April 28, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 5
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members'
statements from the Members representing the Districts of Port de Grave,
Labrador West, Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, Bay of Islands, St. John's East,
and Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
The
hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, today I pay tribute to a true icon in the community of Port de
Grave, Aunt Greta Hussey. She
was a wife, mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother who became an author,
poet, and local historian.
In
the fall of 2011, at the age of eighty-nine she re-released her book,
Our Life on Lear's Room, Labrador.
I was present that evening and remember vividly listening to her read
from her book in her strong clear voice.
It brought chills to many in the room, and you too can enjoy the
occasion by listening to her on YouTube.
I invite all members to meet Aunt Greta through technology.
I
have many fond memories of visiting with her and our great chats.
Like most women of her generation, Aunt Greta was an exceptional
cook. I recall one visit when
she was upset because she burnt the brewis in the frying pan.
Well, let me tell you, I ate the brewis.
She
provided specific instructions for her service last week.
One of those was we will read her in and we will sing her out.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, she also provided for a mug-up.
I
ask all hon. members to extend their sympathies to her sons: Edwin, Guy,
Rex, Paul, and daughter Maxine.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
stand in this hon. House today to congratulate the Royal Canadian Legion
Branches 47 and 57 in Labrador West on another successful Legion Radio
Telethon. The legions in
Labrador West are very active in the communities of Labrador City and
Wabush, and each year they host a radio telethon to raise funding for
special equipment for the local hospital.
This is the thirtieth anniversary for the telethon.
Even
with the difficult economic times in Labrador West this year, the local
residents and businesses were very supportive of the legions.
Co-Chairperson Bernie Denief set a goal of raising $25,000 and this
year they were very successful in surpassing all expectations by raising
$44,000. This money will go
towards the purchase of a new cardiograph cart machine with a sixteen lead,
able to do more diagnostic work than the current twelve-lead machine.
It
takes a lot of volunteers to make this event successful and the large number
of volunteers have provided entertainment, transportation, and runner
service to collect the donations was incredible.
I
ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Branches 47 and 57 of the
Royal Canadian Legion on another successful event.
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.
I
pay tribute today to a remarkable woman, who died one month ago today.
Dr. Becky Sjare joined the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in
1993, and it was in her capacity as an outstanding Arctic scientist that I
had the pleasure of encountering her as part of my work with the Voisey's
Bay environment review panel – but, it was probably for her untiring work as
an athletic coach and volunteer that she is best known in the community and
will be most fondly remembered.
I am
happy to recognize her in the name of the wonderful community that she was
such a vital part of. On a
Facebook page created in Becky's memory, friends and fellow athletes talked
with affection and love about the time and energy she invested in them, of
her willingness to be at the track seven days a week in all sorts of
weather, and of how her enthusiasm, dedication, and unwavering faith meant
so much.
She
was coach, co-ordinator and official in provincial Summer Games, and on the
Canada Games team coaching staff.
She was on the provincial executive board and a coach with Pearlgate
since 2006.
I
ask all hon. members to join me in saluting Dr. Becky Sjare, scientist and
volunteer par excellence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to recognize the Meadows Recreation Committee and its
President, Jamie Brake.
On
Sunday, March 1, I attended the kickoff of the thirty-seventh annual winter
carnival and the official opening of the new Meadows Sports Complex.
This facility speaks volumes to the many volunteers in the town.
While the initial funding was obtained through a Capital Works grant
program to do the ground work, the support and commitment that the town, the
recreation committee, and volunteers have put in to get the facility where
it is today is second to none.
The
first Pond Hockey Championship was held on February 7 and 8 with thirteen
teams throughout the Bay of Islands, Corner Brook, and areas throughout,
participating in the event.
While many people were involved in this project, it was Jamie Brake's
determination and commitment to have a safe, affordable sports facility for
the residents, that the town's new sports complex is a reality and the
response has been overwhelmingly positive.
I
ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to Jamie and the
recreation committee, the Town of Meadows, the Member for Gander for his
support, and the many volunteers who came together to make this facility a
reality and exemplify what true community spirit is all about.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Mr. Speaker, as MHAs, we
attend many events in our districts.
One of the most moving annual events for me is the Holocaust Memorial
service presented every year by the Jewish Community Havura of St. John's.
At
this years' service, held April 12 at the MUN Harris Centre, six candles
were lit to remember six million Jews who perished in Nazi concentration
camps between 1933 and 1945. A
seventh candle was lit in remembrance of social democrats, the disabled, the
gypsies, teachers, legislators, and political opponents of Nazi Germany who
also perished.
Actor and playwright Lisa Hurd shared her own family's story.
Lisa related her story about her own escape from occupation and a
certain death; the audience, Mr. Speaker, was captivated.
Almost 200 people gathered to remember so the world never forgets.
The victims of the Nazis died in places well known in our history:
Treblinka, Sobibor, Bergen-Belsen, Belchec, Birkenau, Auschwitz, and more.
Some families here in Newfoundland and Labrador were also touched by
the fact that they also lost family members in the Shoah.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to commend the Havura for their commitment
to keeping these events in our collective memory, to help us as MHAs
remember, so the world does not forget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
rise in this hon. House today to recognize the outstanding public speaking
abilities of our youth in the Coast of Bays region who have participated in
the annual Lions Club regional Speak Out hosted by the Harbour Breton Lions.
The
first place winner for 2015 was Sommer McDonald of John Watkins Academy in
Hermitage-Sandyville. Second
place went to Tammy Snook of King Academy in Harbour Breton, and third place
was captured by Julie Young of Bay d'Espoir Academy, in Milltown, Head of
Bay d'Espoir.
I
would also like to thank the Lions Club, teachers, parents, judges, and
volunteers who assist the youth in so many ways as they research and prepare
for the speak out. This event
provides an excellent opportunity for young people to develop their oratory
talent and skills.
The
tremendous effort they put into researching and highlighting relevant and
important issues of their generation will certainly show them that they do
have the skills and abilities to make a positive difference in their own
lives and the lives of others.
I
ask all members of this hon. House to join me in delivering accolades to
these fine young ladies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize that today, April 28, is
National Day of Mourning. On
this occasion we remember workers who have been killed, injured, or suffered
illness due to workplace related hazards and incidents.
I
had the honour of participating in a wreath-laying ceremony today here at
Confederation Building with my colleagues, joining over 100 people who laid
a wreath in memory of loved ones or co-workers.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the St. John's and District
Labour Council for organizing this event.
Mr.
Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission recently
reported that the number of workplace injuries resulting in lost-time
compensation claims has remained, for the third consecutive year, at the
lowest level ever recorded in our Province.
Nevertheless, in 2014, eleven workers died as a result of workplace
accidents, and eighteen from occupational disease.
These statistics highlight the need to continue promoting a strong
safety culture at work and at home.
Mr.
Speaker, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
collaborates with the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of Service NL to
enhance safety in all types of workplaces throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador. Last year, over 12,800
directives were issued to identify and correct unsafe work practices, and
more than 4,800 inspections were carried out across the Province.
This work benefits employees throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and
their families, and continues to be a foremost priority for our government.
Mr.
Speaker, this day is an important reminder for all of us to be vigilant so
we can all go home safe at the end of the work day.
Our government has proudly partnered with employers, employees, and
labour groups to reduce workplace injuries and deaths, and we are committed
to building an even stronger culture of safety for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
I want to thank the
Premier for the advance copy of his statement, Mr. Speaker, and thank you
and thanks to the St. John's and District Labour Council for organizing
today's event.
It
was moving to see so many different groups and associations that actually
participated in the lobby for the Confederation Building today.
I am certainly honoured to stand here and observe the National Day of
Mourning. The Member for Mount
South and I attended today's ceremony where we laid a wreath in memory of
the workers who suffered injury and illness, or have lost their lives as a
result of a workplace incident.
The
Premier also mentioned the eleven workers who died as a result of workplace
accidents and the eighteen from occupational disease.
We must also remember on this day those who are not counted in those
numbers because not all workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths are
reported as such.
On
the National Day of Mourning I will reiterate the need to address the
backlog of appeals with the workplace health, safety and compensation review
commission. I would also like to
point out the lack of movement on implementing the recommendations of the
workplace health and safety commission statutory review.
On this day of mourning, we must reflect on the lives affected and
lost.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I,
too, thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement.
The fact that eighteen of twenty-nine worker fatalities this year
were due to occupational disease is the legacy of workplace health hazards
in this Province – some of which still exist.
Firefighters risk contracting cancers from the dangerous chemicals
they must work with. Mine
workers in Labrador West continually watch out for high levels of silica
dust that causes pneumoconiosis.
Former Baie Verte miners and Marystown shipyard workers continue to get sick
and die because of cancers developed linked to asbestos.
I
point out to the Premier that these groups of workers and former workers
need proper coverage and compensation for the diseases their job has exposed
them too.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Further statements by ministers?
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to rise in this hon. House today to recognize April 26 to May 2 as
National Immunization Awareness Week.
National Immunization Awareness Week provides an opportunity to raise
awareness of the value of being immunized against vaccine-preventable
diseases.
Immunization is a key component of public health and goes a long way toward
protecting us from communicable diseases.
By getting our children started with first vaccinations at two months
of age, we immediately protect them from eleven different diseases and place
them on a path of prevention that continues throughout their school years
and into adulthood. Getting
vaccinated not only prevents us and our children from getting sick; it also
reduces the risk to those with less protection, such as infants or those
with chronic diseases.
