confidentiality.

Is there some particular reason - in a general, generic sense - that you can tell us, that they did not pass the smell test according to yourself and your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member across the way, this government is not in the business of going out and revealing everything that is going on in terms of companies that want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. If we start going out and giving out information that is coming to our department on behalf of companies that have stated clearly - stated clearly, I say, Mr. Speaker - that they will not engage with The Telegram or any other paper or any other form of media to give any information on this deal, if they do not want to deal with the media then we certainly will not be doing that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed to hear no discussion this morning of the role of the environmental assessment review in the update on the Lower Churchill, presented by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Based on recommendations of the two federally-responsible authorities, there will be a joint panel to review the environmental impact statement that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will have to prepare.

Mr. Speaker, I ask either the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources to give us some idea of how far along it will be in the process before the joint review panel is struck.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of my news conference this morning was to share with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the expenditures that have been associated with the development of the Lower Churchill to date.

At the present time the energy company is involved in studies that will support the filing of their environmental impact statement, and that work is ongoing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is right, this morning's announcement had to do with the expenditures that have been made to date regarding the Lower Churchill development, and the statement indicated that the company would not put any money into Phase 3 of the development without the key deliverable of the Impacts and Benefits Agreement with the Innu Nation. There are other major deliverables, one of which is the role of the review panel.

I ask the minister – pertinent exactly to what was talked about this morning – where do the recommendations of a review panel, which is not even yet appointed, fit into the timeline and expenditure plans of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that were presented this morning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process for the Lower Churchill is moving along. The process for the draft guidelines, that is near complete and the next phase will be an MOU. That will go out for public comment in the very near future, and that will address issues such as the panel, the number of people on the panel, and so on.

Once that is complete and comes back to us, we will certainly be able to provide more information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister of Environment and Conservation could tell us: Who is the MOU between?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That MOU would be between our Province and the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: I have to say, I am really disappointed – and it is not just with the provincial government that I am disappointed around this one – with both the federal and provincial authorities, that they did not follow a similar process as was followed in Voisey's Bay, where the Aboriginal groups were involved in the MOU. I wish that were the case here.

I will ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: Surely, you must have some position with regard to when this panel will be put in place? When the environmental impact statement is finished by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, to whom will it be presented?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned, the MOU will go out for public comment in the next couple of weeks, of which there is a thirty day process for public input and comment. Following that process, my staff and myself will review what comes out of that very public and open process. It will speak to how many people will be on the panel and the make up of the panel. Certainly, we will be able to give you more information once that process is complete.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Before the Chair moves onto Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees, the Chair would like to recognize a former member of this Legislature, who sat here, I would think, from 1989 to 1996, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.

 

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

 

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

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

Pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order in Counsel relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27, and further I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

WHEREAS Members of the House of Assembly are provided with one paper copy of documents tabled in the House; and

WHEREAS the transparency and accountability act has greatly increased the number of documents that require tabling and distribution; and

WHEREAS these circumstances have necessitated an increased amount of paper to meet these requirements; and

WHEREAS the Legislative Library is the only location where a complete set of tabled documents for each Session can be viewed; and

WHEREAS the government has committed to sound recycling and reduction policies;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly investigate, in a timely manner, procedures which will reduce the use of paper for tabled documents to a minimum.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

 

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

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

I rise today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of Torbay, Pouch Cove and all of that vicinity with regards to the Torbay Bypass Road. I will say right from the outset, I know the minister or her officials have been in consultation with the people and, hopefully, they are addressing some of the concerns that the people do have.

Mr. Speaker, just to go over it again, they are concerned about the beginning of the highway, which would be two kilometres and will be turned into a five-lane highway travelling into the community of Torbay. What they are asking, through their petition, through the minister, to ask government to reconsider the beginning of the route, to start at the entrance just outside of St. John's. I know there were a couple of issues that officials have concerns about and that is with regards to the watershed area, as well as the possible extension to the airport some time in the future, even though there is no request in.

Those people have grave concerns. There are quite a few liveyers who live in that area and they are concerned about the problems that they will have with the traffic there, not only during construction but even after the fact, once the road is built.

It gives me great pleasure to stand and present this petition on behalf of those residents and to ask the minister and to urge government to take a second look at - they are not against the full highway, it is just the two kilometre section leading into the Town of Torbay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion 2, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35, be now 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, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35, 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 35 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act," carried. (Bill 35)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act. (Bill 35)

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

When shall Bill 35 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Motion 3, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River, Bill 36, be now 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 Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River, Bill 36, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 36 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'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River," carried. (Bill 36)

CLERK: An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is ready to hear debate on Motion 4.

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as members of the House would know, and certainly many people in the general public, I suspect, coming out of some of the affairs of the House of Assembly as it related to constituency matters a couple of years ago, Chief Justice Green was appointed to do a review of the House of Assembly affairs and constituency matters and what have you, and provided a report. The report, which was entitled Rebuilding Confidence, was received by the House back - about this time last year, I guess it was, and we adopted legislation at that time to begin the implementation of Chief Justice Green's report.

Mr. Speaker, one of the key components of Chief Justice Green's report was the assertion that the House of Assembly, as he said, must have a role in debating and defining in a public way the standards of public behaviour that they should apply to themselves. Mr. Speaker, that was to be in the form of a Code of Conduct; a Code of Conduct for members and a Code of Conduct for Officers of the House of Assembly, I guess, for lack of a better way of putting it.

The Code of Conduct for employees of the House of Assembly was established some time ago. The Code of Conduct for members, Mr. Speaker, the development of that required and entailed the establishment of a committee, Standing Committee of the House of Assembly on Privileges and Elections. That committee was comprised of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for Port de Grave, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past while this committee has met on a couple of occasions, and they, in consultation with Officers of the House of Assembly, have reviewed Codes of Conduct from across Canada and throughout the British Commonwealth, and their findings have been presented to the House. That is what I am here to speak to, right now.

They found, through the course of their deliberations, that there were essentially two models when it came to the establishment of Codes of Conduct throughout the Commonwealth. One was a very comprehensive one, which is essentially the British model, the Code of Conduct for Great Britain. The other one, Mr. Speaker, on the other end of the spectrum is a fairly simplified model, which is, in my understanding, used in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, after deliberations it was determined by the committee that the most appropriate one for our Legislature was the more simplified form, due in large part because of a couple of acts, the House Of Assembly Act, and the House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, what they decided, what they recommended to us here in the House, is that we simply - as opposed to in a very repetitious way, articulating much of the stuff that you see in a bit more comprehensive act, that we just affirm the principles of the acts that govern our Legislature and the people in it.

So, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, the Code of Conduct is before us. I just want to speak very briefly in support of it. We need to have - most professions and most organizations have Codes of Conduct. We see the need, not only in our own Legislature with the happenings of late, but if you look around the corporate community, if you look around any number of organizations and sectors throughout our society and economy, you see many instances where the conduct of people was unbecoming of the offices that they hold. Mr. Speaker, that speaks to the need for us to have this Code of Conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I am supposed to do here right now, because I am speaking to a motion as opposed to a bill. That is something I am not used to speaking to, unless it is a private member's resolution.

I just want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I am certain that all members will support this motion today. I look forward to unanimous passing of it when we get around to voting on it, and I, for one, certainly support the code.

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.

I want to stand and take a few moments to speak on behalf of Motion 2, and to say that I was a part of the committee. I did apologize in private but I will apologize in public now, because I did miss a couple of meetings when some of the discussion took place.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today fully in support of this motion and I guess just to add a few comments to it.

No doubt about it, each and every one of us, when we come to this hon. House, come here with the responsibility laid upon our shoulders that we are, to the best of our ability, to serve the people who have put faith in us and selected us to come here to this hon. House of Assembly.

I know when I got elected first in 2001, in a by-election, I believe that I came here with that in mind at that time. To me that has not changed, and I am sure each and every individual here feels the same way.

We know that many of the issues revolve around other acts and our Standing Orders and so on, and I guess each and every one of us, now that we have our Code of Conduct, will discipline ourselves not only how we perceive to be acting to the public but, more so now with our television coverage, even how we interact with each other and how we respond to each other in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, like my hon. colleague mentioned in his opening remarks, this all came about through the Green report and was one of the recommendations. We are supposed to do everything above board, as legal as possible, but one of the biggest things that I see since the new rules and regulations came in - and I think a lot of people in the general public still do not understand what we have been asked to do.

I just want to touch on one issue, and that is with regard to the issue of donations. This year, I have received twenty letters from people in my district who are requesting donations. They are not just from someone on the street who does not understand it. I receive them from schools, I receive them from various organizations and individuals, and it seems like when I tell them I am sorry, I cannot give you a donation this year, they think that the donation I gave them previously was okay but I must have given something to someone else that was not right.

That is why we are doing it, because we are told now that we have to watch the public purse, and one of the things that came in was that we cannot give donations. Hopefully, if nothing else comes from the few words that I am about to say today, the general public who are listening will understand that each and every one of us cannot give donations. We have been advised even to be very careful if you give a little personal donation at the door. You have to say that it is not coming from you as the MHA, even though that is hard to distinguish to the individual who comes to your door because they know whose door they are at. That is one of the issues that I still find difficult to explain to people, and I am sure, through our Code of Conduct, we are going to do everything we have to, to live by that.

The other thing we talk about, conflict of interest, the public interest, and keeping the public informed - and they have a good understanding of what we are doing here. Like I said, it all came through the Green Report and through, I guess, the work of the Auditor General previous to that.

Another one I really like here, and I think each and every one of us do this anyway, is the relationship between us, as members, and the people in the various departments, the civil service. I have to say, prior to being elected, I worked in the Department of Social Services at the time, I worked in the Department of Transportation and Works, and I also worked in the Department of Fisheries as an executive assistant. I say, back in those days, from 1989 right up until 2001, I enjoyed every moment of working with those individuals on a one-on-one basis. They are wonderful people, and that relationship will not change because I am in an official position now as an elected representative, because we have to work hand in hand with those people. I think we see the co-operation that is extended to us when we have our Estimates and the ministers come in with all of their officials and we sit down and go over the Estimates, and work jointly with those people.

Mr. Speaker, one thing, I guess, in conclusion, we have to, as members, promote ourselves and support the principles by our leadership and examples that we set. I think each and every one of us here - and not only the ones that are here now but there are many people who have gone through the doors of the House of Assembly over a number of years. No doubt about it, from time to time things may go wrong, but I believe each and every individual comes here to do what is best for the people they represent, and to do it in an honest manner.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in standing and supporting this piece of legislation, this motion, and I am sure each and every member will support it to the fullest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it would be prudent today to read into the record the Code of Conduct so the public will be aware and be familiar with what exactly it is we are talking about here. It is rather lengthy, but we feel it might be necessary to do that.

Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by my colleague, the Minister of INTRD – I can never remember the words of that particular department, Mr. Speaker, so you will have to accept that – when he stated that this code comes out of an analysis of a number of different codes that we looked at from different areas of parliamentary jurisdiction within the Commonwealth, and it is prefaced on the legislation, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, and the House of Assembly Act.

Because we have these two acts already in existence, these, in and of themselves, lay out most of the provisions necessary to govern conflict of interest situations regarding members. So, there was no need to reinvent the wheel when we did a new Code of Conduct, Mr. Speaker, since most of the provisions were covered in these acts.

Furthermore, the enforcement aspect of this Code is also included in the Act, with the provision of the Commissioner who has practically unlimited authority to act on violations of the Code.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will just introduce the Code for the record.

The Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly.

Commitments:

Members of this House recognize that we are responsible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and will responsibly execute our official duties in order to promote the human, environmental and economic welfare of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Members of this House of Assembly respect the law and the institution of the Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public trust placed in us by performing our duties with accessibility, accountability, courtesy, honesty and integrity.

The Principles of the Code, Mr. Speaker, are as follows:

1. Members shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, the Elections Act, 1991, the House of Assembly Act and this Code of Conduct and shall ensure that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the House of Assembly into disrepute.

2. It is a fundamental objective of their holding public office that members serve their fellow citizens with integrity in order to improve the economic and social conditions of the people of the Province.

3. Members reject political corruption and refuse to participate in unethical political practices which tend to undermine the democratic traditions of our Province and its institutions.

4. Members will act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public scrutiny. Neither the law nor this code is designed to be exhaustive and there will be occasions on which Members will find it necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the public interest and to enhance public confidence and trust.

5. Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.

6. Members will carry out their official duties and arrange their private financial affairs in a manner that protects the public interest and enhances public confidence and trust in government and in high standards of ethical conduct in public office.

7. Members will base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest. They are individually responsible for preventing conflicts of interest and will endeavor to prevent them from arising. Members will take all reasonable steps to resolve any such conflict quickly and in a manner which is in the best interests of the public.

8. In performing their official duties, members will apply public resources prudently and only for the purposes for which they are intended.

9. Members will not use official information which is not in the public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their official duties, for personal gain or the personal gain of others.

10. Relationships between members and government employees should be professional and based on mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of these employees to remain politically impartial when carrying out their duties.

11. Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

12. This Code of Conduct has a continuing effect except as amended or rescinded by Resolution of the House of Assembly,

Mr. Speaker, this constitutes the commitments and the principles of the code. I would like at this time, as Chairman of the Committee, to extend my thanks and appreciation to the other members of the Committee: the Member for St. John's East; the Member for Port de Grave, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee; the hon. the Opposition House Leader; the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame. I think that is the complete Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to have a few moments to speak to this motion. I, too, was a member of the committee that worked on the code of ethics. I am very proud to have been part of that group who worked on this. I am also proud to be part of a Legislature that is passing this code because not every legislature has one, which was significant when we, as a group, were looking at a code of ethics for the Members of the House of Assembly and we looked around the country, we saw where codes existed and where they did not. We even went further afield. We went to codes of ethics outside of the country as well. We went to places like Australia to see what they had. I think we went to Wales, also.

We are not somebody who is in the forefront because it has been done before, but we certainly are one of a few when it comes to having a code of ethics. I know that we did it as a direct result of the report of Chief Justice Green and so, in a sense, we were pushed to do it, but we have done it.

I want to speak a bit about that, being pushed to do it. There is no secret that there were many issues that came up in the Green report that maybe enlightened the eyes certainly of the public and maybe enlightened the eyes of even people in the House of Assembly with regard to how things worked in the House of Assembly. One of the things that Chief Justice Green pointed out is that here, in the House of Assembly, we have a responsibility to the public and we are not above that public or beyond that public, we are part of it. We do not have the right to special treatment. We have a responsibility to be open, to be accountable and to be transparent, which of course is the name of the act that resulted from his report.

I think it is really important that we recognize that there was a culture that was operating from generations in the House of Assembly, that there was a notion of privilege. I think what this code of ethics does is to say that we recognize that that notion of privilege, because of who we are, is not what we are claiming. When one reads the code of ethics, as my colleague just read, who had been the chair of the committee, we recognize through this code of ethics that we do not recognize privilege; we recognize responsibility, because we are the ones who are dealing with the public purse. We are the ones who are using the money of the public and we need to be sure that every time we spend that money, that we are spending it responsibly and for the good of the public. If the money does go to some work that we do, that if I receive money because of travel and I have expended money because of travel, that I have to be sure, and the House would expect me to be sure and the public would expect me to be sure, that that travel was for the good of my constituents or, in my case as the leader of a party, good for the people of the Province, so that they can be assured that their money is not being wasted, that their money is not going to something frivolous, that it is going to something that is adding to the good of the public.

That is our responsibility, and that is what we say in this code of ethics. Even though we say upfront in the first principle that we shall conduct ourselves "in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, the Elections Act, 1991, the House of Assembly Act" and we do not repeat everything that is in those acts, we did make a very deliberate decision as a committee to put in a couple of things that people will say: Well, that is a repetition. We felt that some repetitions, even though you can find them in those acts that I have referred to, that some of these repetitions are important so that we ourselves know and the public knows how seriously we view a couple of the things that we have clearly repeated.

One of those, for example, has to do with carrying out our official duties and arranging our private financial affairs in a manner that protects the public interest and enhances public confidence and trust in government and in high standards of ethical conduct and public office. Certainly, under the acts that I have quoted, we already - especially under the Elections Act - hold ourselves accountable to make sure that our private financial affairs are in order and that our private financial affairs are arranged in such a way that protects the public interest. We felt, because of history and because of people being let down in the Province by the system, that we want to recognize this very particularly as something that we are committed to. So we repeated it, even though it does exist clearly in some of the other acts that are referred to in principle one.

Another thing that we repeated is principle number nine, and principle number nine says: "Members will not use official information which is not in the public domain, or information obtained in confidence in the course of their official duties, for personal gain or the personal gain of others."

Again, we believed, as a committee, that it was really important to repeat that principle even though it is found in some of the acts that are quoted in principle one. We believe it is important that we did that to show people how important we think this understanding is, and that we understand clearly what we are committing ourselves to as MHAs when we pass this motion, because, in effect, when we pass the motion that is our assent to the code of ethics.

When we pass the motion, it will be as if we each stand in the Hose and read that code of ethics. While I do not imagine we will do that physically, that is everybody stand separately and read it, with the passing of the motion that in and of itself is the commitment. I would imagine - we have not talked about this as a committee but it is something that perhaps will have to considered, that down the road when one becomes an MHA, how do we recognize, in a formal way, our commitment to our own Code of Ethics?

Having a Code of Ethics is not something bizarre, it is not something strange. I do not think there is one professional group in our society that would not have a code of ethics. I think what this does is recognize that we are a professional group of people, that we have a very particular profession, a profession that has a lot of demands and carries a lot of responsibilities, so our Code of Ethics is doing that. Our Code of Ethics is recognizing that, though we have demands, we have responsibilities that go with those demands, and we recognize them and we take them on as individuals and as a group.

Once again, I think it is very important that we are doing this and I am proud that I am part of a Legislature that is one of some but not of all in our country who now has a Code of Ethics, or will have when we pass this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Government House Leader for allowing me a couple of minutes. There was something I was going to make in my comments when I was up a few minutes ago. I can assure you, it is not new news to all of the members here in this hon. House, but I think it is worth saying, seeing it is one part of the Code of Ethics for the general public, and that is item number six, where it says: Members will carry out their official duties and arrange their private financial affairs in a manner to protect their own integrity and that of the position they hold.

We all know what we have to go through here in this House. A lot of people do not understand, I think, that we do have, each and every year, to do a Conflict of Interest. It goes into the Chief Electoral Office, to the gentleman, Mr. Reynolds, where we all have to file it. I think that is very important, that the public know that. We are under scrutiny here, not only in the House, the way we conduct ourselves, but the way we carry out our own financial affairs as well.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I guess a lot of people look at us, as politicians, that we are very low on the totem pole, but I can tell you, we all come here from various, I guess, fields when we go to the people and ask them to elect us to this House. I have to say, I think it is one of the most honourable positions that anyone can be in. Each and every one of us, when we stand, or when we represent our people, that is the way we feel.

I just want to thank you for that opportunity to state what I wanted to say on item number six.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, speaks now he will close debate.

The Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I think it is important to reiterate, as both of my colleagues across the floor just did, how – because I believe the Member for Signal Hill–Quidi Vidi also spoke to the same point that the Member for Port de Grave just spoke to – how each and every one of us, when we come in here, before we can take office, have to, within thirty days, I think it is, or however many days it is of taking office, we have to file our disclosure statement to the Commissioner of Members' Interests, disclosing what our property is, our assets and our liabilities and what have you, and certainly, for anybody who is in Cabinet, you have to distance yourself from any private sector interests and ensure that you do not involve yourself in any business affairs. As a matter of fact, when we walk out of this place, I do not know the exact time period associated with it now, but, of course, as a minister or as a premier you are prohibited from engaging in relations and business dealings with any company or organization that you would have had direct connection with as part of your portfolio.

There are fairly onerous rules upon us and, Mr. Speaker, while some days we get discouraged, and the public gets discouraged with us and we get discouraged with ourselves, I think that by and large the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do value the job that their Members of the House of Assembly do. I know when you walk down the street – sometimes, if you pay attention to everything that you hear on Open Line or some of the stuff that you hear in various media outlets, some days you get pretty discouraged. I think that we all, from time to time, need to reflect on - when we show up at a meeting. While people might disagree with you, by and large, after the meeting is over, people will say to you: Well, I might not agree with you but at least you tell it the way it is.

I think that, while we get discouraged sometimes, there is an underlying level of respect there for this House in the populace of Newfoundland and Labrador. The importance of this Code of Conduct and some of the legislation that we have adopted over the course of the past couple of years will only serve to reinforce that and protect – I think what we are doing here is bringing in legislation or, in this case, a motion and a Code of Conduct to protect ourselves from ourselves, because some days it is easy enough to slip up. Sometimes people do it inadvertently, sometimes it is purposely.

That, as I said in my earlier statement, is not – the people in this House are very much a reflection of society as a whole. As the Member for Port de Grave said, if you look at the diversity of backgrounds that sit in this House – I came from the fishing industry. There are people here who are teachers and came out of the social work field, and we know the Premier's background. There is a fairly diverse group of people who sit around here, and when it comes to our actions we very much reflect, I think, in our thinking, what the general population is.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on this motion, I would like to thank the Committee members for their work, to thank the Officers of the House of Assembly for their research in bringing together this Code of Conduct.

I am sure I do not have to ask it, but I look forward to the vote and unanimous adoption of this Code of Conduct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, please say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

In my opinion, the ‘ayes' have it.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information. (Bill 7)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information. (Bill 7)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to make some comments about Bill 7, An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information.

Mr. Speaker, as most people in this House and most people in Newfoundland and Labrador would probably acknowledge, personal health information is probably among that which is most important in our lives. It requires a tremendous amount of protection. Also, some of the most sensitive information may be collected upon us as it profiles our particular health status. Information that we provide to our family doctors, information we provide to physicians and other health professionals who are treating us while we are in hospital, the pharmacists we may see, any number of people would be in a position to collect personal health information.

What this piece of legislation does, Mr. Speaker – it is a new piece of legislation that we are introducing – this piece of legislation establishes the rules that govern the collection and the use and dissemination and disclosure of personal health information.

It will also, very specifically – and I will speak to some of the details of the act in a moment – but just to give you a broad sense of overview, the legislation now starts to identify the manner in which health information can be collected, who can collect it, how it can be used, what organizations can have it, and how it must be stored. It also deals with how information should be protected when it has been stored by individuals.

The legislation also goes about clarifying an appropriate balance between protecting the individual's right to privacy while using personal health information for very legitimate means, such as the treatment of the individual, and/or areas of research.

The legislation, also, Mr. Speaker, goes about identifying: who are the custodians of the information, who should have the information and how should it be used, and outlines their responsibilities.

The legislation also talks about the whole issue of consent; how a person will provide consent to have access to the information, dictating how that information might be used. One of the uniqueness of this particular piece of legislation, consistent with that concept of consent, there is what is commonly referred to as a lockbox provision. Many of us, as we see our family physicians, for example, will provide information about our history, our background, our experiences; any number of things that would impact our health. It might be information about our family history, any health issues within our family. That information is privileged information, it is private information. Family physicians would use that to treat you, and members of your family potentially, but also they would use that to share with other practitioners who may be involved in treating you.

What this legislation does, by example, it provides a provision here for individuals, individual patients, to make decisions about what information they will protect from being shared. So in other words, if I share information with my family physician and I do not want it to go any further, I would rather my family physician kept that information private and confidential, regardless of who else might be treating me, regardless of what other person I might see, what other health practitioner I might see, I may choose to have that information protected and privileged. In this particular piece of legislation I have an option, if I want, to declare and to advise my family physician, that it is not my intent, it is not my interest, I do not want them to share that information with anybody else. In this particular legislation it provides that opportunity.

One of the other things I say, Mr. Speaker, about the process here in developing this piece of legislation. This was done as a result of some very extensive consultation. There were a lot of stakeholders consulted in this process, through input by way of submissions, public forums to be able to solicit input and commentary. There was advice sought from several experts, like the Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Ontario, and obviously, here in Newfoundland and Labrador as well, people who are experts in the field, people who have some background and knowledge on this issue, people who have been involved in shaping legislation and regulation in other jurisdictions in and around this issue.

One of the things that I am very pleased to say, that as a result of that extensive consultation, as a result of that very exhaustive process we went through, we now have a bill before this House. It is a fairly extensive bill, and I will take some time to go over some pieces of it in a moment, but it is a very extensive piece of legislation for the protection of personal health information that has come about as a result of some extensive consultations. We have every single stakeholder, I say, Mr. Speaker, every person that we consulted with provided some comment. As a result of that, we are introducing in the House today, in second reading, a bill that has the unanimous support of all the stakeholders that we provided an opportunity to consult with. They themselves have provided some input and some comment. So I think this bill here before the House today reflects that collective view of all those individuals that we have had some consultation with and reflects the collective wisdom of so-called experts in the field throughout Canada and throughout other major jurisdictions where such legislation has been introduced.

I just want to walk through a couple of very significant pieces, I want to say, Mr. Speaker. When we get into committee stage we will have a chance to talk about it in some detail but I just want to read into the record. This bill is intended to establish a set of comprehensive, privacy protection rules applicable to the collection, to the use, disclosure, disposition, of personal health information by the public private sector components of the health system.

Mr. Speaker, there is other legislation in the Province that has helped guide this particular drafting. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which is a piece of legislation that pertains to all public bodies; all public bodies, I say, Mr. Speaker, but it does not pertain to the private sector. What we have tried to do here is, this particular legislation was used as a guide to help shape some of the legislation, the drafting of this particular bill.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in the federal jurisdiction we have Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documentation Act, commonly referred to as PIPEDA; those pieces of legislation, one provincial, one federal, when they were drafted initially, they looked at and they were guided by ten privacy principles. I say, Mr. Speaker, we, too, in drafting this legislation, were guided by these ten principles.

I will just read them into the record. Number one, accountability. Number two, identifying a purpose. Number three, issues around consent have been addressed. Number four, limiting the collection of information, limiting its use, its disclosure and access and retention. Also, the accuracy and the integrity were considered. The other principle: the safeguards to ensure that it is protected and secure. The other one was openness - again, built into this particular piece of legislation - individual access, challenges and compliance.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, this particular bill here was built on some of the same principles of current legislation, both nationally and provincially. Those twelve principles have guided the building of these two previous pieces of legislation and have also influenced this particular bill that we are speaking to here today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, if I could, just comment on some of the highlights of this particular bill. As bills are constructed, it lays out an explanation of why it exists, what it is we are intending it to do. I want to do this in some of the critical pieces of this here.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, is to establish rules, define how information is collected, how it is stored, who shares it, how it gets shared, and who controls it. The other thing it does: it lays out, it provides for, a mechanism for access to information, individual access to the information itself. It also provides - which is a very significant piece, I say, Mr. Speaker - for an independent review of decisions. If individuals are not happy with decisions that have been made about their personal health information - either there wasn't compliance with the legislation and their information was not protected, or they have tried to have access to the information and they have been denied or restricted in some fashion - there is a mechanism to appeal to the privacy commissioner, I say, Mr. Speaker. If you are not happy with that decision, there is a mechanism to appeal that decision through the courts. It also defines the terminology of who is called a custodian. It defines who actually is covered by this legislation, and who is considered to have custody of information.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the current legislation, a typical legislation in the Province, deals with public bodies. This is an all-inclusive piece of legislation. This is intended to cover every single group and organization that will collect personal health information. It covers the regional health authorities; it covers family physician offices; it covers the Department of Health and Community Services; it will cover pharmacies; it will cover ambulance operations; anyone who has personal health information and collects it for purposes of sharing, purposes of providing treatment, purposes of providing a diagnostic service to a particular individual, whether it is lab services or public health labs; it covers and deals with the Centre for Health Information, identifies them a custodian of the information - the Centre for Nursing Studies. The list, I say, Mr. Speaker, is extensive. Fundamentally, anybody or any person or organization, a body that captures information is considered a custodian of that information.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that this particular legislation acknowledges is a distinction between what is written, documented, information, information that may be handwritten in a chart, information that may be handwritten in a note, or information that may be stored electronically in a database, but also, Mr. Speaker, it deals with oral information. I may be a treating physician of a particular patient; I have information with respect to that patient, and I am now having a consult with another physician or another health practitioner who may also be involved in the treatment of that particular patient, and we are exchanging information orally. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, covers that circumstance as well. Very important differences, I say, Mr. Speaker.

The other part of this, in terms of the kind of protection it provides, this legislation is drafted and constructed in a fashion that protects the confidentiality of that information. It restricts access to the information to only those individuals who need it in the care and treatment of that particular person. It protects the confidentiality.

It also deals with storage, and how information should be stored, how it should be shared, and how it should be protected. It puts an onus on all those individuals that I have just alluded to and spoke to as being identified in the legislation as being custodians. It puts an onus on them to provide for an appropriate storage of that information. It puts an onus on them to ensure that the information that they maintain in their records is protected against any kind of breach of confidentiality.

One of the other things it does, Mr. Speaker, it puts an onus on those individuals who are using that information. I may be employed with a particular organization; I may have access to that information. As a part of my employment arrangement, I have to take an oath of affirmation or confidentiality. Once again, this legislation puts an onus on individual organizations to ensure that their employees, people who they do business with, have taken an oath of affirmation, and protects the confidential nature of the information.