Mr.
Speaker, our government remains committed to protecting public health in
Newfoundland and Labrador. This
past year we expanded the provincial vaccination program through an
investment of $350,000. These
funds increased access to influenza vaccines for all residents of the
Province, whooping cough vaccines for adults, and added a second dose of
chicken pox vaccine for children.
I
would also like to call attention to the recent report by the CD Howe
Institute that praises our Province as a national leader in vaccination
rates. The report highlights
what it calls Newfoundland and Labrador's “take-every-opportunity” approach
to immunization as a key factor in our success with vaccination uptake.
The national average for vaccination rates falls between 70 per cent
and 95 per cent. I am proud to
say that the report has placed Newfoundland and Labrador at the peak of the
national average with a vaccination rate of 95 per cent for childhood
vaccinations.
We
are tremendously proud of our provincial status as a national leader in
vaccination rates; however, we must remain vigilant in disease prevention
and safety. I would also like to
take this opportunity to alleviate some concern expressed in our communities
after a study falsely linked the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine with
the development of autism. That
study has since been debunked by a large US study involving 95,000 children.
Parents can have confidence in vaccinating their infants against
these childhood diseases.
Mr.
Speaker, as always, anyone seeking information about vaccinations – or the
many myths associated with them – is encouraged to visit our departmental
website at
www.gov.nl.ca/health. We will continue our
commitment to protecting the health and well-being of everyone in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Immunizations are a very important part of public health.
I am pleased to see that we are a national leader in vaccination
rates.
With
respect to specific diseases, we know that HPV infections are the most
common sexually transmitted infection.
Right now, the publicly funded HPV vaccine is only offered to girls
in our Province. Boys can be
vaccinated but only if their parent or guardian chooses to pay out of
pocket.
The
National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommends boys be vaccinated.
The Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Medical Association
believes that anything that makes it easier or more accessible for boys
would be a win. Alberta and PEI
already vaccinate boys.
Vaccinating boys would further prevent the spread of the most commonly
spread sexually transmitted disease, would reduce the risk of developing
cancer in both males and females, it sends the message that both girls and
boys are responsible for sexual health, not just girls, and it provides for
gender equity.
Government should seriously be looking at this initiative, and we strongly
encourage parents to get their children immunized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I,
too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
The government should be proud that the Province has a 95 per cent
immunization rate and thank the public health workers who provide this
service. It is incredibly
important to continue, to educate, and encourage vaccination.
Over the last fifty years, immunization has saved more lives than any
other health measure. We can
forget just how fast and deadly these diseases can be.
I
would like to mention Dr. Bruce Aylward from this Province who is fighting
to rid the world of polio – a preventable, highly infectious virus that
mainly affects children, some of whom are left paralyzed or who die.
We no longer have it in this country, but it still remains deadly in
others. Dr. Aylward believes the
fight is more than just about polio, and I quote him: “It's about equity.
It's about social justice and making sure every kid's got a better
shot at a better future.”
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the provincial government determined that a comprehensive review of
the Lands Act and service delivery
model was required. This review
will ensure the legislation is still relevant and service delivery model is
the most effective way to manage, administer, utilize, and protect our Crown
lands for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We
wanted to be assured that the process would be independent; therefore, we
established a review committee of three individuals from outside government
who are educated, experienced and knowledgeable in the areas of law, policy,
and business process review.
An
advisory committee was also established to support the review committee by
providing input and information sharing throughout the process.
In
order to provide an opportunity for all residents and stakeholders to
provide input, the methods utilized included: written submissions, online
submissions, feedback via telephone, or by attending a consultation session.
Mr.
Speaker, eight consultation sessions took place throughout the Province.
Public consultation sessions began on March 19 and continued through
to April 7 in St. John's, Marystown, Grand Falls-Windsor, Harbour Breton,
Corner Brook, St. Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and Labrador City.
The
turnout at the sessions were significant with over 170 participants
attending including residents and individuals representing a variety of
industries such as agriculture, tourism, municipal government, as well as
the business community. The
department also received approximately twenty-eight written submissions and
eighteen online submissions.
In
the coming weeks, a “What We Heard” document will be released on the
Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs website.
Mr.
Speaker, now that the consultations have concluded, the review committee
will begin to prepare a final report.
It is anticipated that report will be completed in June and I look
forward to receiving and reviewing the recommendations contained within that
report.
The
provincial government is committed to its focus on listening, collaborating,
and innovation. This review
demonstrates this and will lead to practical and informed recommendations to
ensure the Lands Act aligns with
best practices to better meet the needs of residents and stakeholders alike.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for an advance copy.
I thank the individuals for carrying out the report.
I have a few comments to make about it.
I guess one positive is that we might be able to finally see the
report by Don Downer – the land use advisory committee which cost the
government $750,000, and the price is still climbing.
That was five years ago.
We are still waiting for that report.
I
would say to the minister it is great to have a report done.
I know the minister is working on this but the Minister of Service NL
– Coppermine Brook, people with leased land by government following every
law cannot get hooked up to electricity.
They cannot even get a letter returned by the Minister of Service NL;
everything is put on freeze.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Do you
know why they put it on freeze?
There may be a problem with the sewer.
They were supposed to have it done two years ago.
Admit it in front of seventy-five people – the assessment is not even
done.
The
Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, thank you for trying to
solve this problem. The Minister
of Service NL, do you duty and respond to these responsible people who need
an answer.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
They have been trying to
get an answer for two years.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the minister his
time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
also thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement here this
afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I would
hope that government will act on what I heard, particularly at the session
at the Capital Hotel. It was an
interesting session.
Mr.
Speaker, we heard from landowners talking about ignoring the existing
legislated fifteen-metre buffer zone, trying to prevent people from walking
on shoreline trails. We heard
about the protection of green spaces and nature trails, and municipal access
to Crown lands, just to name a few.
Mr.
Speaker, the big thing that I heard up there amongst the group, the table
where I was, was about enforcement.
Government has for a long time had a problem with enforcing most of
the breaches of the Lands Act as it is now.
I would like to ask the minister: Where is he going to get the
resources to ensure enforcement of the other measures?
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier announced this morning that he will privatize four long-term care
facilities in our Province; however, he did not mention what the cost to
seniors requiring this care would be.
He did say, however, that private operators would determine the cost.
Currently, these costs are set by government.
So I
ask the Premier: Why are you allowing private operators to determine how
much seniors will pay for long-term care in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
can tell the member opposite and members of the House, that I was very
pleased and proud this morning to stand with colleagues from the House of
Assembly, and a large room of seniors representing various groups and
organizations from Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and announce this
morning that we are going to invest in the future of our seniors, invest in
the future of our people by partnering with private business and
not-for-profits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
We are going to build
long-term care homes through partnerships in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
We are going to build
them in Central, in Grand Falls-Windsor.
We are going to build one in Gander, and we are going to build right
here on the Northeast Avalon, Mr. Speaker.
That is bold decisions.
That is taking big steps as a government.
That is finding a way to service the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador who deserve to have good service from their government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I thought the Premier said this morning that the investment was going
to come from private operators, not from this government.
Will
you please tell the seniors of this Province: Why would you let private
operators determine the cost of long-term care?
What is that cost?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
As
we sought out new ways of doing business, Mr. Speaker, we found out better
ways, and we sought out better ways to provide services to Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians. We dug down
deep, and we looked across Canada, and we looked to our friends in Nova
Scotia –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
– we looked to our
friends in New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, and we found that partnerships are
working in other provinces in Canada.
They are working in Ontario, they are working in British Columbia,
they are working in the Maritimes, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and it
is a good way to move forward.
There is no difference in the cost to the people who are going to need these
services, but we are going to provide it.
In doing so, we are going to alleviate some of the congestions, some
of the backlogs that we see in our acute care hospitals as well.
It is a win-win-win, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I would like to remind the Premier that the media event is now over.
People want details.
How
much, and why are you allowing private operators to control those costs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
said this morning that we are going to go through a competitive process, and
we are going to allow private entities and not-for-profit entities to
participate in that process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
They can enter into
the process, Mr. Speaker. We
will go through with assistance from Partnerships BC, a Crown corporation in
British Columbia that has a wealth of experience and knowledge and a wealth
of success in providing long-term care through partnerships.
If
he wants details, I will give him details, Mr. Speaker.
In March month of this year there was 237 patients in acute care
hospital beds; $50,000 a month acute care hospital beds that were waiting
for long-term care. The result
of that, Mr. Speaker, was that surgeries were backed up and cancelled.
People in emergency rooms never had a room to go.
We are taking steps to fix our health care system and provide the
best services possible for (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
want to remind the Premier of one step he did not take, and that is put the
long-term care site in Corner Brook which would have been 120 beds.
That would have reduced the number of 237 that he just mentioned, I
say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BALL:
The Premier says that it
will be more cost effective for government but he did not provide any cost
estimate or any real details this morning.
I
ask the Premier: What savings do you anticipate from this move to privatize
long-term care?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Surely goodness the member opposite is familiar with competitive processes
and where it is very difficult for us as a government to prejudge and try
and anticipate exactly what private operators, not-for-profit groups are
going to submit as proposals to participate in this process, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
We looked across the
country, and we know that when we deal – we have a long-term care facility
in this Province which is privately operated and privately owned, and we are
paying a per month fee, Mr. Speaker.