If organizations such as the Department of Health and Community Services, or one of our health authorities, or a private practice physician, engages an outside agency providing information management supports, like an organization such as – the Department of Health and Community Services, as an example, has a contract with xwave, to provide supports for our Prescription Drug Program. We would need to have a contractual arrangement that binds them to that same responsibility that we have under this legislation, so contractors who do business with any custodian are bound by this legislation, as well, to protect the privacy of the individuals whose information is being stored, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other things that happens in this particular legislation is the whole issue of a disclosure. One of the things that will happen in this particular legislation here is, if there is any kind of breach, if there has been a breach of any kind of information, some individual or some groups have gained access to someone's private information, personal health information, there is an onus in this legislation to provide a disclosure to that individual. Mr. Speaker, in fact, since we have tabled this legislation in the House and read it into the record in First Reading, some new changes have emerged. When we get into Committee Stage, I will be proposing a couple of amendments to this legislation to reflect those changes.

Something new has evolved with the federal legislation. I said earlier, that we were guided by what is happened with PIPEDA and with ATIPPA, PIPEDA being a federal piece of legislation. They now are amending their legislation to ensure that when there is a breach not only does the individual get advised but the Privacy Commissioner gets advised.

When we get to Committee Stage, I advise members opposite that I will be introducing a couple of amendments. One of them deals with this particular section here that I am talking about now with respect to the breach, so that in future if there is a breach of confidentiality, then the amendment to this bill that I will introduce a little later on will require not only the custodian to advise the individual that there has been a breach and someone may have accessed their information, but it puts an onus on the custodian of the information to advise the Privacy Commission as well, that such a breach has occurred.

It is a fairly comprehensive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, trying to provide full and adequate protection of personal health information.

Some of the other provisions in here, Mr. Speaker, deal with the area of consent. Individuals, as I said a moment ago, may provide information to their family physician or other health practitioner who may be treating them, may provide information to someone in the admissions department in a hospital about their health status, personal information, private information. This legislation deals with what we mean by consent.

Obviously, if you are admitted to a hospital tomorrow and there is the admissions person to take information from you – your family physician may have provided some information about your health background and your history. Your treating physician may be involved directly in providing this service to you, but there are many other people in that circle of care who will need access to that information to provide some treatment. This legislation deals with the whole issue of assumed consent as a result of that circle of care, but also deals very explicitly with what options you have in providing consent to restrict access to the information, when consent is explicit and when it is implied.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other significant provisions of this particular piece of legislation, it deals with access. It maps out here how individuals can gain access to their personal health information, what rights and privileges they have to access their information, but more importantly, I say, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, individuals have a right built into this legislation to have access to their private health information, their personal health information. They have a right not just to access it, but if they disagree with something, if they read their chart, read the file and they find that there is a disagreement, the individual may either challenge something that has been written by a health provider, or may not agree with the way in which it is phrased and, in fact, provides a misleading profile of that individual, they have an ability, through this legislation - it maps out clearly the process to be completed by that individual. It maps out a process so that individual can have the appropriate changes made in their health information to ensure that it more accurately reflects what they believe to be the reality. The legislation goes through a mechanism that lays out how that would be done, how you would access it, under what conditions you could make changes, and how those changes will be recorded in your file.

The other thing it does, it maps out in here for you a clear recourse in the event that you do not - for example, if you want to have access to your health record and for some reason that access has been unreasonably denied, there is a mechanism in here to appeal that to the Privacy Commissioner; or if, in fact, you want to have some changes made in your personal health information and for some reason that has been denied. Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, there is a mechanism in here that lays out your rights, your privileges and the process that you would need to follow to have that information changed and appeal that decision to the Privacy Commissioner.

If, in fact, Mr. Speaker, you felt that there was a breach, someone may have accessed your information inappropriately and you want to complain. There is a mechanism here - and the custodians have not provided due diligence and they have not appropriately managed and are not appropriately protecting your personal information, there is a mechanism in this legislation for you to, through a complaints process to the Privacy Commission, levy a complaint. If that Commission's decision is not to your satisfaction, there is a second mechanism. There is another mechanism through the court that you can appeal the decision of the Commissioner.

The entire piece of legislation is intended to provide the maximum possible protection of personal health information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does it in a number of fashions. It clearly defines who should store information, who should have information, and it is identified in here as the custodian of that information. It lays out how that custodian should manage that information. Then it speaks very clearly to the kind of privileges you have in ensuring you have access to that information. Not only does it lay out your privileges and your right to access but through the consent mechanism it provides a very clear direction as to what restrictions you may choose to place on who would have access to that information, and that is through that lockbox concept that I talked about earlier.


I say, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is intended to be a comprehensive piece of legislation to protect the integrity of your personal health information, protect the privacy and the sensitivity of the information through laying out, in a step-by-step mechanism, the whole process of storing and releasing and how personal health information gets used. It has been constructed on the basis of a wide consultation process. I say, Mr. Speaker, it reflects the principles as outlined in both the federal legislation that currently exists, as well as provincial legislation that currently exists with respect to this.

I said a moment ago, as well, that there was an amendment that I would be introducing when we get into committee stage as a result of some changes at the federal level that have surfaced in recent weeks since we have tabled the legislation. That is on the advice of the Privacy Commissioner himself and has provided some detailed direction for us.

Secondly, there are several other pieces of legislation that will be repealed as a result of this particular bill being introduced. One that is not included in the list here, but will be a part of the amendment that I will introduce a little later on, is the Regional Health Authorities Act. There is a piece of section 6 of the current Regional Health Authorities Act, which was just recently proclaimed actually, that section of that legislation will be repealed by the amendments that I will be introducing at committee to this particular bill.

With those more recent amendments coming out as a result of some recent learnings that we have had, obviously reflect what is current day thinking, current day practice, both at a federal stage and provides some consistency with other legislation that we have on the books of our Province.


I say, Mr. Speaker, I would move at second reading this bill, and I invite any comments with respect to it.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill just read by the minister and spoken to by the minister, be read a second time.

I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to thank the minister for a very good explanation of Bill 7. I think it is important for the public to understand how this bill works because it pertains directly to them and directly to their personal health information. I guess every single one of us have personal information that has been documented within the health care system in this Province for one reason or another.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly lengthy bill. It outlines the entire process that will be taken and certainly what practices that will put into play as it relates to the protection of people's health records and their information; how they can access it; how those who deal with their information are supposed to conduct themselves; processes that will be used; how adjustments can be made; how reviews will be conducted and so on. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a lot of lengthy comments here but there are a couple of things that I wanted to go through and provide just a little bit of information as it relates to it and a couple of questions that I do have around the bill, that I guess the minister will have an opportunity to address once it goes into the committee stages.

First of all, this bill is to ensure confidentiality of information and privacy of that information. Basically, what that means is that when we go to a hospital or we go to any part of our health care system - we have tests done, we have blood work done, we have diagnoses, we have biopsies, we have surgeries, we have treatments - everything is recorded. Every, single piece of information is recorded on us. Then we need to ensure that there are confidentiality agreements in place so that those people who manage that information on our behalf are ensuring the safe and secure protection of it for us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they also talk about providing individuals with the right to access their own information. We have all heard stories about how people have gone to doctors or gone to hospitals and tried to obtain their information, especially in situations where family members or loved ones, or even them, themselves, would have been treated with some kind of critical illnesses or diagnosed with some kinds of problem, and for one reason or another they wanted access to that information.

We have in the Province right now an ongoing inquiry into faulty estrogen and progesterone testing of women in this Province. As a result of that faulty testing, and lab results being misread, treatments being misprescribed, and also cases of where data collection was insufficient and unable to be matched, in some cases, with the actual patient, all of this has triggered an inquiry into that particular issue within the Province. As a result of that inquiry, people had to go to their doctors or their oncologists or whatever the case may be to obtain their personal information and their personal files, because they had to provide it to the legal counsel that they were retaining to be able to do this on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, we have had calls recently from people in our office who are being charged for obtaining that personal information. One of the questions, I guess, that I would have for the minister around this legislation is that, in addition to allowing for a process by which patients can access health information, their own personal health records, what will be the fee? Is there going to be a fee for that, or will it be freely provided?

We had a call, actually, just last week from an individual who says they just paid something like over $300 to access their personal health information within the health care sector. I see a problem with that, because oftentimes they are looking for the information for a very valid reason, and by imposing a fee on accessing that information it often, in cases, limits some individuals from getting the access they need and I do not think that should be the case. So, when the bill moves into Committee, I will be asking the minister to certainly clarify that information in the bill.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that is here, is the opportunity to correct or amend personal health information. That is the right of an individual, to be able to do that. I have heard many cases of this as well, Mr. Speaker. I have heard cases where people have been going back and forth to a physician or a doctor or a clinic or a hospital in the Province, trying to seek some remedy for what their problem was, or some diagnosis of what their problem was, and I know of one case in particular where this individual suffering from back problems and other problems, pain related, Mr. Speaker, in that way, and they kept going back and forth to a physician and they kept thinking that this person was actually depressed or suffering from some form of mental illness, that their problem was more psychotic than it was actual physical, and there was a tremendous amount of stress placed upon this patient. Their reports were indicating that they were suffering from some psychiatric problems, that it was all a mental disorder and not an actual physical pain disorder, trying to make the individual believe that there was something wrong with the way they were thinking, and that they were not really experiencing the excruciating pain that they were telling the doctor they were having.

Of course, that was all documented in that individual's chart; so, in future years, any other physician who would have picked up that chart, when they went in with other problems relative to pain, might have looked at it and said: Well, in the past, this is what other people thought - and probably draw the same conclusions.

People would have the opportunity, the individual would have the right, to require that a correction or amendment be made in that health information once it was proven that the problem was actually different from that which was written and diagnosed at the time.

I think it is very important for people to have the ability to do that, because it gives much clearer, much more concise, directions that need to be taken with regard to the health needs of these individuals afterwards, when other problems occur.

Also, it allows for the established mechanisms to ensure the accountability of persons having custody or control of personal health information. This is very important, Mr. Speaker, the accountability of those custodians who have our health information, whether that be your pharmacist where you go and pick up your medication, whether it be the nurse that you see when you walk into a clinic, whether it be the lab technician who documents your blood work or your X-ray technician who documents those tests, whether it be your general physician, your surgeon, all of these people are custodians of our health information and therefore they have to be accountable in some way, shape or form, to ensure that information is managed properly and that it is protected for the best interest of that individual.

Now, we will be looking to see what kind of accountability measures will be put in place for custodians. I do not think it is outlined specifically in the bill right now, but I understand from the minister's comments that there will be accountability mechanisms put in place so that any doctor or any pharmacist, any nurse, any custodian that would manage health information of a patient in this Province, will know very clearly what the accountability measures expected of them will be, and therefore they will be able to carry out their work according to that process.

We support having those kinds of mechanisms in place, and I guess at a time in which they are established we will be able to pass some comments as to whether we feel it goes far enough or is thorough enough in meeting that particular need.

The other section here is to provide for an independent review of decisions and resolutions of complaint. This is important, as well, because people need to have a process whereby if they do not like the way a decision is made, or how something is being resolved, then they have an opportunity to go further with it. That is very important within our health care sector and it is important that, when they do go further and they do ask for this review, they are doing so knowing that they are dealing with an independent body to be able to lodge that complaint with, and to ask for a resolution on it.

Mr. Speaker, we do not know at this stage how the independent review will be set up, if it will be one person or three people, or a board of people. We do not know if the review process will be an in-person process or written process. We do not know if there will be time restraints around the review process in terms of the amount of time that you can file a complaint to have it resolved, from the time that you received a response that you are not happy with, or whatever the case, so we will need to look at what the time factors are, and how realistic they are, but again those are details that are not contained in the bill at the present time. Maybe, when the minister speaks in Committee, he might be able to give me a better understanding of when we could see the independent review process established, and what that process would actually look like in terms of how people access it, what would be required, how complaints will be lodged, and how they will be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, this is a very necessary piece to this legislation as well, but one, I guess, in which the details around it will come at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, this act, as you know, will be presided over by a privacy commissioner and it gives this privacy commissioner, in my opinion, an enormous amount of power when it comes to being able to access a person's health information, because this individual will be able to access that information without a warrant. As I understand, they would be given the same powers as basically an inquiry would be given, and that is the power to subpoena or to call witnesses, to hold inquisitions, to request whatever information is required be tabled and so on.

Mr. Speaker, that individual will have an enormous amount of power when it comes to accessing the personal health information of people in this Province. I can only assume that with that enormous amount of power the Privacy Commissioners themselves would have to have rules and regulations to follow in terms of how they disclose and how they access information and protect it once it is in their possession. That is going to be very important to people.

Mr. Speaker, the minister already outlined that this bill is no doubt a follow-up to federal legislation that was passed back some time ago. It dealt with the federal piece of legislation that was called the Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act. That was important, Mr. Speaker, to be done right across the country. As a Province, I guess we are adopting policies that would fall in line with that legislation. I understand that the development of this Act has been in progress for quite a number of years, I guess, going back seven or eight years. It is not a piece of legislation that would have just been done overnight, but rather something that has been looked at and cultured over a longer period of time to ensure that it is meeting the needs of all of the aspects as it was intended to do.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt we think this is a very important bill, and we think it is important not only to the individuals or to the patients in terms of ensuring their protection and how they can access information and make changes and so on, but it is also very important for those who deal with us as patients, for the health care providers. It is very important for those individuals as well, because it gives them very guided, firm processes and principles upon which they can carry out their work as well. We think that is definitely important and important enough that it should be outlined within legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity within this legislation as well for people to restrict the information that has passed on within the health care sector from physician to physician or doctor to doctor or nurse to nurse, and so on.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I am an individual who has medical treatments in Labrador at a clinic there. I am an individual who has a family doctor in St. John's, who I use on a regular basis when I am here. Mr. Speaker, I have been in a number of hospitals in this Province and outside of this Province and if there was information that I did not want to have transferred, say from a doctor in Labrador to a physician I am seeing in St. John's because it is very unrelated problems, historically now it has no significance to me on a go-forward basis, I could ask that the information be locked and that it not be transferred or disclosed on a public basis to individuals.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for people who deal with certain diseases, for example, like people that might be HIV positive. You know, they might not consent to have that information available throughout the health care system and therefore they can restrict the access to that information or restrict it being contained within the charts of that one doctor or one physician they are seeing, who is actually treating them for this particular illness.

Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, we hear of people who have procedures done that they do not want to have disclosed publicly. Maybe it is an abortion, for example. They would have the right to be able to restrict the access of that information on their chart so that it is not passed around through the health care sector and to each doctor they will see over the course of their lifetime or each nurse or specialist and so on. Often you can have that kind of information restricted on your chart so that you are not giving consent to everyone within the sector to have access to that information.

The same rules, Mr. Speaker, would also apply, as I understand, to any information being sent out of the Province. Oftentimes we have patients who go out of the Province for procedures. Actually, almost every day someone in this Province is seeking medical care somewhere else in the country because they cannot access it here, whether that be transplants of one kind or another, very complicated surgeries that we do not specialize in, very specialized treatments that we are not able to offer and so on. We know everyday people in this Province are being sent elsewhere for those treatments. In fact, I have dealt with many of these patients and I know that there is a large amount of patient file information that is often couriered back and forth between these hospitals, especially in Toronto, Mr. Speaker. Toronto hospital is one that we use fairly often. It is couriered back and forth, so it is very important that when you are sharing this information with other facilities in the country, other hospitals in particular, and other medical staff outside the Province, that they also be restricted and have to comply with the regulations as they are outlined in Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly would support that. I think it is very important that it happens.