Guess what? The cost for
long-term care beds with that private operator is lower than we can provide
right in publicly operated systems.
The same thing has happened in other provinces, in Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick.
Mr.
Speaker, what we are doing today is not a lot different than the huge number
of personal care homes we have around the Province.
The Leader of the Opposition owns one, Mr. Speaker, he should know
all about it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier seems to have a lot of background done on the cost savings.
Why doesn't he just tell the people of the Province, how much do you
anticipate saving?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I will
tell the benefits to the member opposite and I will tell it to the people of
the House here. We are going
through a competitive process, and until not-for-profits and businesses
submit their bids, we will not know; but we do know that in Newfoundland and
Labrador partnering is a lower cost.
We
know in Nova Scotia, they can provide services in partnering at a lower
cost. New Brunswick, they
provide at a lower cost, Mr. Speaker, and in BC lower costs.
The examples are numerous, Mr. Speaker.
The examples are numerous right through Canada, right across Canada
that there have been savings. In
some places it has been 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
What we are going to
do, Mr. Speaker – here are the big savings.
We do not have to pay to build these buildings.
We do not have to pay the capital cost upfront, hundreds of millions
of dollars that we are saving for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
government has engaged, as the Premier just said, with a Crown corporation
from British Columbia to help facilitate this process.
Was
this company selected through an open RFP process?
What is the value of that contract with this government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is rather loud in here this afternoon.
I am glad everybody is as excited as I am about this announcement
(inaudible) Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We extensively searched
for a partner that had the expertise to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.
We
searched extensively for a partner that had the expertise we required to
venture into this new area. We
looked across the country and we found that the best possible solution was
entering into a partnership with a Crown corporation in British Columbia
that has worked with multiple provinces and territories on large procurement
and infrastructure projects.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
I am very excited about
this opportunity with Partnerships BC.
We are looking forward to continuing to do business with them in the
months ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
will ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, the Premier did not
answer this: Was this an open process?
What was the cost of this RFP?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, after a
great deal of research and a great deal of consideration I can tell the
member opposite that Partnerships BC was the only organization in the
country that we were prepared to enter into a partnership with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
We feel that they have
significant experience and expertise, not only in delivering projects on
behalf of the people of British Columbia, but they have partnered with
Ontario, they have provided support in Alberta.
They have done projects just like this in Saskatchewan and Yukon.
They have extensive experience across the country that we will
benefit from.
We
are entering into a short-term contract to acquire that expertise.
The details are still being negotiated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
We anticipate that the
full cost over the life of the entire project –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well
there is another deal, another negotiation that they do not have completed.
Are you telling me that the Minister of Health and Community
Services, the Premier, and the Minister of Finance has entered into an RFP
with a BC company and they do not know how much it is going to cost this
government, going to cost the taxpayers of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition has it wrong because he is saying
over there we entered into an RFP with Partnerships BC.
What we have done is we looked for who is best able to lead us.
We talked to other provinces.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
We talked to other
jurisdictions. We were quite
pleased when we talked the Government of British Columbia and their Crown
corporation in Partnerships BC who has extensive experience.
We
anticipate right now, I can tell you, that their involvement and their
assistance providing to us – because here in Newfoundland and Labrador we do
not have the expertise. We do
not have the background. We do
not have the experience in doing these types of partnerships.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
The contract with
them will cost roughly about $600,000, but I can tell you the people of BC
are quite happy to have Partnerships BC.
The Liberal government of BC are quite happy to have Partnerships BC.
We are quite happy to work with them too, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are many companies within our own Province that are able to do this
work with providing long-term care services.
Will
the RFP with this BC company provide a provincial preference for
Newfoundland and Labrador companies?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, with
Partnerships BC, who has tremendous experience in these types of
partnerships, the first step is they are going to do a sounding.
They are going to do a sounding throughout the country and here in
Newfoundland and Labrador so that businesses that have an interest in
participating in the process can have discussions with Partnerships BC so
they can understand the lay of the land.
So Partnerships BC could understand the lay of the land in
Newfoundland and Labrador, they can understand the interest, who is
interested in it, what companies can understand what Partnerships BC is
going to do.
The
first step is the sounding, Mr. Speaker.
It is probably going to start –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
It is probably going
to start as early as Friday of this week, but it will be in full go in the
next week or so and we look forward to the response.
We also look forward to the report from Partnerships BC on the first
stage of this process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, maybe they should get the Crown corporation from BC to start looking
after some ferries in Labrador too, I say, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
Using private
corporations in private partnerships for constructing facilities is one
thing, but allowing them to control the level of service and cost is
concerning. This makes seniors
worry about the cost of care that they will need.
Currently, government controls the level of service in long-term care
facilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BALL:
I ask the Premier: How do you plan to control the level of services in this
new private model?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Good question, Mr.
Speaker. We are going to rely
again and work together with partnerships, like Partnerships BC, and we are
working through the process to ensure that cost is consistent.
Because we are talking about a long-term contract.
We are talking a contract that is going to be like twenty to thirty
years in length so that we have sustainability in long-term care, so we know
where those long-term care beds are going to be, Mr. Speaker.
We know what availability is going to be.
We
know that the demand is growing, Mr. Speaker.
We want to ensure that we have long-term care beds available for the
aging population of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are fastest aging population of the Province.
We have to find innovative ways.
We have to find bold ways.
We have to have the guts as a government to make those hard
decisions, and we doing that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
remind the Premier that one of the reasons why we have an aging population
is because we are losing all our young people because you have failed to
diversify the economy in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
I say, Mr. Speaker, the
government just opened a new 460-bed, public, long-term care facility in
Pleasantville. He just went on
to say that he has known all the good stories that are happening in all the
other provinces about privatization of long-term care.
If privatization of long-term care was so good, why didn't you do it
in Pleasantville?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thought that question was going to come earlier during Question Period, but
it took a little bit longer for the Leader of the Opposition to get to it.
Mr.
Speaker, when we developed our plan, Close to Home, it was a 2012 strategy.
It is one of the strategies that people opposite, members opposite,
say oh, they are kicking around, collecting dust.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not have things collecting dust over here, I
can tell you –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
– because we are
concerned about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are worried about the programs and we are worried about the
services, Mr. Speaker.
I
read in The Telegram today
comments from the Member for Virginia Waters.
She shows – if you read the paper, you will see what care and concern
they have for public servants of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker,
because she talks about it.
Until she sees the books, she does not know who they are going to kick to
the curb. That is the Liberal
way of doing business. We are
finding new ways, requests for the people and requests for the people who
work for Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
I say to the Premier, it
seems to me they are going to need a strategy to implement strategies with
this particular government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BALL:
Mr. Speaker, a new
long-term care facility for Corner Brook has been promised now for over
eight years. Government's
functional program calls for 159 beds in that facility, which is 120 for
residential care, ten for rehab, ten for restorative care, fifteen for
palliative care. Today,
government said that a private company would build a 120-bed facility.
I
ask the Premier: Who is responsible for the other thirty-nine beds as
government promised, or are you planning on cutting those beds?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.
We are in fact contracting with the private sector to build and
operate 120 long-term care beds; however, we are also going to enter into a
unique contract on that particular facility in Corner Brook.
That also includes the thirty-nine beds that the member references,
for restorative care, for rehab, and for palliative care.
That is all part of the plan.
So there will be a unique arrangement in Corner Brook that addresses
that very need, but the exciting thing about this proposal, Mr. Speaker, is
that as a result of this move today the facility in Corner Brook will be
open a year earlier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
think I have heard that echo before in this Chamber, I say.
The people in Corner Brook have heard it many, many times.
The minister, as he just mentioned in his comments there, seemed
pretty certain that they have talked to a company.
I
ask the minister, or ask the Premier: Have you had any discussions
specifically with any companies in long-term care providing the service in
Corner Brook?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the answer
is no. However, we have on an
ongoing basis received inquiries from companies that are interested in
coming to Newfoundland and Labrador to do business.
There are major players throughout Canada, even as close as in Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick, who have expressed interest in coming here and
setting up shop.
As
part of the market sounding that Partnerships BC will conduct over the next
couple of weeks, it is players like that they will be consulting with to
determine the level of interest that exists in those players coming to
Newfoundland and Labrador to create jobs here and to do business here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, we were told
in 2007 that the long-term care facility for the West Coast was about to
start. It did not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. FLYNN:
The Minister of Health
told us that it would begin last summer.
It did not. Then he said
it would begin last fall around election time.
It did not. It is a
litany of broken promises.
Now
that the project is to be a public-private partnership, I ask the minister:
Will this new arrangement mean even more delays and more broken promises for
the people of the West Coast?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, I will
acknowledge that the people of the West Coast have waited too long for the
construction of the new hospital campus.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
I also want to assure
members of the House, and I want to assure the public, that we remain
committed to building the new West Coast Hospital campus in Corner Brook.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
The announcement today is
going to allow us to get the long-term care component built faster with no
capital investment required on the part of the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador and the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and beyond
that, our operating costs will be less.
The good news for the families of the West Coast and the people who
will be impacted by the construction of this facility is that it will be
open a year earlier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber East.
MR. FLYNN:
Mr. Speaker, we sure hope
it is not later, because the last time we spoke about this project the
minister said he had a big decision to make: call a public tender, or call
an RFP. He said he could not
decide until he had the functional plan.
So I am assuming that the announcement today means that a functional
plan is finally ready.