Mr. Speaker, also this Act contains, under section 89 - as you know, it is a very lengthy act. It is not overly complicated, but it is lengthy. It has something like ninety-six clauses that are outlined in it. In section 89 they talk about whistleblower protection. I think that this is very important. In fact, I think that all our legislation that we bring in should have those kinds of protections in it. What that means is - and I will just give you an example. If you have a secretary who is working in a doctor's office and that person may see that information is not being handled properly in that office, well then they can report this to the Commissioner. There is no problem with that and they can do it without repercussions and that is the way that it should be.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about one of the issues around the ER-PR with regard to data collection and with regard to being able to match certain numbers of patient files with numbers of tests that were coming back from Mount Sinai at the time. There was some confusion identifying some of these people. I do not remember the numbers now, but there were probably close to a dozen people in which they had some problems in matching information. Well those kinds of things should not be happening in any aspect of our health care sector, and proper data collection and ensuring that information is documented and recorded appropriately is very important.

Mr. Speaker, any person working in the health care sector who sees that these records are not being kept properly, information is not being documented properly, consent was not given for the transfer of information yet it is being done, things of this nature, they have an obligation to report that to the Privacy Commissioner to have it dealt with.

Under the legislation, under section 89, they can do so without any repercussions. So even if their employer is a private sector person they can still report it and not be penalized in their job or fired for reporting it, because under the Act that is the accountability measure that is allowed for, for these individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that the Act is also linked to the Ethics Act, and we passed the Health Research Ethics Act in the House of Assembly back in the spring session. I am sure when the Leader of the NDP speaks, she will touch on this and talk about it in much more detail than I can. She was one of the people who championed some amendments to that Act last time around, and to find some different aspects of the Ethics Act that needed to be done. This particular bill that we are dealing with today, under the Personal Health Information Act, also is linked to that Ethics Act. It is linked in terms of looking at whether the health research being done meets the ethical standards, as outlined in previous legislation in the House of Assembly. That is very important, because any time that you bring in bills here, you need to ensure that they jive with other legislation that is already on the books, and that there are connections being made.

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering about one aspect here, because under the Ethics Act back in the spring, a lot of it dealt with research on individuals, Mr. Speaker, in the Province, both living and deceased, and the documenting and handling of that kind of research and that kind of information. One of the things in this bill that I have not spoken about yet is what is called the circle of care. Now, as I understand it here, the idea behind that is that a patient gives their consent once to people who collect, use and dispose of information, their personal health information. They only give consent once, and that consent then is considered to be consent to all the people who would be managing their file, as it related to that particular health problem, or to all health problems?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MS JONES: To all health problems.

My question to the minister would be: Because this Act is linked to the Ethics Act, does that circle of care, when you give consent to people in the health care sector, are you also giving consent under that Act as well? Does it transcend into the Ethics Act? I am not sure about that, because the Ethics Act, as you know, deals with giving consent as well. I do not know if they both transcend those particular borders or if they do not, but maybe in Committee you might be able to provide some explanation to me on how that will work, or if you would be still required to give consent under the Ethics Act legislation, as it is now outlined. Oftentimes, people may not know that. When they are provided for consent for the management of personal health information, and knowing that they are giving consent to their doctor, their pharmacist, their nurse and so on, they may not consider the fact that I also might be giving consent for research and ethical research in terms of my particular health care problems or needs. If that is the case, I think it needs to be outlined a little bit more clearly or at least a requirement that people be told when they are signing onto this.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that there are times when information has to be disclosed to people outside of the actual medical profession. I am talking about people like insurance companies that often pay for the cost of medications that we need to have. I do not know how the legislation impacts - for example, if my insurance company requires information on my disease, maybe I am suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, for example, and I am being prescribed two or three different medications along with physiotherapy for my illness, but I have coverage through an insurance company. Obviously, they are going to require that information. Does this Act then provide for the protection of that information once my insurance company has access to it?

They do. So, they would fall under that legislation. The minister is nodding in agreement to tell me that that is indeed the case. I think that is important because there are many of us who often have to give our information to insurance companies. I do not know, up to this point, what protections were actually in place for that and if there were any. I am sure that they would have had their own policies internally.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay, so it would have fallen under federal legislation. Now, they will comply with both this act and the federal act in terms of dealing with that.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing in here that I found very noteworthy and I wanted to point out was what was under section 42 of the Act. It was considered the Turner provision.

You will all remember that there was a public inquiry in this Province into the Turner case. That was to deal with the tragedy that occurred around the loss of a child in this Province, Zachary Turner, and his mother who was, at the time, on trial for murder in the United States, but was being tried under Canadian jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, it was a tragic event that occurred, and it was an event that fell into the laps of government by way of a case where individuals were being supported by Child, Youth and Family Services, by Legal Aid Services, through the Department of Justice and by a whole multitude of government programs and services. They had case workers and psychologists assigned to them as a family.

Mr. Speaker, the inquiry showed a number of things, but one of the things it showed as it related to this Act, in the Turner Inquiry, was that they needed to ensure there was a better sharing of information with Child, Youth and Family Services.

I actually read the Turner Inquiry and in that particular inquiry one of the things that I noted was that there was always a breakdown of communications between Child, Youth and Family Services and the medical personal information of the people involved. Of course, Dr. Turner had a lengthy medical history and a lot of that medical history, as I understand from the inquiry, in reading the documentation, was that it was not provided to the Child, Youth and Family Services, and therefore they were making determinations on a caseload oftentimes without having full knowledge of all of the information.

I understand from section 42 of the Act, that it will be made easier to share the information with Child, Youth and Family Services. I guess, Mr. Speaker, Child, Youth and Family Services would then have to follow the same processes as everyone else in managing that health information as it relates to those patients. Maybe the minister can clarify for me that that is indeed the case, that they would then fall under the same legislation.

Mr. Speaker, those were just a few of the concerns that I had around the bill, but I want to say that given the sensitive nature of health information and expanding use of technology and the unique nature of consent in the health care regime, that we would strongly support Bill 7. We will wait and see what other amendments the minister wants to make. I think he announced that he might make a few tomorrow to the bill. I certainly would hope that they are being made to strengthen what he already has here which we see, Mr. Speaker, as being a very good piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has given tremendous detail and actually provides for two very strong pillars of privacy legislation, and that is consent and confidentiality. That is what we always look for when we are dealing with information like this.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly feel that individuals have a right to be informed, have a right to their own health information records, and that health care professionals do have an obligation to protect that information, once it is given to them, and to be accountable to the individuals they serve to ensure that proper safeguards are always put in place.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments there on Bill 7 and I will wait until we go into Committee stage on tomorrow to hear the minister's response to some of these questions, but we do want to say that we do support the legislation. We feel that it is very thorough and it does cover a lot of aspects.

There are some pieces, process pieces, I guess, that just have not been outlined yet, like the independent review process, the custodian piece, but I am sure that will all be done as the legislation moves through the House and becomes implemented and put into action.

That would conclude my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad to have some time to speak to this bill, an extremely important bill. I think we all recognize that, and I will be very pleased to support this bill once we have had full discussion, especially in Committee where I know amendments are coming, and I feel absolutely confident those amendments are going to be amendments that will strengthen and improve areas of concern that have been raised.

I think I will deal with that first, because of the fact that I have started there and the minister mentioned one of the amendments, but I would like to put on record what one of the concerns were that I had, and that I understand the minister will be bringing an amendment to, and it had to do with a clash between the new regional health authorities' regulations that were published on March 19, on the very day that this bill had first reading in the House. This whole timing thing, I think, was the reason why this clash developed. In section six of the regulations, subsection five, there is something in there that goes totally against not just the spirit but the concrete regulations inside the new bill.

What subsection five of section six of the regulation said was that a person to whom information is provided, or who is permitted access under subsection three or four, shall not publish or disclose information obtained from the client records of the regional health authority, where the publication or disclosure may or could be detrimental to the personal interest, reputation or privacy of a client, a physician, a member of the staff of the regional health authority, or a person employed by the regional health authority.

So what that subsection is doing is tying the hands of the person who has accessed their own information and, obviously, that definitely goes against the spirit of this new bill. The Minister of Health and Community Services has already indicated he is bringing in an amendment. I suspect that will be in the spirit of Part IX of the act, and Part IX of the act names pieces of legislation already in place where there are conflicts. So, I am looking forward to our Committee session where I am expecting, I know, that the minister will bring forward an amendment that will name this piece of legislation in the regulations and that I am assuming will say that will be repealed, because that is what Part IX is all about. Part IX very specifically names pieces of legislation outside of this bill that will either be amended or repealed because of this bill.

I am very glad that the minister and those working with him recognized that we could not just take at face value that, because there is a clause in the bill that says any act that does not fit within this bill, this bill will override that act. It is fine to have that in there, but if we know very specific pieces that are in conflict then obviously we should name all of those in Part IX.

Enough said on that; I know that will be presented by the minister in Committee and I am very, very pleased about that.

One of the things that has struck me with regard to the bill, just with regard to the whole notion of where we are today with information sharing and information flow and technology, is the need to assure that information is safe, not just when it is in a hard copy form, like handwritten notes, et cetera, but also electronically, and that we have tight, fast systems in place that do not allow anybody to access somebody's information through the electronic database or the electronic way in which information is being stored today.

Now, we know that we have had some cases of that recently over the last couple of years in the Province where information got accessed. We do know that there are people out there who are continually working at – for whatever reason they think they need to do it – how to break through and get at information inside of electronic systems. I would imagine that the OCIO is going to be involved in monitoring how information is accessible.

As we all know, I can be sitting in my doctor's office today and my doctor can go into the database of Eastern Health and find the results of tests that I have had done. That is great, that can happen, and if you have more than one doctor dealing with you they can get the same information without having to make contact with one another. That is important, that can happen, but we have to make sure that there is total protection inside of that electronic system so that only the people who need to have access to that information can have access to that information.

I think the spirit of that is covered in the section under disclosure, and that there is information that can be shared back and forth like that, and needs to be, but it also has to be done with the total protection of the client, or of the patient, or of the individual to whom the information pertains.

It is one concern that I have, and I hope the minister, maybe in Committee, would speak to us a bit about discussion around information that has been stored electronically, and the systems now that do allow people to go in and have access to that information. Because even information around a test, for example, the very fact that somebody is having a certain examination or a certain test done, that in itself gives information about what that person's health situation may be. One could say, well, accessing whether or not a certain blood test result has been done, that is not a big piece of information, but that blood testing is revealing what are things that are potentially wrong with the person. No piece of information that is out there about my health is unimportant. Every single piece of information about my health is important, and every single piece of information needs to be protected.

I had an experience recently that shows me how we have to be on our toes about information, and I actually talked about this in the Estimates meeting. I am not going to speak in detail, because I am still dealing with this myself. I have had an experience where somebody, who is the landlord of a premise where a doctor has an office, that that landlord actually came to me and showed me the daily schedule of the doctor. That landlord actually had the daily schedule of that doctor with the information about how many patients that doctor sees in a day.

I was shocked, I was shocked for all kinds of reasons, and I certainly let that person know I did not want to look at this document. The person's reasons for doing it were quite questionable, and I am still dealing with that information that I have, that this person actually came and did this. I was absolutely shocked that this landlord felt that as a landlord, that person had a right to go in and take this document off the doctor's desk and bring it to show me, to prove a point, because that is what the person was doing.

That shows us an attitude that is out there among some people. Certainly that landlord has it, the thought that if information is around that person, because the person owned the building, had rights over and above the person who was renting. We all know that that is not the case. That incident that I experienced was quite a shocking incident, but it shows us how accessible information can be and how some people do not respect other people's responsibilities and their space and the information that they hold. I believe that somebody who would do that kind of thing would not be above or beyond trying to locate somebody's file in that doctor's office, if that person for some reason felt they wanted to prove a point. I mean, that is not stretching, to think that that particular person could go that far. I was really quite shocked.

In the section on disclosure – and I guess I have spoken mainly to this – that was one of the things that I was concerned about. There are reasons for disclosure, and the section that deals with that spells them all out very, very carefully. We have to be sure that there is monitoring in place that when disclosure does happen, it really does fit under the legislation. Now I know that we do have a whole system that is going to protect this Act, but I would like to suggest, especially in the light of some of the things that we are dealing with in the Province right now, that we have to make sure that there is a stopping point. There is a point at which there is some body or some part of the system that is monitoring to make sure that the concrete stuff in this Act is being followed.

It is fine to have the section of non retaliation, and the section of non retaliation does deal with somebody in good faith recognizing something going wrong and reporting it and that there cannot be retaliation against that person. My concern is that systemically something might not be happening in the spirit of the Act, so who is there to regularly monitor, to regularly evaluate whether or not it is working? It cannot be the CEO of a health authority. The CEO, in and of that person, is not the person to do it, so we have to make sure that there are systems covering all - and I mean it is really huge. Not only is this a huge piece of legislation in terms of the number of pages, it is also a huge piece of legislation in terms of what it covers because it covers everybody who has a responsibility for people's health. It covers every group of professionals. It covers care givers. It covers the different groups of care givers. I am actually looking for the list where all of the different groups are covered and the different acts are named and the different groups are covered. It covers everybody from a dentist, a health care provider, and, you know, physiotherapist. I can go through the whole list – chiropractors. The list is extensive.

How are we going to assure that there is adequate monitoring going on, to make sure that all of those groups of people, that all of those professionals, that all of those care givers are being monitored with regard to this? Is it only going to be when somebody complains or will there be regular monitoring of the system to show that the best practices are being followed? I do not know the answer to that and I hope the minister - I saw him taking notes when I started to make this comment. I am sure that he will speak to this in Committee because people need assurance.

It is not enough to say, if I have a negative experience that I can report it, I can also appeal it and I can appeal it again. What is going to be there to assure - and of course this is true of everything in our system - that the negative experience does not happen to the degree that we can stop that from happening? What is going to be there to assure that everything is moving? I guess the words for that are quality control. What is going to be there to assure quality control with regard to the sharing of information? That is a huge one and it is probably a huge one with regard to all aspects of our health care system.

Along with some of the other questions that the Leader of the Official Opposition has put forward and I have put forward and things that have been identified by the minister himself, I throw that one out for thought and for discussion because I really do think it is a serious one. It is wonderful to have this in writing. It is wonderful to have this bill which will become an act. It is very important that we have it, but how are we going to make sure that what is on paper gets protected? How are we going to make sure that what is on paper is fully operative? That is going to be the extremely important piece, how to make it operative, how to be sure that the integrity of the legislation is maintained.