I
ask the minister: When can we and the public expect that plan to be made
public?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the work of
the Corner Brook care team continues on the acute care component of the
hospital campus. We will have
discussions with the Corner Brook care team today around this change of
direction in terms of procurement approach, and the work that has been done
to date will be extremely valuable as we can move forward.
What
I want to say, though, Mr. Speaker, is that the bigger issue here is that as
a result of today's announcement the people who are lying on stretchers in
hospitals, the people who are tying up acute care beds at significant cost
who should be in long-term care homes, those concerns are getting addressed.
Those are real concerns for people and for families in Newfoundland
and Labrador. That is what this
announcement today is all about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday, as part of planning to use baby boomers' retirement as a strategy
to manage the public service, the minister announced $300,000 of new
spending that was supposed to provide government insights on how to operate
more efficiently. To many, this
sounds familiar. Back in Budget
2012, this same government announced a core mandate review that was also
supposed to acknowledge the exact same thing.
I
ask the minister: How much money have you spent doing these reviews, and why
are you repeating what you were supposed to have already done in 2012?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, one thing
the member opposite should have realized from her previous career, that
continuous improvement is just that, it continues.
We are always looking for innovative ways to enhance the programs and
services that we provide. We are
always looking for innovative ways to improve on efficiencies.
We
make no apologies at all, Mr. Speaker, for always and continuously looking
for ways to do things better. If
we are able to provide enhancements to public services and do it more
effectively and efficiently, we will never stop doing that, and we make no
apologies for doing it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I remind
the minister that you actually have to start something in order to
continuously improve it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, in 2012
the core mandate review was one of the cornerstones of this government's
10-Year Sustainability Plan. The
taxpayers of this Province paid $500 million for that plan.
Now this government is going to spend another $300,000 and the
results of the latest review are supposed to be the cornerstone of their
latest five-year plan.
I
ask the minister: It is time to stop the waste and get the finances under
control, will he explain to the people of the Province why he and his
government continue to do reviews and waste taxpayers' money?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, what she did
not share with the public in her comment a moment ago was that I said
yesterday we were going to engage some outside expertise to work with the
public service. A public
service, I might add, that we have a tremendous respect for and we are
always upfront with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
I shared yesterday what
our plan was for the next five years with our public service, unlike the
member opposite who says I have to wait until I have a look at the books
before I decide which ones I am going to get rid of.
So we are upfront, Mr. Speaker.
We were very clear yesterday that we are going to work with –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
We were very clear that
we were going to work with our public service –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN:
We are going to provide
some guidance in that process.
Clearly, our commitment is to work with our current public servants to
ensure that we improve efficiencies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, in January,
2014, the Statutory Review Committee presented its final report to the
Minister of Service NL.
Stakeholders have had an opportunity to provide feedback and government has
had plenty of time to conduct its analysis to prepare recommendations.
I
ask the Minister Responsible for the Workplace Health, Safety and
Compensation Commission: When will you be releasing a response to the
statutory review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
happy to stand on my feet and answer actually the first question from the
member. With regard to the
statutory review, I am happy to say that a great deal of work has been done.
It now sits with government, and we are putting together a response
to that. It is a very important
piece of work. While some people
see simply challenges with workplace health, and safety, I see opportunities
and opportunities of how we can improve the process.
That is where I am as a minister.
That is where we are as a government.
It is an important piece of work.
Let us make sure when we do it, let's do it right.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl South has time for a quick question.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, according to
the Premier's mandate letter, the minister has to undertake a comprehensive
review of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division to
examine the backlog.
I
ask the minister: When can we expect that review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services has time for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
I will say to the
member that that is a piece of work that is ongoing as well, but I am also
happy to say that with regard to the review commissioner we are actually in
the process of hiring on another full-time commissioner, as well as filling
vacancies that we have on that board.
Through such actions, certainly that will help with wait times.
While we have made progress in recent months and years, certainly
there is more progress to be made, and I think that is an important piece to
it.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Today the government made an out-of-the-blue announcement dealing with the
creation of –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
– 360 new, badly needed
long-term care beds through privatization.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
We have evidence from
Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the provinces that quality of long-term
care deteriorates when the profit motive is brought in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
So I ask the Premier:
What evidence does government to have to show that is not going to happen
here?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
A
few minutes ago, the Minister of Finance referenced the respect that we have
for public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people who deliver
services for us, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I want to reiterate
that because I can tell you, I, for one, and as Premier of this Province am
very proud of the work that our people do for government service and
delivery of services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
– and that is
especially true as well in health care.
We
have a standard of care and a quality of care that we are very proud of.
We are going to ensure through this process that the partners that we
are going to have in providing these long-term care beds will have the same
quality of care for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
say to the Premier, the overwhelming evidence is that privatized nursing
homes lower operating costs by paying lower wages, de-unionizing, laying
people off, and cutting staff from these facilities.
So I
ask the Premier: What evidence does he have that quality care can be
maintained for seniors when this happened?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Actually, what we are doing, we are going to provide quality long-term care
beds for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are going to alleviate the pressures on acute care beds that we
see; that pushes down to causing surgeries to be delayed.
The
member opposite has stood in her place and talked about, what are we going
to do about the delays in services and the delays in surgeries?
Members opposite has got up and asked us: What are we going to do
about crowded emergency rooms because there is no bed for them to go into?
What
we are going to do is we are going to fix that.
We are going to great steps to fix that.
We are going to provide quality care for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. We are going to
provide it in Corner Brook. We
are going to provide it in Grand Falls-Windsor.
We are going to provide it in Gander.
We are going to provide it here on the Northeast Avalon, and we are
going to create jobs while we do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
ask the Premier – he was not around at the time, but his government was and
he should have the answer – who, during the consultation process around
long-term care, said do privatization?
Because I certainly did not hear it and it was not in the report.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we do not have to look too far from this very building, where we
are all located here today, where there is private operator, Chancellor
Park, who provides a privately operated centre and provides long-term care
beds that we pay a per-bed fee for every month.
Mr.
Speaker, I have experienced myself as an MHA when people who are in the
stage of life when they are ready to go to long-term care have contacted me
in my office and said: Can you make it so I go to Chancellor Park?
Because that is the place they want to go.
MHAs on this side of the House have experienced it many times.
People want to go to Chancellor Park because they see it as a good
alternative.
Doing partnerships with private business and not-for-profits is not a bad
thing, Mr. Speaker. It is good
thing. It is going to provide
jobs. It is going to provide
construction jobs. It is going
to provide care for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
stop-work order has recently been issued at Muskrat Falls for safety
reasons. It is a stark reminder
that Labrador's industrial sites need regular and frequent inspections to
protect workers. Labrador West
has had no OHS officer now for several years.
Flying people in and out simply is not good enough to cover the gap.
I
ask the minister: Can he tell us when two OHS vacancies in Labrador West
will be filled?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
First of all, Mr.
Speaker, I can confirm that there was a stop-work order issued to a
subcontractor on the Muskrat Falls build.
There were no injuries, so good for that, but we are looking into it.
There is another contractor taking over the work.
Our
OHS officers in Labrador – it is very difficult to recruit people to go to
Labrador to live and work there.
We are experiencing it in other departments as well.
We
have recruited – we have two full-time positions around the Island.
We are flying people in and out of Labrador on a regular basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
The work is getting done.
The inspections are getting done –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Occupational health and
safety is an important facet of what our government provides to the people
of the Province, and we will continue to do that work and make sure
workplaces are safe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Occupational cancers among firefighters are recognized and covered by
workers' compensation in other provinces, but not this one, Mr. Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MURPHY:
There has been no
movement by government in this Province so far.
I
ask the minister: When will firefighters be covered for the cancers they are
getting on the job in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
MR. S. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, for the
member to suggest that we are not looking at that is certainly foolhardy.
On a case-by-case basis, firefighters are being considered.
I
want to make sure when we arrive at the decision, whether that is to go with
just career firefighters or volunteer firefighters, or either or none, I
want to make sure that it is the right answer to that question.
It is something very important to me personally as an MHA dealing
with firefighters, particularly volunteer service firefighters.
When we do that piece of work, when we arrive at the decision, again
it will be the right decision.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in the House –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in the House of Assembly Question Period, the Member for Burgeo –
La Poile questioned me on an MOU between the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary
and the Ontario Provincial Police force, and I am happy to table that
document here today for his perusal.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of
documents?
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling two Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the
2015-2016 and the 2017-2018 fiscal years.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of
documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
give notice that I shall move that the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the granting of supply
to Her Majesty, Bill 5.
Mr.
Speaker, I also give notice that I will move the following motion: That the
House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, the Budget
Speech.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of
motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. J. BENNETT:
To the hon. House of
Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is
an enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and
WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,
expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday
living for residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and
residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the government to partner with the private sector
to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park and the
enclave community of Trout River.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, the petitions for cellphone coverage in Gros Morne National Park
and in the Town of Trout River specifically keep on coming forward.
This is still an urgent concern for people.
The
government seems to have changed its focus somewhere.
Over the course of the past year, having had discussions with a
cellphone provider, the cellphone provider had some discussions with this
government. It seemed that
cellphone coverage in certain parts of the park was about to be extended,
specifically in the area around Cow Head because there is an existing tower
already there which is owned by Bell Aliant.
So Bell Mobility could easily tap onto that.
At
very modest cost the service could be improved dramatically, and gradually
we would increase the footprint of cellphone coverage throughout the park,
including Trout River. Although
this tower probably would not reach that far south.
Mr.
Speaker, for some reason all of a sudden the government put on the brakes.
They did not make a public announcement, but clearly, the cellphone
provider believed on reasonable grounds that cellphone coverage was going to
be extended and it was not extended.
There seemed to be an about-face by government on some moving forward
that they were doing. The
problem has not gone away. The
problem will not go away until cellphone coverage is extended.
We
saw recently with a snowstorm where approximately thirty or forty kilometres
of road had a series of snowdrifts.
Transportation and Works could clear a drift, they would go another
kilometre or two and there would be another drift, five or six more
kilometres and there would be another drift.
People were stuck in those drifts for a significant period of time.
There was no way for even the workers at Transportation and Works to
be able to communicate back to the department and say we have this cleared
or that cleared.
If
you could imagine, Mr. Speaker, the department itself is clearing snow and
they cannot give a head's up.
They have to drive to some place after the snowdrift is cleared from the
highway to be able to tell the office, yes, the road is okay.
It is open now.
Mr.
Speaker, this is just unacceptable.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Trinity – Bay de Verde.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS the residents of Salmon Cove feel that the condition of Main Street
East, located in the Town of Salmon Cove, is deplorable; and
WHEREAS residents of Salmon Cove are frustrated with the condition of the
road; and
WHEREAS the government has failed to address this problem; and
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
make the necessary repairs to Main Street East.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is my pleasure this afternoon to stand in my place and enter this petition
on behalf of the residents of Salmon Cove.
Main Street East is one of the busiest roads in the Town of Salmon
Cove. It is the location of the
town office, the fire department, the post office, the war memorial, not to
mention the branch road which leads to most of the residences in the town.
Over
the past couple of weeks the Department of Transportation and Works has
addressed some of the issues with Main Street East in Salmon Cove.
I would like to thank the department for the temporary work, but, Mr.
Speaker, it is that, it is a temporary solution.
This road has been receiving temporary solutions for many years now.
It is time that the department take the necessary action to repair
this street.
Again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Salmon Cove, I ask the
minister to take Main Street East into serious consideration with this
year's Budget.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
The Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Route 438 is the primary highway for residents of Grandois, St.
Julien's, and Croque; and
WHEREAS the current gravel road conditions are dangerous for travel, given
the size of potholes and debris embedded in the road; and
WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS this is the primary link for residents to health care and essential
services, and enhancement is needed for safety reasons;
We,
the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to
allocate funds in the provincial roads maintenance program to upgrade this
section of Route 438.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is signed by constituents of mine from Croque and St.
Julien's. There are not a high
number of signatures on this petition because there are not a lot of
residents currently living in these communities but still they require the
services, and each spring the road is in dire condition.
I do want to recognize and acknowledge in previous years that the
minister's staff, Transportation and Works, have done some really good work
in terms of clearing the road and also adding some extra stone and replacing
culverts. The petitioners here
are asking that this work continue, that this gravel road be well maintained
throughout the season.
The
community may have a small population right now but it will have an
exponential population later this summer when Come Home Year takes place in
these communities. There is
economic potential in these towns with the potential of a copper mine.
There was a past marble mine there.
There is still fishing activity that takes place.
We have to look at the economic opportunities in each and every
individual community. I think we
need to find ways to maintain, upgrade, and pave our gravel roads.
Like Route 438, this one needs to be certainly upgraded, and Route
434, Conche Road, should be paved.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS most communities in the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair do
not have adequate broadband service; and
WHEREAS residents, businesses, students, nurses and teachers rely heavily on
the Internet to complete an increasing number of everyday tasks online; and
WHEREAS there are a number of world-class tourism sites in the region
including Battle Harbour Historic Site and the Mealy Mountains National
Park;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
work with the appropriate agencies to provide adequate broadband service to
the communities along the Labrador Coast.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, it is only when I am home in the district that I can really get a
firsthand understanding of the frustration the residents there are dealing
with from day to day. When I am
home in the district, in my community it is virtually impossible for me to
do anything with our broadband beyond sending and receiving a simple email.
It
is 2015, and that is not good enough.
I know the service provider has submitted an updated proposal.
So I am urging government to work with the federal counterpart and to
submit the amount they need and to work with the service provider to
increase the capacity. The speed
is extremely slow, and most of the communities in the region are closed to
sales.
Mr.
Speaker, there are many government programs we could talk about that are
encouraging and promoting people to go online.
There is BizPal, there is Motor Vehicle Registration, but you cannot
push people to do that and say you are going to save money if you fill
things out online when not every community has equal access to that, Mr.
Speaker. We cannot have
everything like larger areas in rural parts, but we can certainly have the
infrastructure to go online and do many things equal to other parts.
This
is a service, broadband, that is seriously lacking in rural parts,
especially in the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
We have a group of concerned citizens there who have started a
Facebook site. There is lots of
feedback and they are looking to see if there is anything that they could do
legally around the frustration with that.
I
will continue to get up and present a petition on their behalf on this
issue.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS violent workplace incidents involving convenience store clerks and
gas station attendants are a serious health and safety issue; and
WHEREAS many public and private sector employees are being left in
vulnerable situations, especially in the opening and closing of their
buildings and establishments; and –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
–
WHEREAS all workers deserve protection from danger and harm; and
WHEREAS current government regulations are woefully inadequate in providing
even basic protection for these vulnerable workers; and
WHEREAS it is the responsibility of employers to keep workers safe, and the
responsibility of government to ensure employers adhere to regulations.
We,
the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to
immediately enact legislation and regulations to protect workers –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
– in hazardous
workplaces, including late-night shifts in convenience stores and gas
stations. This legislation must
direct employers to have a minimum of two workers on site after 10:00 p.m.
and before 6:00 a.m., or have a secure barrier between the worker and the
customer in place between these hours.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
I am
very pleased to present this on behalf of the petitioners, especially on
this day, April 28, when we are dealing with such a serious issue as the
death of workers both on the worksite and because of disease.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
This day of mourning
reminds us of the dangers that workers are under.
Quite recently, I think within the last two weeks, we saw on the news a
worker where three people came in to rob the convenience store that the
worker was working in. Luckily,
it was not at night, but it did show something – the person did not get
injured. What it showed was what
could happen when you have just one person working.
Three people came in and were able to do the robbery – because there
were three of them and only one worker, they were able to keep the person
preoccupied and have the robbery take place.
What
would have happened if that had been at night, for example?
What could have happened if the people who had come in, when there
was a lone worker, were people who were going to be violent?
In this case, it did not happen.
Recently, I know of a young worker who was in the convenience store where
that worker works, part of a robbery there.
That worker is now in counselling and being helped because of that
robbery, because of the traumatic effect of the robbery on this young
worker.
So
we really do have to take this seriously – this petition – that government
does have a responsibility to make it safe for workers.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. George's – Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
have a petition related to government's policy related to snow clearing in
rural areas. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the provincial government has changed policy related to snow
clearing in rural areas of the Province in a arbitrary way without proper
consultation; and
WHEREAS this policy change did not establish procedures for determining when
new roads could be added to those eligible for snow clearing in
unincorporated rural areas; and
WHEREAS there has been significant problems created in relation to provision
of services such as garbage collection and emergency services;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
review and update policies related to snow clearing.
As
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition was started by a gentleman, Ron King, in St. David's
in the district that I represent.
He was initially, I guess, concerned about his own situation, where
to get to his house in winter he had to clear a public road – not just his
own driveway, but a public road to get up to his house.
It
is interesting that once he began to circulate a petition on this issue,
other people in the area began to recognize that this was an issue that
existed in many other places as well, Mr. Speaker.
So a huge number of people have signed his petition.
I will be presenting them here in the House.
It
is an interesting issue because the snow clearing policy – there is no way
to add new roads, new routes, to the area.
There is no possibility for growth in these rural areas in terms of
areas that can have their roads upgraded or snow cleared for them in the
winter. It is creating a number
of problems for people in these areas.
Also, local service districts in these areas have noted and wrote the
minister on this issue to note that things like garbage collection and fire
services are problems in these areas as well because they do not have the
snow clearing that they need. It
is an issue that needs attention.
What
the petitioners are asking is that government review their policy in
relation to the maintenance of these roads.
Rather than keep the roads maintained, the government has chosen not
to review that policy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time.
I ask that government consider this petition.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
would like to call first of all Motion 1, and move, pursuant to Standing
Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, April 28,
2015.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that the
House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
also further move Motion 3, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, that pursuant to Standing Order 11, the House not
adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, April 28, 2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
motion is that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At
this time I would like to call Order 2, second reading of a bill, An Act To
Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy,
Bill 1.
MR. SPEAKER:
Resuming debate on Bill
1, I recognize the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is always great – most people, when we stand in our place we thank the great
people of our districts for sending us here to represent them.
We know at any time they have a right to change their mind in the
things that we do and deliberation on their behalf.
I certainly hope that I do, in the comments that I make, please the
people of my district and that the relationship may continue.
Today is a new day, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe that is all right to understand.
In the beginning, in starting to talk about Bill 1 today, maybe I
need to set up for everyone who is listening here.
I know everybody is really intent, their ears are peeled, and they
are all paying direct attention but there are people at home who are also
paying attention. They may not
have seen yesterday. They may
not have followed all that has happened before.