Mr. Speaker, I think that these are the main points that I wanted to raise. I am sure that in Committee there will be time again to speak to these points and other points. There is probably one more point I would like to make. Just like I said earlier today that I was proud of the Code of Ethics for MHAs that we have now passed here in by voting for the motion, I am also proud of us as a Province, that we now, - once we work on this bill and pass it, will have an act to provide for the protection of personal health information. It shows the maturity of who we are as a Province. It shows a maturity of who we are as a people that we recognize the importance of such a piece of legislation and we recognize the importance of the individual. It breaks through that notion - again, something that I talked about today when speaking to the other motion. It gets at the notion that there are some people in privileged positions. The professionals who deal with us are not in privileged positions. They are in a position of major responsibility, and their major responsibility is to the individuals they care for. The primary person is the person who is being cared for. The rights of that person are ultimate. The rights of the individual who is being cared for are number one. Everything in our health care system, no matter what it is, including the privacy of the information about that person and the protection of that privacy, that is primary. That is what this act recognizes and that is why I feel very proud, as a group of people in this Province, that we are able to have this act on the table.


I thank the ministry for the years of work that went into it because we are all aware, I think seven or eight years of work. I was very happy and I thank the minister as well, and his people, for the fact that we were able to sit with people who worked on the act to go through some of the questions that we had and to get full information before it actually came to the floor today. So I thank the minister and his staff for that as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of closing comments. First of all, I want to thank the two hon. members opposite for their support. The general thrust of their comments gave me some comfort in knowing that they are going to support this bill, and has just been pointed out, this is a significant piece of legislation because it provides some real protection for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and going with it, it creates in legislation a real responsibility for the custodian to that information and the protection of how it is being used.

So, I thank both members for their general support for the bill. They have raised some interesting questions that we will get into when we get into the committee stage because they are important points as to how the bill ‘operationalizes' and how it will actually roll out on a day-to-day basis, and these are important things to have a better understanding for. I do want to thank them both for their general support for the bill. As I have said, this is something that has been in the works for quite some time, something that is evolving, as we have seen with the amendments. Since we introduced this bill in the House there has been a need to make some amendments as a result of changes at the federal level, and that is the very nature of this particular piece of legislation. It changes to reflect societal values and societal beliefs.

One of the things I do want to make a comment on though, and that is - both members in speaking to it raised it, because inasmuch as we can do what we want in the legislation, we can build in all the safeguards that we want to do, we can introduce regulation but fundamentally this will - the legislation itself will give it a real focus, will give it a real structure. It will lay out in the legislation and the following regulations what the responsibilities are for each of the custodians of the information but it is going to require a real shift in culture, a recognition that those people who collect information, albeit for the benefit of those individuals that they are profiling, they need to respect the information, the confidential information and how it needs to be secure.

I think one of the things with the age of electronic information, the age of an ability to share easily, to go in on the Internet and look up information - we have the example of where physicians can tie into a hospital's database to get information. It makes it a lot easier for the patient. It provides for a safer level of care but in that process, too, it opens up many more avenues for people to access information that is unauthorized to access. I think one of the things that we will need to do as we roll this out, because it is - I did not mention it earlier, but the intent is when this bill passes in the House we are going to be about eighteen months before we proclaim it. It is going to be incumbent upon us as a government, working with all the stakeholders, to ensure we use that time wisely to create a better understanding, not just of how the bill is constructed and what their obligations are in terms of process but in terms of an awareness of how sensitive we need to treat the information that we collect.

On that point, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to it, and thank members opposite for their support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, an Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a second time.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Protection Of Personal Health Information," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 7)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, number 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 32)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act." (Bill 32)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the bill that we just called, Bill 32, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.

This is an amendment to the act that we brought in, in the last sitting, which was a result of the work done by Chief Justice Green. The Green report, as it is known, is certainly a comprehensive report and sometimes very prescriptive in the ways that it addresses some of the issues here at the House of Assembly.

The amendments that we are bringing in today are somewhat minor but they do address some of the prescriptive nature of what we are doing with the Green report and when we hit an anomaly sometimes, we have to deal with that particular situation. There are two changes that we are discussing today, two amendments to the act, and I am going to go through what both of these amendments mean.

Mr. Speaker, by virtue now of being the Government House Leader, I have now become a member of the Management Commission here at the House of Assembly. If anybody follows the Management Commission, they will realize that the changes we are discussing here in the House today were discussed at the Management Committee. It is in record, it was televised. So, if anybody has a particular interest, if they have been following some of these actions, they will certainly know what we are discussing here in the House today is nothing new or unique that would have been otherwise discussed at the Management Committee.

The first change that we are implementing today deals with the salary that is paid to a member when filling in for the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chair of Committees, after that incumbent has been unable to perform the duties for ten days. Why we have to do this here at the House of Assembly is because the salaries are set by statute. So in order to make any changes in this regard, it has to come back before the House and we have to do an amendment.

As the members know, and I guess as most people in Newfoundland and Labrador realize, the Deputy Speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis, has been unable to perform duties in the House for this particular session due to very serious medical reasons. The Deputy Chair of Committees and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's has been performing the presiding officer duties in the House but cannot be compensated financially for these duties unless we do this particular amendment. So, this compensation will not come into effect for anybody who fills these duties unless they have been in that role for at least ten days. This ten day time frame certainly allows that if somebody is off for a brief illness for a day or so, that we do not change the salary structure, somebody would fill in. So, with the ten days, if it goes beyond ten days, this is certainly representative of a more serious medical issue at that time, or other reason why a person is unable to perform their duties. This amendment would commence back to March 10, when this House opened for the spring session.

The other change that we are bringing in certainly deals with a serious problem that we have encountered with the composition of the Public Accounts Committee, and this is directly related to the Green report. The Green report made some very solid recommendations with rationale as to why they felt we should go a certain way; however, no one can ever predict how the House will look after an election and sometimes the prescriptive nature that we have here, as it is spelled out, cannot be accomplished, so in order for us to accomplish to have the effective Management Commission, along with the Public Accounts Committee, we have to make these particular changes.

The House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act states there can be no overlap in membership between the House of Assembly Management Commission and the Public Accounts Committee. Chief Justice Green reasoned that the Public Accounts Committee would provide an oversight role respecting the Commission, as it does government departments, so a member should not serve on both.

I do not think anyone would have any argument with that, and the rationale and the reason that he provided to say that they should be two separate committees; however, with the current composition of the House, three of the four members who sit in Opposition are, by statute, members of the Management Commission. Therefore, if we look at it from that perspective, that only leaves one Opposition member to sit on the Public Accounts Committee.

Of course, by tradition, the Opposition chairs the Public Accounts Committee, so the Member for Port de Grave would actually chair this committee, but all of the other members, if we followed this strictly, would come from the government side of the House. Clearly, this would not make for the most effective Public Accounts Committee.

I think it is fair to say that Chief Justice Green did not anticipate the impact of an unbalanced House of Assembly. I shouldn't say that, because it makes us sound like we are unbalanced, but the numbers were somewhat unbalanced, and that would result in some of the issues we have now with regard to the Management Commission and the Public Accounts Committee.

Chief Justice Green commented on the need for a revitalized Public Accounts Committee in Recommendation 19. I want to read what he had written in Recommendation 19. It reads, "(1) The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly should develop a program of action for regular investigation of matters of concern expressed in the Auditor General's annual reports, whether they relate to the executive or legislative branches of government; and (2) The Public Accounts Committee, additionally, should regularly examine and investigate matters dealt with in the annual reports of the House of Assembly Management Commission, including the financial statements of the House and auditors' opinions thereon, as well as matters disclosed in the course of compliance audits and any other matters of concern arising out of decisions of the Commission. (3) The Public Accounts Committee should regularly review with the Clerk of the House of Assembly, the Clerk's responsibilities as accounting officer of the House."

In order to achieve what is known now as this revitalization of the Public Accounts Committee it goes without saying that the Opposition members must participate, and allowing some Commission members to also serve on the Public Accounts Committee will not diminish the accountability of the Commission given the transparent manner in which it conducts business. Right now, that includes televised meetings, published minutes, full information posted on the Web, annual audits by the Auditor General, and internal audits by the Office of the Comptroller General, the management certification process currently being developed, and so on.

We certainly think that there are enough checks and balances in place with regard to the Management Commission, and the fact that it is open and transparent, that this amendment that we are looking for, in the composition of the Public Accounts Committee, certainly will not hamper the work that is being done by the Management Commission.

Again, we do not think that the accountability, in any way, will be compromised by this amendment. These amendments have been proposed by the House of Assembly Management Commission, which include all three parties in the House, so it is fair to say that there is non-partisan support for Bill 32.

Again, for people who have been following the Management Commission, there is nothing that we are discussing or debating in this amendment today that has not been discussed in a very open, public and transparent manner at the Management Commission level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity for a few words with respect to this Bill 32.

The Government House Leader is quite correct, of course; we are basically here, albeit in short order, since the passage of the Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act last June in this House as a result of the report of Chief Justice Green. We are back here in short order because we found out in short order that some of the things Chief Justice Green had said, albeit well-intentioned and albeit based upon circumstances that existed last June, no longer exist and, in fact, makes it pretty impossible to deal with situations - one situation at least, and that is the Public Accounts Committee.

First of all, there are two things here. As the minister states, we had a case here where the Member for Cape St. Francis became ill - he was the Deputy Speaker of the House - and no provisions were made as to what happens in that situation. We know that the remuneration was set when you filled these positions - the Speaker's position, or Deputy Speaker, or Opposition House Leader, or Opposition Leader, or minister of the Crown - they all have remuneration rates attached to them, but you cannot change any of that, right now, under the legislation, without bringing it back to the House of Assembly. That was a directive of Chief Justice Green as well.

We had a situation whereby the Deputy Speaker became ill; he has been gone for some time. I am not sure what the prognosis is, or what it looks to be, but we had a case where another member of the government side was filling in that position and the issue became – and, I guess, as callous as this might seem, the issue was - do you continue to pay the person who is ill, or do you not pay the person who has taken on the responsibilities of the job? To cut to the chase, that is what it came down to.

All of this has already been openly discussed at the televised board meetings of the board of management, and the conclusion was reached that the fair thing to do would be to allow a format whereby, yes, you could have an appointment of someone instead of the person who was officially appointed, who was off due to illness, and at the same time you would be permitted to compensate that person. At the same time, you would not do a disservice to the person who held the job, who was off due to no fault of himself or herself, but was off due to illness.

That is the intent here, and the tenor, and I think it is a very fair approach as to how this is being dealt with. It was a situation that was not contemplated by Chief Justice Green. As we will all learn, there are going to be growing pains with this new law, and as time goes on and new fact situations evolve we will have to deal with them as a board of management and as a Legislature, and that is what is happening right here.

For the record, as well, I would say, if we get a situation such as this, where the Deputy Speaker, in this case, for example, is unable to fulfill his functions because he is ill, albeit he will be compensated while he is ill, it is fair to say that the person who comes in will only be fill-in and will be paid on a pro rata basis. Just because you appoint someone as a temporary fill-in – you will have the authority to do this, and that person will be compensated for the time that they do fill in - you will not have a situation whereby, for the full sitting of the House of Assembly, for three or four years, the substitute, we will call it, is going to be compensated for three or four years. That is not what is going to happen here.

If some member of the government - if the rule clicks in, ten days pass - someone is put in as a substitute and that person is in there for twenty days, they will paid for the twenty days. That is the intent. That is what happens here. There is not going to be rewarding anybody, and say we had two people getting paid for the same position forever and a day. The substitute will be paid for the amount of time that the substitute is filling that role on a pro rata basis. That is my understanding of what we are doing here, but we certainly have to make provision for the appointment, and I think it is only fair to make remuneration applicable to the person who is doing the responsibilities of that job.

On the second piece here, the Public Accounts Committee, anyone who is familiar with Chief Justice Green's report is well aware that he had some serious concerns about the operations of the Public Accounts Committee in the last legislature. He made it pretty clear that it was not necessarily functioning as efficiently as it should. The Public Accounts Committee, in any legislative democratic session and parliamentary process, is supposed to be a very important piece and a very important cog in the wheel. I say cog in the wheel as opposed to a spoke because it is that important, the idea being that if anything in the system is of a nature that deserves and needs to be publicly debated and aired and discussed and torn apart and analyzed by the legislators as opposed to being in the Legislature when you do it, that is a good place to do it. Quite often in here we are limited in what we can do.

You can ask questions in Question Period but you may or may not ever get an answer. You can ask questions when it comes to budget time, you can get up and give speeches on just about anything, but there are no answers that come back, necessarily. You can get into Private Members' motions and make a motion and you may or may not have any comment back from the government side. There are lots of things that happen in this Province that you would like to take to the Public Accounts Committee.

For example, when the fibre optic deal hit the rails last year, we as an Opposition wanted to have the fibre optic deal dealt with properly in the Public Accounts Committee, because we felt that is the place where there is a Chair, there are members on the Committee, you can handle it in terms of calling witnesses, they even have subpoena powers and it is all recorded.

You can bring somebody before the Public Accounts Committee, who might have information. You can question them, you can examine them, and that is the whole purpose. That is why it is so important, as it goes beyond what you are capable of doing in the House of Assembly. There is no doubt about it. Call a spade a spade. The Public Accounts Committee, in the last session before the election, was not allowed to function as it should have. It was chaired by a member of the Liberal Opposition but you could only ever hold a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee if you got a quorum, and if there was ever an issue put on the agenda that they did not want to deal with, they would not go to the meeting. They would not have a quorum. So, it never, ever got discussed.

What was happening was, if the government does not like the way that it was doing things or did not like the topic that was going to be discussed, they simply would not show up. That is thwarting the system. The Chief Justice saw that, and he saw through that, and he said: look, this committee has too important a role to play in the democratic process, than to just let it sit that way. He tried to devise a manner and a method by which the House can do certain things, different committees of the House do certain things, the Public Accounts Committee should be allowed to function as it was intended to function in a democratic process. He was quite clear in his report that he was not pleased with how the Public Accounts Committee had been allowed, or not allowed I should say, to function in the last sitting. So, he redesigned it.

He talked about the revitalization of the role of the Public Accounts Committee and, in fact, he wanted it kept so separate that he said, if you sit on the board of management which was the new administrative piece that he created to replace the old Internal Economy Commission - because on the old IEC as we used to call it the government had a majority. He redesigned that. He said: we are not going to have that any more. What he did was he put certain members on it automatically. The Government House Leader is on there and the Opposition House Leader is there. He balanced out so that the Chair - the deciding vote on the board of management right now is actually the Speaker, and the Speaker as we all know is sworn to be fair, to be equal to everybody in this House. Once he was elected - we all elected him unanimously. He represents everybody here. The board of management is done on an equal basis and he wanted the Public Accounts Committee to operate separately as well, to have its own autonomy in that sense and not to be thwarted in what they wanted to do and ought to do as a Public Accounts Committee.

He made the statement saying, you cannot be on both at the same time. You cannot be on the board of management and also on the Public Accounts Committee. Well, I guess nobody knew back then what the results of the election were going to be. It is pretty tough when we end up with three members in the Official Opposition and one member of the Third Party. It is pretty tough when you say you cannot be on both because the Opposition House Leader, myself, is on the board of management. The Leader of the Official Opposition is on the board of management. The Leader of the Third Party is on the board of management. It only leaves one other person in the Opposition who could have been on the Public Accounts Committee, and that is the Member for Port de Grave.