So what we are doing here on the floor of the House today, for all of
the people at home, we are debating Bill 1.
Many
MHAs stand up and we pick up a package of paper and we say we are talking
about a bill, Mr. Speaker. Most
bills, when people see it on camera, they pretty much look alike.
The difference with this bill, as I get into my comments, that is a
little different is that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSS:
Mr. Speaker, this bill is
rather substantial. This bill
has ninety-nine pages in it. It
is probably the largest bill that we have paid attention to.
The Explanatory Notes in this bill are longer than some of the other
bills that come before this House.
That should give some merit to the importance that is being placed on
this, and I will get back to that, Mr. Speaker.
A
few days ago we did receive a briefing, as everybody has referred to, and in
the briefing there was an excitement on the part of what was happening here
from the people in the department.
We are sort of correcting a course, or we are taking an action that
is improving upon actions of the past.
We are correcting and redirecting or repealing –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSS:
We are changing the
direction in which we are going, Mr. Speaker, to admit that like anywhere
you go, you do need to look ahead, plot what is ahead of you, and steer your
course based on the best possible route of getting to your end goal.
Yesterday I heard the Member for St. John's East when he talked about the
former Premier in deciding about this – and he admitted in his talk and said
the Premier actually realized that maybe a mistake had been done, and that
Premier was setting about a course of action whereby we would correct a
previous action.
He
alluded to the idea of not only is justice being done, perception of justice
is being done. I think that
Premier in his wisdom, Premier Marshall, in selecting the Committee, he had
to show that perception. He had
to really strongly portray that and show that.
Not only was there just an ordinary committee picked for this, Mr.
Speaker, but a fine committee picked because this Premier, Premier Marshall,
had to search for someone who he would assume – this is not just a
government that is putting a commission in place that is going to fix a
problem for the government but the people he is putting there, to see this
perception of justice, he chose someone who was a former Premier
representing an opposite side of the House to fit, as a former Liberal
Premier, to steer this commission.
Premier Marshall wanted to make sure that the people of Newfoundland felt
that this was not just getting lip service; it was going to be corrected.
Well, I would like to thank Premier Marshall for his foresight.
I would also like to thank the commission for their fine, intense
activity that took place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CROSS:
We feel very sure that
the correct information, the correct intent, was placed in the deliberations
that took place in this commission.
This
commission, Mr. Speaker, has come back with the heftiest bill, I guess, that
we will possibly ever have, and it obviously covers all areas.
From notes, from talking, it has ninety recommendations.
Now, these ninety recommendations are not light recommendation
either. Sixty-seven of them are
legislative; sixty-five are considered in this piece of legislation here.
The
other recommendations deal with policy.
So, this commission also looked at the policies and the procedures
that happen within the Office of ATIPP, within these offices, for the
co-ordinator and everybody else what would happen there.
There is a whole pile of information that this Committee sifted
through. It met with the public
and there was far more attention this time around then there was the last
time around when they were doing the review of the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy legislation.
Since this report has come, Mr. Speaker, some advance work has been done.
A transition team was formed.
In the anticipation of enacting most of this legislation that the
commission returned as their report, then the department took it so
seriously that they looked it through and they have had to go back to the
Commissioner, the lead Commissioner, former Premier Wells, to talk about the
intent of some of the recommendations, to interpret some of the actions and
recommendations they have such that the legislation was put together
correctly.
What
happens is in through the legislation, through this, we looked at the role
of the ATIPP co-ordinator. We
looked at the fees and the processes and procedures that need to take place.
We also looked at timelines as they are shared, Mr. Speaker.
We also looked at the public interest override.
I will speak to some of these topics individually a little later.
We also looked at the exceptions to the ability for access to
everything, and what are exceptions and things that should not and cannot be
put out there into the public at the current time.
Basically what we have and what we have put together and found put together
here in its greatest form is legislation that is hailed as the best in the
country. Finally, we have what
is best in the country. Now, we
did not go to the worst of the pack before with what we had before, but we
were down in the steps. In the
correction that we have taken, we have come now, Mr. Speaker, to be one of
the leaders in the country.
Mr.
Speaker, what lessons did the government learned?
What lessons did we learn when we looked at this?
We have learned that the public has a vested interest in everything
that takes place. Everybody in
our Province in this great land of Newfoundland and Labrador needs to have a
say, and their say needs to be heard.
That is what this is taking into account.
We
could have said this legislation would be reviewed again in a couple of
years' time. This legislation
will be reviewed in its due course.
Mr. Speaker, it was important enough that it needed to be done
currently, not further into the future.
We will find obviously all kinds of reasons from both sides of this
House why that had to be done.
Basically, there were some corrections that needed to be made.
Action is taken and will be taken, and it will lead to a much better
process for the people of our Province.
Talking about the role of the ATIPP co-ordinator in this, one of the things
– and I am not going to talk about everything.
If you are going to size up all ninety-nine pages and talk through
this, you are going to be here a lot longer than your allotted time.
I do not know if I will take all of my time today, but I will
consider when I am satisfied that I have covered the topics that I wanted to
add to.
I
have always said when I get up to speak that we have forty-eight individuals
in the House, but forty-seven get an active say in most of the things.
Mr. Speaker, you will get your say in the way it comes out to referee
all of that.
When
everyone in this Chamber gets to have their say, if we all add to the
debate, then even if we said one unique or one different thing, we have
added one little bit of uniqueness to the legislation, or to the comments
that people have to consider.
What I say may help some people on this side to consider, it may help
someone on the other side to consider.
So, in a way, we all have that right to get up and speak and say our
mind and say what we think is the best of how this works.
Well, the one thing about the ATIPP coordinator that I looked at and saw
with this change and the way things are working now is that unless some
other individuals requested to be a part of a search, then the ATIPP
coordinator is potentially the only one who is going to be there – which
gives some protection to the person who is doing the search, that they are
not sending this off to some Cabinet minister to do the search or some other
official in the department. That
coordinator is the one who chooses what gets searched and how much.
The
other thing, Mr. Speaker, that is very important is the person who has asked
for the search to be done has an anonymity.
That is the person who is looking does not know who they are
searching for. That way you put
equal weight into the search that you make.
You do the best search you can do.
You do not know who is asking for this.
You have no preconceived notion of how important or how highfalutin
this person is who is looking for the information.
You know fairness is being done.
That is the way things have to be looked at.
You have to look at this along fairness and openness, and the
impartiality that you do not know who you are searching for.
So, the type of applicant and the identity of the applicant is not
known.
Now,
the other part of this is the idea of timeliness.
The whole process has to take place in certain prescribed allotments
of time, and that time has been tightened up.
I am not going to get into the little nitty-gritty details of how
many days it is tightened up, or whether it is now calendar days or work
days. The thing is in the whole
analysis people know that their searches are done in a timely fashion and
information is returned to them, and it is the information they are looking
for.
The
whole idea of fees being reduced or costs being reduced, well, the $5
application fee would probably not be a deterrent to most people, but in
this case it is removed. The
other thing is the number of hours that would go into the looking.
It is just for the looking that you are paying for.
It is not what you are doing with the files to prepare them for the
individual after you retrieve them.
It is just basically looking for the request.
The
other thing I wanted to quickly look at is this idea of the public interest
override. It can override in
both ways, I guess. One is it
can override to prevent information from coming out if it is not in the best
interest of the whole community.
There may be a member of the Opposition, a member of the press, or a member
of the government who wants to know the information, but if the information
they want is not in the best interest of the whole Province, then it should
not come out. On the other hand,
this whole idea of an override should go the other way, just like most
everything.
It
is to the point that if you have a piece of information you want to protect,
then there is an override that says you cannot keep it if it is in the best
interest of the people. There
are two ways this public interest override goes into play, but the best of
it is, is that it is in the public's interest.
That is the reason why they call it a public interest disclosure.
It is not for the interest of the searcher.
It is for the interest of the public in total.
This is very important that it comes out along that line and people
understand it that way.
Mr.
Speaker, the other thing is with regard to the exceptions of why certain
things may not be available for view for everyone.
Some of these things have not changed and they are going to stay that
way, Mr. Speaker. Although, what
constitutes a public body or what constitutes a part of a town council or
any of these entities is very important as to if it is protected or not, and
if it was not a part of this before.
So, the whole realm of what information is out there that the public
may think they need access to, but it is also the people who look for it and
who are there.
The
whole thing about it is that at this point we are correcting the action.
At this point we are saying in the best interest of everyone, we have
pulled up our socks. We have
tightened this in a way that everybody should feel happy and protected about
the amount of information you can get and the protection is there.
Plus, it is also every other aspect.
It
is not just the Bill 29 aspect of the two or three recommendations that Bill
29 addressed. This Commission
now has looked at the entire A-T-I-P-P, Access to Information and Protection
of Privacy Act. Once upon a
time, no one had ever really thought about how that flicked together.
Now it is such a thing that you have a word coined now, ATIPP – oh I
'ATIPPed' that or I searched that.
So now because of the lingo – when everything comes out then we sort
of educate ourselves and we become more finely tuned to that.
It is good that we have the whole idea together, Mr. Speaker.
I
also thought about how much or how many times an ordinary person in our
Province, Mr. Speaker, looks for information, under what circumstance they
would look under. For instance,
talking about my district, in the last three years, since Bill 29, and up to
today, I have had one constituent who has called looking for information.
Is it looking for information about government?
No, it is not. It is
personal information about a personal legal matter that the person is
involved in.
The
number of people who would have been accessing information, looking for
anything that Bill 29 or this Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act would have impacted – if mine is the average type district,
there are very few. The persons
mainly, I would assume, Mr. Speaker, would be people involved with
government on a day-to-day basis, whether they are a part of the
Legislature, or they are a part of the press gallery are probably the two
largest groups that would search for the information.
Maybe our policies and everything else could work to their best
interests in a different way.
Mr.
Speaker, we also heard access not granted is access denied, justice denied.
So if there are not that many people looking for this – but the main
thing is if there was one, then they have to have the right to this
legislation that would generate the proper search, the proper way to guide
them through, the ATIPP coordinator guide through the actions to make sure
that in a timely fashion the request for the information is granted back.
I
think I have really exhausted more time than I thought I was going to do
today. I have not been too
flamboyant about it, or have not whatever, but that is not my style.
I just thought there are a few things there that I have to have a
little say about. Some of it was
coming from
constituents; some of it was from my own personal observations.
The ability to be able to stand today to represent and to ask these
questions or to throw that information in there is very important to me, it
is very important to my district, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time
to do that.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the
Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, before I start, first of all I would like to thank the people in my
District of Carbonear – Harbour Grace for allowing me the opportunity to
speak here on this bill and any other bill.
I would like to thank the people in my district for that.
I
appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House and share a few words on
Bill 1, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
I sat here yesterday and I listened to the Minister of Child, Youth
and Family Services, and I have to say that I was a little bit taken back by
the comment that he made. The
comment that he made was that he felt a little bit upset that we were
blaming them for Bill 29.
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure that member over there, that minister, that they have
been blaming us since prior to 2003, and he felt offended by that because we
were doing that. I will tell
you, Bill 29 – now, I was not here in this House during the debate on
Bill 29, but I watched it very much so on TV, all seventy hours.
The
media were out there and the Open Line shows and everything else, and they
were telling you, guys, you are making a mistake.
You are hammering Newfoundland into the ground over there.
It was out in the media.
I can guarantee you, that is exactly what was done by Bill 29.
You infringed up on the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;
that is what this group done.
Mr.
Speaker, it is called Bill 1, in political circles, but out in my district
and other rural districts in Newfoundland and Labrador it is better known as
the backtracking bill. Bill 1 is
an attempt to correct a terrible wrong imposed upon our people and Province
and our democracy in 2012 by Bill 29.
It has taken government over three years and three leaders to right
this wrong.
You
see, this secret government wanted to deny the people of our Province basic
information. I will say, Mr.
Speaker, thank God that Premier Marshall came along and seen the light.
Thank God that he gave the people in this Province an opportunity to
fix this awful wrong that was done to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, what this bill did, it made it more difficult to obtain
critical information and data to those who were trying to keep government
accountable, or to private individuals who were just seeking some
information, details on matters of concern to them.
Since 2013, I have been the official MHA responsible for Fisheries and
Aquaculture and I can attest to the difficulty of trying to wrangle
Fisheries and Aquaculture information out of this government, and it is a
revolving door of ministers. Let
me add, that this doesn't just happen in Access to Information requests.
It happens quite regularly in Question Periods.
Mr.
Speaker, I touched on a few outstanding issues on the outright denial, or
the objections placed by this government in trying to access information on
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Aquaculture, in response to an ATIPPA request early June 2014 from our
office, information on the pesticide, Slice, used in control of sea lice in
aquaculture, government responded that part of the information would require
a fee of $34,900 to process this information.
Yes,
Mr. Speaker, you heard me correct; nearly $35,000 to seek some clarity on
how much and how often a pesticide was being used in our pristine waters by
the fish farm industry. The
public wanted to be reassured the most optimum practices were being used.
Do
you know why it would cost that much?
It is because government was not doing its due diligence.
It was not even tracking this vital information on a systemic basis.
Back
in March 2013, our office had sent a simple request for information of sea
lice in fish farms. Were they
high? Were they low?
Government clearly did not want us to know, or felt that it was
privileged information, or maybe just did not know since they were not doing
their own due diligence.
First, they denied us the information and nearly a year later, in February
2014, they relented under pressure; but – and here is the big but, Mr.
Speaker – only if we would pay $19,400 to government to release this
information that should have been made public in the first place.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. SLADE:
I said $19,400.
Of
course, we did not pay this exorbitant fee; otherwise, we would have to
layoff somebody in the office.
Even on a promise by one of the revolving fisheries ministers to supply this
information in response to a question in the House, we still did not get
that information, Mr. Speaker.
To top it all off, this is the same information that is mandated to post
online out in British Columbia – true story.
I am
proud to report that because of our asking and pressures, what a good
Opposition does, government realized they just were not doing their jobs and
they approved money to not only keep better track of sea lice, but also to
mitigate the levels of sea lice.
Mr.
Speaker – and I am going to go back a little bit here now to the other side.
The people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador when Bill 29
came in, they were absolutely floored that their members on the other side
could sit there and vote for such a thing, and also to let them down, the
way they let them down, and then to call off the debate.
It was absolutely unbelievable.
It was unbelievable that you guys did that to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
On
July 17, 2014, DFA recognized that its sea lice monitoring process was not
up to par. It announced that it
would provide $80,000 to the aquaculture association to help establish the
test of a new fish health monitoring software for monitoring sea lice
prevalence and evaluating control programs.
New Brunswick have been using this innovative software since 2012
with great success.
So,
Mr. Speaker, there was an upside in making the ATIPP request.
It helped improve the way the department was regulating the industry.
On
the other ATIPP requests that were rather outstanding, in that they exposed
government being indecisive on issues for years on top of years, in 2010,
government commissioned a report on the direct selling by harvesters to
people in tourism in this Province.
Our office 'ATIPPed' for the report when it was complete in 2011.
We were refused on the justification that the report was in the realm
of Cabinet confidence. In 2014
we 'ATIPPed' a second time for this report that government was not acting on
and it was collecting dust.
I
heard somebody over there today – I think it may have been the Premier –
saying we do not sit on reports over here.
They do not collect dust.
Well, I can assure the Premier and this group over here that this is one
report that was collecting dust, Mr. Speaker.
Government came to their senses but not without more stalling.
Yes, they announced they were planning to release the report through
proactive disclosure after forty-five days.
Now that is ironic, Mr. Speaker, proactive disclosure by this
government. If we had not spent
years of badgering them, that report would still be locked away.
Finally, on day forty-six, a copy of the report was quietly posted on
the DFA website. Were it not for
the Opposition's three days of filibustering debate on Bill 29 and public
outcry against the draconian bill, we would not have Bill 1.
Mr.
Speaker, this government does nothing proactively.
It is very good at inaction.
OCI and the Fortune plant is another example I will use of how
secretly this government likes to operate.
Our office recently contacted the Fisheries department to seek
answers on over a dozen questions on the Fortune plant, and if the operator
was holding up to the agreement signed with our Province in December, 2012.
We
had heard there was more activity in a fisherman's shed than was in that
plant. The response was: None of
the answers could be provided as most of the questions are specific to the
operator's business. This was
the same operator who had clearly broken the solemn agreement with the
hardworking plant workers in our communities who eventually went public with
their concerns and assessment that this government is still choosing not to
be open, accountable and transparent even when it involves the giveaways of
our resources. That is not
acceptable, Mr. Speaker.
To
conclude, Mr. Speaker, was Bill 29 a mistake?
No, it was not a mistake.
It was a massive mistake, a monumental mistake, a monstrous mistake, a moral
mistake and, yes, even a money mistake.
It will cost the taxpayers over $1.1 million to correct this mistake.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 1 is like a delayed justice.
Bill 1 is also a clear repeal of Bill 29.
Bill 1 replaces Bill 29.
The official secrets act is in the shredder where it belongs, and that is a
good thing, Mr. Speaker.
The
bill that one democracy watcher called the biggest step backwards in access
in Canada in recent memory. The
bill could be called the DarkNL bill, it is finally blacked out.
The review committee has done a great job.
We would like to recognize their expertise and commitment, and their
ninety recommendations in this process.
To those across the Province who spoke out time and time again
against Bill 29, I think Bill 1 is a reminder that when there are enough
voices speaking and working together change can happen.
I
support Bill 1, and I would like to dedicate it to the people of our
Province whose voices will always be heard above all the politics.
We are here on their behalf.
This is their Province.
Bill 1 rights many wrongs, Mr. Speaker, but this government has a fair ways
to go before the justice job is complete.
In the words of the review commissioner, Clyde Wells: in the end the
public interest is what is important.
I
would like to say thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the
opportunity to speak here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is indeed an honour to stand and speak to Bill 1 in this hon. House.
I have heard my colleagues opposite talk very eloquently about where
Bill 1 is. I have heard people
on this side outline exactly what this means for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador and how it is a very creative, a very innovative, and a very
important piece of legislation that we are proposing.
It
does two things, Mr. Speaker. It
makes us world leaders and it gives the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
confidence that they have not only access to information that they should be
entitled to, but the protection of the information in relationship to the
work they do with government to ensure that only the information that should
be released to people, that is pertinent to the people of this Province,
should be released. It is a
balance of protecting those who do business in Newfoundland and Labrador
with government and our citizens, and citizens having the rights to have
access to information.
Mr.