The question became: how could the Public Accounts Committee ever become functional with those number? It could not. That is a case again where nobody anticipated that fact situation. We needed to redesign what we did here to make it workable. All this piece is doing here is saying, under the circumstances and depending upon the numbers you can have, you can serve on both. We know now, once this gets past, for example, that the Member for Port de Grave will sit on the Public Accounts Committee. Tradition dictates that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee always comes from the Opposition benches. We will certainly be putting forward the name of the Member for Port de Grave as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and then once this gets done we will decide amongst ourselves who the other members from the Opposition are going to be on the Public Accounts Committee.

That is the background to it. There is no big magic to it. It was a case of the judge said one thing, which we accepted last June. The people of the Province decided what the numbers were going to be in October. We had to deal with those numbers. Those numbers do not fit the formula as outlined by the Chief Justice. You have two choices, you either do not have a Public Accounts Committee or else you change the law so that you can have a functioning Public Accounts Committee. Chief Justice Green made it quite clear he wanted a functioning Public Accounts Committee; hence we had to change the law to accommodate the numbers.

So, we will be voting in favour of this. I have had an opportunity to speak and deal with this matter on the board of management level. We will certainly be voting, as the Official Opposition, in favour of the provisions of Bill 32 as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of order with respect to the comments of the Opposition House Leader.

I rise in the capacity, Mr. Speaker, of having been the past vice-chair of that committee. With regard to the comments of the Opposition House Leader, he stated that the committee did not work because every time a meeting was called - or words to that effect - by the chair of the committee, depending on what was on the agenda, the committee just, on our side, refused to show up.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happened before my appointment to that committee, but certainly from the time I was appointed, that was as far from the truth as you can get. The fact is, every time that we had problems scheduling dates - if we scheduled dates for meetings, something came up that interfered with those dates.

We also had a committee member who was appointed to another position; a member that was appointed who subsequently resigned his position, I am talking about the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale at the time, and consequently the committee was short. It got to the point, Mr. Speaker, where late in the spring of last year we sent a letter to the Chairman of the committee and offered some dates when we could meet, and there was no response.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. COLLINS: I want to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, at no time was there a situation where the committee would not show up because of the agenda.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. There is, I believe, a disagreement between two members of the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when I speak now to Bill 32 I will close debate in second reading of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I had indicated and was indicated by the Opposition House Leader, the changes that we feel are necessary today which result in the amendments that are put forward, were discussed by the Management Commission and they do basically address what was there in the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act that was passed in the last sitting of the House. They specifically address some anomalies that we have to address, based on what is going on in the House today.

So, it did come from the Management Commission. It certainly was a public debate in regards to that. It was felt that what we are putting forward is a sound amendment to deal with these issues, and we have the support of all parties.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move that we close debate at second reading of Bill 32.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 32)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 32)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper, number nine, I will be calling second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise with this Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act. There are a number of highlights of these amendments but the one I wish to speak primarily to today is the creation, for lack of a better term, of what is referred to as the per diem judge.

Mr. Speaker, recently we had handed down or prepared a report of the Task Force on Criminal Justice Efficiencies, which had as one of its authors, Chief Judge Reid of the Provincial Court and a number of other proxy members of the Bar, from legal aid, the Crown and the private Bar.

The purpose of this report, as I talked about last week, Mr. Speaker, was to make the court system more effective and efficient and to improve access to and the delivery of justice. I am not going to repeat the comments I made last week when we were dealing with the issue of the amendment to the legal aid act allowing for right to counsel of choice.

Essentially, what we are trying to do as a government is to speed up the system. It is currently taking too long for individuals to go to trial, from ten to twelve months on the average. We want to reduce from three to four months. We feel that this can be done through the infusion of additional monies, but also a new method of thinking or creative thinking whereby the courts, the Crowns, the defence and the police all work together to improve the system. The improvement, or the increasing of efficiencies will reduce the effect on victims of crime, witnesses and innocent accused, and will avoid unnecessary delay.

Under section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an individual has the right to a speedy trial. If utilized, this report will result in the minimization of unnecessary appearances - and we are looking at ways of eliminating delay.

So, this report, Mr. Speaker, highlights how we can reduce delay by improving the process of disclosure, encouraging early case resolution, and the use of video conferencing. Another salutary effect of this amendment and this report is that we can reduce the number of inmates who are on remand, and we can do that by ensuring that they get to trial quicker.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, when an individual is arrested, oftentimes they can spend a couple of days in jail and the Crown will make a determination as to whether or not there is going to be a bail hearing. If there is a bail hearing, the individual oftentimes is granted release, but sometimes is not. If that person is remanded into custody until dealt with according to law, then their trial date is set down the road. It could be three to four months, it could be ten months, it could be twelve months, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, what we are trying to do here is to speed up the system. So, when we look at one of the significant aspects of the Report on the Task Force of Criminal Justice Efficiencies, was at page sixteen of that report where the Task Force outlined how unnecessary delays and scheduling problems could be eliminated; the utilization of a centralized electronic scheduling system; two, the creative use of new technological appearance provisions; the use of designation of counsel provisions in the Criminal Code. Specifically to the issue here today on per diem judges, Mr. Speaker, the Task Force recommended that there be a new system of case assignment to courtrooms and judges shortly before a hearing, instead of months in advance, based on the availability of judicial resources.

So this system would be called the Case Assignment and Retrieval System, or the CAAR system, and would allow for flexibility. Essentially, what happens in Provincial Court today, if a trial is commenced, if that trial does not finish in the two days allotted then it goes to the six or eight months in the roster down the road when it next comes up to court.

What we have here is a situation whereby essentially what we are going to be doing is utilizing a panel of retired judges who wish to sit on a daily basis. In other words, they will be paid for what they do.

The Supreme Court, or Superior Court in this Province, has a system of supernumerary judges. These supernumerary judges are retired judges who are actually paid a salary. That is not what we are utilizing here, or contemplating.

In other words, if five Provincial Court judges were to retire and those five Provincial Court judges wish to sit a per diem judges, their names will be put on a panel and the chief judge, as was required - and I will go to the act in a second - would call them in to do a day's work.

Let's use, for example, the case where there has been a two-day trial and it is not finished. Well, as opposed to that judge being taken off that trial and setting the continuation of that trial eight months down the road, a per diem judge would be called in - once they became aware that this trial was going to go over - and that judge would come in and do the trial that the other judge had scheduled.

This flexibility, in fact, allows for the overbooking of cases. In Provincial Court in St. John's now, one case is assigned per day to a courtroom. So eight months down the road there was a trial scheduled. If that trial were to collapse as a result of plea negotiations, the individual pleading guilty, the Crown withdrawing charges, then there is nothing else to go into that courtroom. We have an empty courtroom sitting there for a day. We have a judge who is not sitting in court. That is what we are trying to avoid, Mr. Speaker. By the creation of the per diem judge system, there would be a judge who can come in and fill that judicial void. I am not sure that is a real good term, but, in any event, where there is a judge needed in a courtroom there would be a judge available.

Essentially, what we could do, we could have surplus or overbooking of cases to reduce the loss of sitting time, and this overbooking multiple could be adjusted and refined based on the data as we move along.

Our target date for the implementation of the CAAR system is the fall of 2008. As I indicated last week, one of the difficulties with the utilization of this system is, although I can, as I have indicated, not necessarily tell the police or the Crowns or legal aid what to do, I can certainly suggest that certain changes be made.

The difficulty with telling judges what to do is that there is a general prohibition on that in terms of judicial independence. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say to Chief Judge Reid - or at least the conventional thought is that I cannot say to Chief Judge Reid - you have to implement the CAAR system; however, I would assume that Chief Judge Reid, having been one of the co-Chairs of this report, would have no difficulty in implementing a system which improves the access to and delivery of justice.

Now, the way this will work, Mr. Speaker, in the amendment here, we are looking at 5.2 of the act, there will be a panel of retired judges and they would sit until they reach the age of seventy, which is the retirement age in Provincial Court, as opposed to seventy-five in Superior Court, and upon retiring a judge or judges would give notice that they wished to be available for judicial duties.

We are going to have to work out the details of this, Mr. Speaker, and get the input of the judges as to how this exactly would work, because this is a new system in this Province. Then a person who is put on the panel can be utilized as a per diem or day judge.

Where the chief judge believes (a) an additional judge is urgently required to conduct the business of the court; (b) the conduct of a trial on a timely basis would be facilitated; or (c) the efficiency of the court would be facilitated by doing so, the chief judge may select a person from the panel to act and to exercise the powers of a judge to conduct the business of the court.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it will allow, once the wrinkles are ironed out here, there could be three cases set in a trial court and then a week or two weeks in advance, with aggressive pre-trial conferencing with judges and counsel getting together, once there is a determination that two trials are proceedings, a per diem judge would be notified and asked if he or she wishes to sit that day.

So, this system, Mr. Speaker, the CAAR system, or the new system we are looking at, of the Case Assignment and Retrieval system, has, as an integral part of it, the use of the per diem judge; but it is important for the public to realize, Mr. Speaker, that these are retired judges who are only paid for the work that they do. Unlike the Superior Court, where they are paid a salary, that is not the situation here. If this judge sits five days, he will be paid or she will be paid for five days' work. So, this utilization of the per diem judge along with the hiring of a trial co-ordinator, the facilitation of disclosure, the facilitation of access to legal aid applications, should improve the efficiency of the system and reduce trial delays; however, I must point out, too, Mr. Speaker, that the intention of government here, what we are trying to do, is not to necessarily create judges who can come in when a judge is sick. It is about increasing efficiency and reducing delay.

So, what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have put in this act that the act or subsection shall be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council upon a day or days to be proclaimed. What we want to do is work with Provincial Court - my officials want to work with Provincial Court - so that when the CAAR system is ready to be implemented in Provincial Court we will proclaim this act, or this section of the act.

Essentially what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is work it out with the judges. We want to get input from the judges, we want to consult with the judges, as to how they see this working. Even though it is up to the chief judge as to who he will call in, I am sure the judges themselves will have certain input and will want to discuss how it will work. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we are utilizing or creating a mechanism whereby the per diem judge can be utilized to improve the efficiency of the system.

The other amendment to this act, which is of some note, Mr. Speaker, is the creation of the position of associate chief judge. In a lot of provinces, Mr. Speaker, they have a chief judge and associate chief judge. In Provincial Court we do not at this present time have an associate chief judge. I know that, for example, in the Province of Ontario, the position of an associate chief judge – the judge performs a lot of the administrative functions of the court, so it is quite possible that the chief judge could delegate to the associate chief judge the running of the per diem system. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what we are recognizing is that in this day and age there have to be judges available to do administrative work. There have to be judges available who can keep track of what judges are sitting where, and who is doing what. There have to be judges who are creatively using technological advances to avoid the delays that we encounter.

One example of that, Mr. Speaker, is, for example, if an individual is down in Her Majesty's Penitentiary and that individual has to go to court for what is essentially a ten-second appearance. One of the things we have to look at: is it really worthwhile, having regard to security and cost and other issues, bringing that individual – first, the prison officials have to bring he or she to Her Majesty's lock-up. Then the Sheriff's Office has to come over from the lock-up and take that person over to Provincial Court. Then they have to be brought back and forth to court, all for what could be a ten-second or a thirty-second or two-minute appearance.

Hopefully, the role of the associate chief judge can contribute to working out the administrative wrinkles as we move through this, but the per diem judges, Mr. Speaker - and again I must emphasize this - the per diem judge is meant to go hand in hand with the CAAR system, and once the CAAR system is ready to be implemented then the per diem judge section of this Act will be proclaimed.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the per diem judge, section 4 of the amendment indicates that the per diem judge, or the day judge, shall be paid a daily rate of 1/248 of a judge's salary. The judge's salary of a provincial court judge, Mr. Speaker, is $177,000, with approximately a 3 per cent administrative bonus for performing other duties, so it is around $180,000 a year and they will be paid 1/248 of that, that a judge can be utilized up to 248 days a year, or whatever the amount works out to, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the pro-rated fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven hundred and twenty-five.

MR. KENNEDY: Seven hundred and twenty-five, is it. If you work a half day you get half of that.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that this is a worthwhile contribution to the system and we have contributed the fact of one judicial unit. In this year's Budget there is one judicial unit to the creation of the per diem judges.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the use of the per diem judges will hopefully reduce the backlog that currently exists in provincial court. That backlog, Mr. Speaker, is quite significant.

On the whole, Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Provincial Court Act are meant to assist in improving access to justice, in reducing delay and creating efficiencies, and that the use of the per diem judge must be read in conjunction, and utilized in conjunction with the case assignment and retrieval system.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the bringing in of this new system in provincial court in the fall and also to the utilization of the per diem judges.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the comments of the hon. members of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 31, which is amending the Provincial Court Act of 1991, making some changes.

Far be it from me to say that the government is moving too fast on this particular topic. I believe the minister struck a committee back in the fall, a few individuals to decide and give him a report as to some of the deficiencies that existed in the justice system. I do believe, Chief Justice Reid was involved, and I believe a Mr. Nick Avis was involved. They filed a report a few weeks ago and, lo and behold, we have a bill today which is reflective of some of the recommendations that that committee made. I have had an opportunity to read it, albeit I have not had a chance to delve into it very deeply. The bill was only distributed today. We certainly will not want to hold up the passage of any legislation.

I have had an opportunity to read it and I realize there might be some further commentary required once we get a chance to research it in depth and have another opportunity. There were a few questions which come to mind, I say to the minister, when I read this. There are definitely a few issues here. I raise the issue that concerns the age of seventy, and I do not know if that is necessarily false here. I knew I had heard somewhere about the seventy before and I was not quite sure. Sure enough, there is a provision in the Provincial Court Judges Act of 1991 which says that the retirement age is seventy. That was done in this House either last year or the year before as the result of an amendment that was required to accommodate one of the judges of the Provincial Court. They moved the age of retirement at that point from sixty-five to seventy. I admit that we did that and I believe the current Minister of Finance was then the Minister of Justice when that was done. I stand to be corrected, but I do believe he was at that time the Minister of Justice, and it was done as a special circumstance, shall we say.

The age of seventy sparked my attention. I am wondering why we had seventy there and I realize it is because the age, seventy, is in the Provincial Court Judges Act now. That led me to another question, and that is: last year we passed, what was a, Bill 16 in the 2007 session whereby because of discriminatory issues we removed the age of sixty-five from the Public Service Pension Act and the Teachers' and Uniformed Services Pension Acts. We seem to have a bit of a conflict here in the sense of – and I realize for the sake of independence, judges have their own particular Provincial Court Act and we have to respect and abide by the independence of the judiciary. It seems that, over the course of two or three years, we have got an inconsistency as to how we treat people. If having a retirement age of sixty-five is discriminatory for the NLTA, is discriminatory for our uniformed services people, is discriminatory for our Public Service Pensions Act and we pass a law here saying that sixty-five is out the door because it is discriminatory, why is there an age of seventy in the Provincial Court Judges Act? That has nothing to do with judicial independence. That has to do with what is fair and what is non-discriminatory.

Again, I have a problem with the age of seventy here simply for that reason, because I do know I voted to change it to seventy to accommodate that particular circumstance as was put forward at that time, and I do know that I voted in favour of taking sixty-five out because it discriminatory. Now that I reflect upon all of that, I think we are walking down a slippery slope here when we leave the seventy in this particular Act. I am wondering: is there some justifiable reason that provincial court judges - why would we have seventy there? If we take out sixty-five from everybody else including MHAs and anybody in this Province who works, why would we hamstring ourselves or hamstring provincial court judges by putting in the seventy? It seems like it is an unnecessary piece, and I notice its reference there twice. It is referenced on page three of this new bill, section 5.2(1). It says, "… who have retired or resigned, who have not reached the age of 70…." Then again in subsection (7)(b) we say, "upon the person reaching the age of seventy…."

I would think, if we are talking about having judges available to work because we have deficiencies in the system and we want to do trials on a timely basis and if they are urgently required, and if it is going to improve the efficiencies of the court, we better hope that we have a pool of judges who have retired before seventy then, because after seventy you cannot be called as one of these part-time judges we will call them. We cannot have them.

I do not know if that is the minister's intent, to restrict the pool, and I guess you would be restricted based upon the current law, because if the law says they have to be gone by seventy all you can deal with is whoever is left in your pool. I am just wondering: is it appropriate to restrict your pool if there is no need of it?

If you remove the seventy - and I am certain that there is no one here who would suggest that because you are seventy years old you cannot function. I do believe Ronald Regan was made President of the United States when he was sixty-eight. I do believe the current republican incumbent in the United States is in his seventies, seventy-one. Surely nobody in this day and age is going to suggest that because somebody is the ripe old age of seventy that he is not able to perform the functions of a provincial court judge. Certainly, if someone is experienced and have been on the bench for twenty, thirty years, why would they not be allowed to continue on?

So, I think there is a little deficiency there in that regard. I do not think there is any need to having the seventy there. Why wouldn't you have an amendment? If it is okay by the judges, why wouldn't we do it, if we are here dealing with it? It is pretty simple if the Judges' Association are upfront and have no problems with it. Why wouldn't we just do that change right off? That would only require a very simple amendment.

The other thing is, under subsection (7)(d) it says that they would come off the panel "upon the death of the person." I do not know what the right word is there but I would think that is a pretty obvious one. I do not think we need to be saying in legislation that when you die your name is off the panel. I think that is an obvious. It says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall not remove a person from the panel appointed under subsection (1) except upon the death of a person."

Well, I would think retired, working or whatever, you are not going to be too concerned about it once they have you planted, whether your name is on the panel. So, I do not think we need to have that subsection (d) in there, with all due respect, Mr. Minister. I think that is ‘suplurious', is it they call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Superfluous.

MR. PARSONS: Superfluous. Yeah, that's the word. Anyway, I do not think we need that there.

The other thing there - and I would like some clarification if I could, from the minister on this issue. That is in subsection (9), when they talk about if these people come back to serve as part-time judges, it says right here, that they cannot make any more as a part-timer. For example, if they are getting - just to use some round figures for purposes of description. If as a judge they were getting $200,000 but as a retired judge they were getting $100,000 on a pension, according to my reading of this, they could not work any more in one year - they could not go above the $200,000. The most they would be able to make as a part-time judge was $100,000. So that, what they made as a part-timer, plus what they make on their pension, brings them up to what a judge gets, which is $200,000, and they cannot exceed that. I am wondering the logic for that?

Is there something under the Pensions Act, for example, that you can end up into a claw back situation? If that is the case, I can appreciate it, because they would not want to do it anyway. If I am able to draw a pension, but once I go above a certain point you are going to affect my pension, why would I want to come back as a part-timer to help you out anyway? If there are no claw back provisions here, I am wondering why this would be necessary to have it there if that is not the case. Why, if someone is prepared to work, would you cap them?

My understanding is that a judge's pension, for example, is 60 per cent - assuming he or she went the full term as a judge - of what they got when they retired. So, if their salary was $200,000 and they are getting 60 per cent of it, that means they are limited very much as to what they can make under this. I do not know if that is a practical - I see where you are headed with this and I see where you need to go. I agree with the system. I am just thinking let's not put obstacles there that might limit it unnecessarily. Surely, the judges who are working are not going to complain because somebody who is retired comes in and gives them a break. I would think there is no question that they are going to get upset about it. Like you say, they are only getting paid for every day that they work. So what if they work twenty days or if they work fifty days? If a person retired is prepared to come in and work and you going to pay him for each day he has worked, what matters if they exceed what they would have got as a full-time judge, unless there is some tax reason or pension reason for the claw back?

The other piece is - that is in subsection (10), Minister. I have a question - again, maybe it is just the wording of this and I need clarification. It says, "Service as judges by all the persons selected under subsection (3) shall not exceed 248 days in total in a 12 month period."

My reading of that is that if you have a panel that consists of ten retired judges, the total that those ten judges work from that panel cannot exceed 248 days, which, I take it, is what a normal year would be of work for a judge. Again, if that is the case, because it certainly does not seem to me - you are not saying in subsection (10) that a judge who is on the panel can only work 248 days. What you are saying is that all the judges on the panel can only work a total of 248 days. I am just wondering, if you have restricted your panel to working one extra year, why would we do that? Especially on the beginning, if upfront, until you get the efficiencies that we need, if you need to have eight retired judges work 500 days in the first year or two in order to get caught up, I would not see why we would want to restrict them here.

That seems pretty clear. It is, "Service as judges by all persons selected under subsection (3) shall not exceed 248 days in total in a 12 month period." I do not know why we are capping what a person can make. I do not know why we are restricting your panel to only doing one additional year of service. I do not know why we are saying that if they are dead they are off the list. I do not why we are having seventy-year limitation when we in this House all voted unanimously a year ago to remove sixty-five as a retirement age. I think we are being very inconsistent and discriminatory there.

The other question I have - and I should recall this myself but I simply do not, that is why I will ask it again. I have not had a chance to scope it out and research it. Under number 7.(1) where it says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in council shall appoint a judge as chief judge." I am just wondering, I was always under the impression that was how it was done, or was it done by the judge's association? I am not certain now how it was done but I notice it is here. So something tells me that either we did it before and we never had the right to do it and we just did it, or we are just clarifying the section. That is just a minor point of clarification there as to how it was done in the past.

The next one is, and I just throw this out, 7.(3) when they say, "A chief judge whose office is vacant due to illness or for other cause shall be considered to have resigned his or her office as chief judge if that vacancy continues for more than one year." I can see where you built in the provisions about the associate chief judge, and that makes perfect sense in my view, in case there is an illness you would have an associate chief judge who would fill in and you built a number of rules around that associate chief judge.

My question is the fairness of saying to a person who happens to be sick for more than a year that you are automatically out. I just raise that from an ethical, moral perspective because we are saying that without any understanding of the nature of the person's illness and we seem to be kind of callous and cold, that you are automatically out of your job.

For example, I had a colleague of mine who I worked in the profession with, who had a brain tumor. She went and had brain surgery and we fully expected that she would be back to work. In fact, that is the only reason I went back into practice, was to cover off her practice for her. She left with full intentions of coming back to work and it took her sixteen months before she got back on the job. I believe, in fact, the Minister of Justice was a classmate of hers in UNB, Ms Beverley Marks. Here is a case of somebody who is competent, had a major illness, who certainly did not intend for me to come back and take over her practice for sixteen months, and wanted to work and is back to work now, thank God. Here is a case where, under this law, under those circumstances which I am sure nobody would callously do this, we are automatically putting a person potentially in that situation. I just wonder if that is where we want to go, especially since we have built in the provisions here of an associate chief judge.

I am certain an associate chief judge would not want that, and any of the colleagues – the last thing you would want to be seen is like us here now, for example, with the Member for Cape St. Francis. The last thing that any of us would want to do is to do anything that is going to negatively impact or cause stress to that individual in that circumstance. To pass a law saying, sorry, if you get sick for more than twelve months you just lost your chief judge spot, I have personal issues with that. I just think that is a little bit callous and I do not see where there is any particular need for it.

The other piece - and again for clarification, Minister, that is on section five, we are going to change - it says, "Subsection 28(3) of the Act is repealed and the following is substituted: (3) the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, after consultation with the chief judge and the president of the judges' association, shall appoint one of the members as the chairperson of the tribunal."

I am just wondering, again, I have not had an opportunity to check, as you only distributed this this afternoon, how the chairperson of the tribunal was appointed before. Was it by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council?

My understanding is that there was a case where the government would appoint a person, the Provincial Court judges appointed a person, and they mutually agreed between themselves who the chair - and they would select a third party who would be the chair. I am just wondering, if we are doing something here that is different, what kind of consultation went into coming up with this. Because I remember at the time when we brought in the first tribunal, that was a pretty touchy subject and the judges were saying: Whoa, just a minute. If we are having true independence here, how can you, the government, appoint the chair?

My understanding was that government put in one, the judges put in one, and two of them together decided who was a mutually agreeable chair. If it is what you have here now, I am just wondering, again, why we are doing it now, unless it was not in there before and we simply had not had it clarified before. That is my understanding, and I am wondering if there has been any - like, where this is coming from in terms of the input from this. Who would have asked for this, that piece?

The other final comment I would make, Minister, has not much to do with yourself, I would suggest, but it has to do with the storage of records. That is under paragraph eight, where you repeal paragraph 29(d) of the act as it stands and you are saying, "…subject to Part II of the Rooms Act, providing for the safe-keeping, inspection and destruction of books, documents and papers of the court".

Well, I do not know what impact, if any, that is going to have about sending the court records down to The Rooms, because anybody who has been watching the media in the last few weeks, we are all aware of a case that was decided this week past when the judge gave a directed verdict against an individual who was charged with possession of stolen goods, because he had 200 boxes of documents that the Province owns, 200 boxes that were shipped off to be shredded, and somebody over at Memorial University was prepared to pay $122,000 for a part of them, so they must have been somewhat valuable. This is not any professor over at the university; these are archivists. These are people who make their living in finding, cataloguing, verifying, and keeping the valuable documents of this Province in existence, and we pay them thousands of dollars every year to do it. Not only that - that was just one person – there was another person at Memorial who called and gave evidence who said, yes, they could have fetched as much as $250,000; and here we were, we were going to shred them.

Aside from the case itself, the case has nothing to do with what I am saying. The case had to do with whether the individual knew he had possession of stolen goods, and obviously the judge determined that he did not and he directed a verdict of not guilty.

It goes beyond this, and I raised the questions in this House to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, who is responsible for The Rooms. I said: My God, this is serious stuff. This is our historical documents that some shredding company in this Province, not only did he get them and shred them; we pay them to take them and do it. That is not good enough, that they are being destroyed; we are actually going to pay to get them destroyed.

We are still waiting to hear back from the minister, of course. I understand he had a bunch of meetings and they are going to get some new policies and rules around this destructive policy. Somebody should decide who does or does not destroy them. I just pass that out there. I do not know if the minister has reflected at all. I am sure I read somewhere in one of the magazines recently, or newspapers, when they did twenty questions on him, I believe, he talked about some of his interests he has in life and one of them is certainly in history and literature. I am just wondering, I do not know about sending court documents and court records over to The Rooms under the current situation. Maybe they might have to reflect on that a little bit, but I guess that is a kettle of fish for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I will not belabour these points any further. I am sure the minister, by the time we get to at least the Committee stage, hopefully we will have some answers on these things; because, as I say, we have been accommodating in dealing with this today. We do not want to hold things up. Just on a quick reading of this, these are some points I found, and I would certainly appreciate some clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Sitting here, listening to this debate, I was fully intending to speak on An Amendment to the Liquor Control Act, but seeing these bills involving Provincial Court judges and Supreme Court judges, or the Judicature Act, it kind of reminded me of my life before December 29, 2006, when I had some involvement in these matters.

I have heard the Opposition House Leader, and the reference to the seventy years of age, and I can say that there was a bill brought in which changed the retirement age, the mandatory retirement age for judges, from sixty-five to seventy, because I was the Justice Minister when that bill came in, and I was also the Justice Minister at the time when we brought in a bill to eliminate mandatory retirement in the public service, so that nobody is forced to retire, and that is a good bill.

With respect to the age of seventy for the judges, I will say to the hon. member, as I said at the time of the debate, the age of seventy is the age that the judges told me they wanted in the bill, and that is the age that is in there. I know with the Supreme Court it is seventy-five.

Also, with respect to the comments of the Opposition House Leader with respect to the tribunal, and the fact that the amendment here says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, after consultation with the chief judge and the president of the judges' association, shall appoint one of the members as chairperson of the tribunal – if I recall correctly, and I may be wrong, if I recall correctly, the way the tribunal was set up, it did not provide that there would be one person appointed by the judges and one person appointed by the government. I believe it just simply said the government had the right to appoint a chair.

What this act does, this requires the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which of course is the government, which of course is the Cabinet, to consult with the chief judge and to consult with the president of the judges' association before appointing a chairperson. So, in that light, I think this is a valuable amendment.

Now, when we talk about judges, I remember the Opposition House Leader said last week – I think it was Friday – he was talking about an appointment, or a potential appointment, to the Bench, and I believe he mentioned a lawyer from the Bay Roberts or Carbonear area, who – I believe his words were: word on the street was that this person would be appointed to the Bench.

I know Mr. Babb, and I just want to say here that I think Mr. Babb would make an excellent judge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: There are many people who apply to become judges on the provincial court who would make excellent judges. It is unfortunate, because of the partisan nature of the debate in this House, that certain people whose names come forward are attacked by members of the Opposition because of the fact of the political party they may have supported.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that in this House we are involved today in the making of law. That is what members of the House of Assembly do. We pass legislation which makes law. Obviously, lawyers spend their lives dealing with the law, so it is not strange that many lawyers would have an interest at some point of becoming judges to deal with the law and applying to the application of the law in addition to the making of the law, because they deal with the law from day to day. When people apply to be judges, when people apply to become arbitrators of disputes between individuals, they leave their politics at the door. I heard one of the members opposite, I think it was the Opposition House Leader, say that at one point. It is understandable why lawyers would be involved in politics, because it is about the making of law and they deal with the law. Once you become a judge, once you apply to become a judge, the politics goes, the politics is over. You now become an impartial arbitrator. It is unfortunate when someone who might wish to make a change in one's life and become a judge, that they would be attacked on the basis that because they are a supporter of the government therefore the appointment is somehow other than one of merit.

I served as the Justice Minister and the Attorney General in this Province for I think it was about three years. During that time, there were two judicial appointments that were made under my watch. The Minister of Justice does not make appointments. The Minister of Justice does not choose who will be a provincial court judge. The Minister of Justice makes a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and it is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who in fact makes the recommendation. The first person I recommended was a gentleman who I understood was a supporter of the New Democratic Party, but I did not make the recommendation to government because he supported the New Democratic Party, and I did not make it for a reason other than the fact that he was a fine lawyer. The appointment, I believe, was in Labrador, and that particular judge, as a lawyer, had practiced extensively in Labrador, and especially had a practice related to dealing with the Aboriginal communities in Labrador. That is why he was appointed.

The second opportunity that came, that required me to make a recommendation to the government, was when there was an opening in Stephenville. I made the recommendation on the basis of a person who had applied because the person was a good lawyer. The person had thirty years of experience in criminal law, thirty years of experience in civil litigation, thirty years of experience in family law and that person was ideally suited to be a judge at the Provincial Court. That person had run as a candidate for this Party in the election of 2003. He had run as a candidate in the federal election many years ago under Brian Mulroney. When he applied to be a judge the politics was gone, the politics would stay at the door. It was unfortunate that that appointment was criticized by members of the Opposition, some who are not here anymore. It always bothered me that it would be treated personally like that and that there was no recognition of the fact that the politics was left at the door and this person is prepared to be an impartial arbitrator.

Also in the debate on Friday, there were some comments by the Opposition House Leader about my role. He said I had mishandled passing on information to the Premier. I reject that. There was no mishandling of anything.

I had a conversation with the hon. member. I called the hon. member from my office upstairs in the Department of Justice. The Deputy Minister of Justice was there at the desk and he was the one that made the suggestion. He is not the deputy any more. He is now the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I called the hon. member, who was not there at the time, and the hon. member then called me at my home, I think it was the following day or a couple of days later, and we had a discussion. During the course of the discussion, the hon. member indicated to me that he had applied to be a judge, and I want to say that there is nothing wrong with that. The hon. member, the hon. Opposition House Leader, is well qualified to be a judge, let me be very clear on that.

We had a discussion and the hon. member indicated an interest in going to the provincial court, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have had many lawyers indicate to me a desire to go to the bench. Many lawyers at a certain time in their career reach a point where they wish to go to the bench. There is nothing wrong with it, and there is a procedure in place. The application is not made to the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice. The application is made to this Judicial Council. I believe there are five members on that Judicial Council and they will interview every person who applies. Any lawyer with more than ten years of experience can apply to become a judge in the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Judicial Council will conduct an interview and the Judicial Council will then make a recommendation. They will make a recommendation on everyone who applies to the Minister of Justice. When an opening comes in the Provincial Court - and I assume the federal court works the same way - that the court, the chief judge, will advise the Minister of Justice that there is an opening and will ask the Minister of Justice to make an appointment of the new judge. The Provincial Court Act says that when a recommendation is made for someone to be appointed to that court, it has to be someone who has been recommended by the Judicial Council. It has to be somebody who has been recommended. The government does not have the right to appoint any person. They do not have the right to appoint anybody, because it happens to be a friend of the government or whatever. It has to be from a list of people who have been deemed qualified by the judicial council. That is the procedure that is followed.

In the course of the discussion, the hon. member indicated to me that he wished to be a judge in the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is nothing wrong with him expressing that view to the Attorney General. I passed on the results of our conversation to the Premier. The conversation was that – and I am not disclosing other than what was disclosed by the hon. member himself in an interview with CBC that took place on a Thursday. During the course of that discussion the hon. member indicated that he wished to be a judge, he had reached the point in his life where he wanted to be a judge and that he had applied to the federal court or that he had applied to become a federal judge, that he had interest in being a Provincial Court Judge and that if he became a judge and there was an opening in his district, he had a son who was a supporter of the Premier, a supporter of the Conservative Party, who would seek the nomination and we would probably win. He said he had a son who would seek the nomination and that we would win the seat, our party would win the seat.

I simply passed that on with the full knowledge and consent of the hon. member. I passed it on to the Premier and the Premier gave me his response. The Premier said, no. He said, it would look like we were trying to buy the seat. It would look like we were appointing the hon. member to the seat in order to win the seat. He said, that is not right, that is not how we do business, it would look like we are trying to buy the seat. It was not what we are about, it was wrong, it would not look good on the hon. member and it would not look good on the government, and therefore the matter was off. Mr. Speaker, that was the end of it as far as I was concerned.

Then I got a call back from the hon. member the same day. He called me back at my house in Corner Brook and indicated that, in spite of that, he was going to apply to the court to be appointed Provincial Court Judge, and that is his right. Mr. Speaker, let me make that very clear, that is his right.

There was no mishandling of anything. The Premier is not putting any spin on anything. There was a discussion, and I will read from the CBC Web site. This is not my words. This is the hon. member's words. He said: I advised the Minister of Justice that I was, in fact, in the process of applying for a federal court appointment - that is number one. Number two, that I would also be interested in the Provincial Court; and number three, that if his seat in Burgeo & LaPoile were to become vacant, one of his sons, who happens to be a Conservative, would be interested in a political career. Now these are the facts. These are the facts that were told to me. These were the facts that I gave to the Premier, and I have already indicated what the Premier's answer was.

The facts are there and people can draw their own conclusions from the facts. The hon. member has indicated publicly that it was not his intent. What his intention was - was he intending to abuse the process? That depends on his intent, and he says that was not his intent. People will draw their own conclusions from the facts. This happened a long time ago. There has been an election. The hon. member is still here. The people have made their comments and I think that should be the end of it. It keeps coming up in this House and I believe it is time for it to stop coming up in this House. What happened, happened. Again, the hon. member is entitled to be a judge. He is entitled to disclose to the Attorney General he wishes to be a judge. He is entitled to apply to be a judge. He is qualified to be a judge, and what happened, happened. What I have said today are the facts. I have simply passed on the facts to the Premier. The Premier gave his response and I think that should be the end of it, on that side of the House and on this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the member rising on a point of order?

MR. PARSONS: I would like to speak again in second reading, Mr. Speaker. That was not closing second reading, I do not think. I understand the minister was speaking to the bill in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister was just speaking to the bill in second reading. Has the hon. member already spoken to the bill?

MR. PARSONS: I have.

I can do it as a point of order if the Chair -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would have to move a point of order.

My understanding is that the member has already spoken once in second reading and that is as much as the member can speak. If the member wanted to raise other issues he would have to wait for a committee to be given the right to speak again, unless by leave of the House.

MR. PARSONS: No, I will do that. I will ask for leave if people are prepared to give me leave to address the comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to speak for the second time in second reading?

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I would just like to respond to some of the comments that the Member for Humber East has made, the Minister of Finance, because this has been an issue and it has come up in this House numerous times and in the media.

Again, the issue of the judge piece - again, even today - is being misinterpreted by the member. Now for those who do not know, by the way, I did not just meet the Member for Humber East when he talked about the phone call that we had back two or three years ago now, two years ago. I worked with this member back in 1979 when I graduated, articled with Clyde Wells in the firm of Wells, Monaghan, Seaborn, Marshall and Roberts. Marshall is the current day Member for Humber East. So it is not a case of two people who did not know each other. I got a call from that member when he was the Minister of Justice, and you talk about leaving out facts. The first thing that made me uncomfortable, and I told him at the time, was he called me to talk about a certain judge in the Supreme Court. This is public knowledge. I felt uncomfortable because he called to ask me about a certain judge in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. I had some level of discomfort about that, but at the same time, I realized that because of our earlier friendship and having worked together, which existed as of that day that he called. I had no problem as a former minister if he wanted some advice or anything that I could help him with that might assist him.

That is what generated a conversation, because he called and wanted some comments about a certain situation that was unfolding in the Supreme Court. In the course of it, he asked me what my future was going to be. The government had changed. I told him that I was in the process of applying to the federal court. I told him I was applying to the federal judicial council for an appointment, and I said it takes anywhere from two days to ten years possibly for that process to unfold. The minister then said to me: Well, are you applying to the Provincial Court? The response I made to the minister at that time was: My chances of being read, of getting appointed to the Provincial Court under the current government circumstances would be next to the snowballs. Now that was the commentary. That is what started the discussions at all about Provincial Court Judge. There had been no application made by me up to that point, no consideration given to it.

The member said: Well, why would you feel that way? It has to be done on the basis of fairness. That was the nature of the conversation. He said you are certainly imminently qualified. You have to go through a process, the judicial council. I was aware of all of that. That was the minister's comments at the time. You are certainly qualified and I do not think anybody would hold it against you because you happen to be of a political different stripe. I said: Well, I am very pleased to hear that. I am pleased to hear that is the case. He said: But if you did that sure there would have to be a by-election. My comment back to the minister at that time was: Well, I wouldn't think you fellows are too worried about that, given the count on the seats that came out in October, 2003. I said: For God's sake, I got my own son who is even going to vote for the Tories given the current situation. Now, that was my comment about my son. That was the nature and the tenor of my comment about my son running. I said: Yes, you are really worried about a by-election if I went to the bench. Even my own son would vote for the Tories today if the election got called, and run for the Tories if it got called today because he is pleased with what Danny Williams was doing. That was the nature of that conversation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. member if he would - while he is on leave, I ask him to abide by the rules of the House and not go speaking members' personal names when he talking in debate.

MR. PARSONS: Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

That was the nature of the conversation. I, to this day, believe that the Member for Humber East did not in any ill intention, ill-mannered way pass on that conversation to the Premier. I do not believe that and I cannot bring myself to believe that he would have done that. I think somewhere between what I said, what he heard and what came out of here a few days later from the Premier got perverted, and that was the nature of my concern.

By the way, for the record, I did apply to the judicial council of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; albeit, the controversy took place. I would not have it said, my qualifications and my character and integrity were not diminished in the least by what happened by what the Premier did. I did file the application to the judicial council. I appeared before them and I had my hearing. There is a list that gets prepared, that goes to the Minister of Justice. The list is structured in such a way that the interviewees, the candidates are ranked highly qualified, highly recommended, or recommended. I was ranked, and I know where I sit on the list. I was interviewed by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, who is currently the chief judge. I was interviewed by my colleagues from the law society. I was interviewed by laypersons who sit on that committee and I know where I sit on that list. Maybe I should not know. Maybe it is a violation of someone that I do know, but I know where I sat on that list. I have no conscience about how the reference was made to my son, and no conscience bothers me at all about my character or my integrity as to how that unfolded. As I say, I cannot believe, in my heart of hearts, to this day, that the Member for Humber East deliberately, intentionally, did anything improper. I think it got perverted after he made certain comments to certain people.

Now, in response to the comments about the gentleman from Carbonear, which he said I alluded to last week - that again was the word on the street. By the way, we all are aware – and I do not know Mr. Babb. I never met him in my life. That is the gentleman we are talking about. I do not know Mr. Babb. I never, ever, practiced with the man. I never, ever, met him, and I am not commenting on him. The minister says: You attacked his personality.

What I pointed out here – those are the words he used; he said that the Opposition attacked this individual last week – I said the word on the street was that a certain individual, Mr. Babb, was going to be appointed to the Provincial Court. People get raised eyebrows. The same as when Clyde Wells left politics, for example, he just did not go to the Bench right away. Clyde Wells had to go through a cleansing period. He went downtown – nobody doubted his integrity or ability – he went downtown and he had to practice for a year with Cox Hanson before he got appointed to the Bench in this Province – and the same as Mr. Babb. Mr. Babb happens to be the current sitting president of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, it is not for me to question whether he is going to leave that outside the door or take it inside. If he passed the judicial council test, I have no problems. Once he passes their test, I agree wholeheartedly with the minister. Once you are selected, you leave your politics at the door, and no doubt he would. Whether it is Mr. Babb or anybody else, the former two appointments, Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Joy - in fact, I think I have said in this House, in terms of the late Mr. Monaghan, whom I have great respect for and spoke about in this House, the two sons that I have, who practiced with him, said they could not have made a better choice – I never had the benefit of practicing with him – but they could not have made a better choice as a judge.

So we will not be shut up and told that we cannot comment, but it reflects in the public when somebody comes from being a former candidate, when somebody comes from being the President of the PC Party, to go to the Bench. Whether it is the Liberal Party or the NDP Party or the PC Party, it causes people to say: Whoa, what is going on here? Is that patronage? Is that a political appointment?

I am sure, by the way, you can go back over the Provincial Court judges who I appointed – and I think I put five or six judges there, at least - I am sure you can go back and put a political tag on either one of them, but that does not change the fact that we are allowed to comment on it. Because somebody might apply to be a judge, are we supposed to say, don't dare mention it? I think not.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the other side of the story and that is the true side of the story.

Thank you very much for your leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members of the clock.

If the Government House Leader wants to stop the clock to briefly clue up this particular section of second reading on Bill 31, the Chair will be guided by direction.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to stop the clock so we could, by leave, have the hon. the Minister of Finance have his comments to clue up this debate so that we can adjourn for the day.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is going to remind hon. members, as well, while the Chair allowed the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board great latitude to stray away from the gist of the bill, and allowed the hon. the Opposition House Leader a similar courtesy, I ask the hon. members now, if they are going to debate the bill, to return to what the bill consists of and not get into he said-you said. The Chair will not entertain any more of those particular comments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

He has already spoken the second time on the bill.

MR. T. MARSHALL: I am asking for leave just to make a couple of comments.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member, by leave.

I remind the hon. member, again, the clock says 5:31 p.m. and our orders state that if the debate in not concluded by 5:30 without stopping the clock we are to return at 7:00 p.m.

The Chair will allow a very brief comment.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The appointment of Judge Monaghan, which was an appointment I recommended to the government, was a good appointment. Unfortunately, the Opposition at the time did not agree. They agree now. They made the comment now and, of course, they are right because it was a good appointment. At the time of the appointment, that is not what you said. Part of this discussion is to put an end to that.

When an honourable person makes an application to become a judge, he should not be attacked for his politics. There is a process. There is a proper process we have to go through. We cannot appoint - no government can appoint just its own supporters. There is a process. You have to choose from a list. You cannot appoint anyone that is not on that list.

After the government appoints someone as a judge, that is it, you have no more say. You cannot transfer the judge; only the chief judge can do that. You do not determine what their pay and their benefits are; there is an independent tribunal that does that.

I think we have to make the point that when someone who has applied gets appointed as a judge, it should not be made a political issue. We have to put an end to that.

The last thing I want to say is about your comment about the Premier perverted what was said. The Premier did not pervert anything. The Premier did what was right. This looked like a deal to appoint the hon. member to the Bench in order to win the seat, and that would be wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he would keep his comments close to what the act says, Bill 31, and not revert to the comments we have already allowed to take place here earlier.

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

Again, the Premier did what was right. He did what a proper leader would do to assure that this was proper and that the right procedure was followed. I just want to be very clear on that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and I hope, in the future, that members of judges - this issue of the he said–he said between the hon. Opposition House Leader and me, I hope this is the end of it on both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 does now stand 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.