Speaker, a very learned colleague of mine said in the introduction of this
piece of legislation: As you know, our government is developing Newfoundland
and Labrador's first Open Government Action Plan reflecting the best open
government practices in the world.
The plan will nurture a culture of openness with government by
promoting access to information and data, and enhanced dialogue and
collaboration on initiatives.
The
Open Government Initiative will exist alongside the strongest access to
information and protection of privacy legislation anywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that obviously is a testament to what this side of the
House does and outlines for the people of this Province.
It is about getting the right piece of legislation, making sure it
meets the needs of the people in this Province, and ensuring that everybody
in this House can live with it, everybody in this House agrees with it.
I
have full confidence that – when we get to a point when everybody has had
their open dialogue and everybody has voiced their opinions – people on all
sides of the House here will vote for this piece of legislation because it
meets the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and it puts us as world
leaders. So the people who want
to do business in this Province understand that their information can be
accessed by citizens here, but at the same time there are protections here
around what they do and what is accessible.
Mr.
Speaker, a few years ago I stood in this House and I spoke around the
predecessor to Bill 1. It was
then that I also believed people do need to have protection, people do need
to have access. It is what our
legislation is all about. It is
about protecting the citizens of our Province.
This is another very important part of what we are doing in this
valued House.
At
the time, it was a very open dialogue.
It was very heated at times.
The filibuster is a very important part of our democratic process and
a very important part of what we do in the House of Assembly.
It shows that everybody has the right as elected officials, and the
people expect them to voice their concerns, be open, be sincere, and reflect
exactly what they are hearing in the public.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt all hon. members did that, and I
respect that.
I
also respect the fact that from my constituents I did not hear the same
concerns that others did. That
does not mean it did not exist out there.
I am not disputing that.
My citizens asked if this would affect how the ferries ran.
Would it affect employment?
Would it affect their pensions?
No, it did not. So they
said they were not worried about it.
I wanted to outline to them that it was still very important that
pieces of legislation like this exist and that they take a part in ensuring
that the hon. members in this House put the right piece of legislation in
place and it reflects their needs.
So they have a right to tell us.
If there is something missing let us know.
We want to correct it.
I
keep saying in my department, if we are doing something right please tell us
so we continue to do it.
Sometimes – and I was a civil servant for most of my life – we get
complacent. When things keep
going the right way, we change it for the sake of changing it.
Tell us if we are doing it right so we can continue to do it that
way. If we are doing it wrong,
particularly outline that so we can go back and reflect on it and get input,
have dialogue, and include people so we find out what is the best way of
doing it.
Mr.
Speaker, that is where we are today with Bill 1.
We have started that process.
We went back and we had looked a piece of legislation that we put in
place, but we had heard from stakeholder groups out there.
We had heard from other entities.
We had heard, but particularly from the citizens or a number of
citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador that they were not quite confident
that this could be the best piece of legislation out there to represent
their needs in protecting them and giving them proper access to information.
So,
we went back and said well, if the people are not totally confident – we
want them to be confident on what we put in this House and what we put as
legislation. Because it is to
live on for generations and generations and for it to be proper for the
people in this Province, it has to be given the right scrub.
If the right scrub says we need to go back and reflect on exactly
what we did and make it work, then that is the right thing to do, Mr.
Speaker.
In
this case, I do give full respect to the former Premier who, when he took
over office, sat down and said let's go back and reflect what we have done
over the last number of years, what are some of the things that if we had
our time back now we might have taken a little bit more time to reflect on,
and have a little bit more dialogue around exactly where we are going and be
open enough to listen to Opposition members and to the general public
because they have good views and they have some good experiences and they
have constituents too who have issues around what we do in government.
We
went back and said okay, let's do that, but let's do it outside of the House
of Assembly. Because if do it in
here we all get labeled, to a certain degree, that we are narrow minded
because we are respecting only those who talk in our ears from our own
constituents. Let's look at the
broader sense, let's look at all of the stakeholders out there, let's engage
them, but particularly let's find an outside entity to drive that process.
That way it is impartial and everybody gets equal opportunity to have
input.
That
is what we did. The Premier went
out, he engaged the process of saying let's pick a group of individuals who
we know have an expertise in different components of access to information,
about how information should be shared, how information should be gathered,
how then the process of outlining to people how they have that access, what
is the complicated parts of it, what is the very easily accessible part,
what does it cost for people, how does somebody in Englee have to access to
it as somebody on Elizabeth Avenue in St. John's has access, how do we make
that parallel workable for people here.
The
vision of the Premier and this Administration was: Let's go do that.
So a process was put in place, a very detailed process of first
identifying who has the creditability and the expertise out there.
Mr. Speaker, obviously we all are aware of the three individuals who
led this process. They are very
articulate individuals, very committed to this Province – somebody from
outside who has a specialized skill set in this field so we would know that
we could take into account other jurisdictions.
What would be the mean and what would be the target, where the bar
would be set for making sure that we had proper access to information
legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, those individuals were given a loose terms of reference and asked
help define that. We are giving
you full freedom here to help define exactly what it is we need to do to get
the proper legislation so that the people of this Province are confident
that the decisions made in this House of Assembly will work for them and the
next generations and generations down the road to protect the people of this
Province; and that the piece of legislation that will be brought to this
House should be done so well that all members of this House, regardless of
your political stripe, would stand up and very proudly vote for it and say
yes, the people of this Province got good legislation and are protected.
That is what we set out to do.
A
process was put in place, an open concept of dialogue and an open concept of
giving people an opportunity to present what their views were, their
understandings; but particularly, at the beginning, the Committee itself
wanted to make sure people had an understanding of what this piece of
legislation would be about. At
times when you talk about legislation in the House of Assembly, the average
person has not been engaged in it.
They have other things in their lives that they need to deal with.
They do not sit down and read the intricate workings of legislation
and the process to lead up to how to get to present a bill in the House of
Assembly.
So,
a process that was more user-friendly or more general citizen-friendly was
put out there to give them an understanding.
If you want to come and make a presentation, here is what we are
asking. We are asking simple
questions. What kind of
information do you think you should have access to in government?
How open should government be with information that you share with
them? How do we make this part
of legislation work for everybody in this Province so it continues to show
that we are an open process here and democracy works?
We
wanted to make sure – and there were no holds barred.
The Premier said to the Committee, we want you to go and develop a
piece of legislation based on what people tell you, not based on your own
views or your own concepts or your own past history, based on what people
tell you, with your expertise, that would meet the needs of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee was very in-depth and a year later came back with a
great report. Prior to coming
back with that report, our Premier said he had so much confidence in the
process being used and the Committee members that all recommendations that
were going to be put forward would blankly be accepted.
Because he felt – and still does and he has spoken to this – that
this process worked for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It was engaging. It was
all inclusive. It did not
discriminate against any group of individuals or communities.
It gave people those opportunities to have that input.
As a
result, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has acknowledged that all recommendations
will be included. As you can
see, this is not a handful of recommendations.
It is very in-depth. It
is ninety recommendations around legislation and policy which will have a
major impact on line departments, on changing their philosophy, changing
their operational structure, changing the resources they will need to make
sure that people have access to it.
They
talked about how this whole implementation process would work.
They talked about having other resources, having co-ordinators, that
you now have a first line in line departments of going to an individual or
group of individuals who can advise you as to how you can access various
pieces of information, and what in that information is something that would
be exactly what you asked for and how it would be used as you move forward
in addressing issues you may have with government or issues you may have had
with people who worked with government.
Mr.
Speaker, the whole process here was about engaging internal and external
structures that we have, groups within OPE, Municipal Affairs, issues around
the Chief Information Officer, all the things relevant to what would be the
best way, the first dialogue around the information we have, and post it.
One
of the best statements made was by the Minister of Health who is responsible
for the open government policy was around let's prevent – our ideal
situation would be people would not come to us through the ATIPPA process
looking for information because it would all be readily available, posted
online, or a simple process where they would know how to access that.
That
is pure open dialogue and an open, transparent government, Mr. Speaker.
That is what we are striving for.
This piece of legislation moves us to that level, along with our open
government policy. We want to
ensure that the people of this Province have that information and that there
are no hindrances. That the
information shared is the information that is relevant to their needs.
Mr.
Speaker, we have gotten to a place now where this piece of legislation
reflects that because of the input by the citizens of this Province, by some
of the stakeholders, by the in-depth work done by the Committee to draft
something that would be not only a good piece of legislation, but would be
something that the average person could take and would understand exactly
what it means and how they access that information.
More importantly, how we as a government and how civil servants in
this Administration understand the role they play in assuring, as citizens
who request information, get that in a quick, efficient, and transparent
manner.
Mr.
Speaker, we have done that very eloquently through this process.
This is not about flip-flopping.
This is about revisiting, realizing maybe there are better ways of
doing things. It is about
re-engaging people. It is about
re-establishing a process here that encourages people to get the information
they want.
We
are hoping through this process that they will maybe quadruple the
inquiries, but as part of that process the beginning of the initial stages
will be eliminated because the same information that they would be
requesting through ATIPPA will already be available on various websites.
That is about transparency, Mr. Speaker, and that is how we get to
this point.
Mr.
Speaker, I could go on but I know we are going to have a great open dialogue
here. I am looking forward to my
colleagues on the other side speaking to this bill.
I am looking forward to it sometime in the near future when we all
stand and vote for this piece of legislation, that we all uniformly agree it
was a great piece of legislation put together.
It was great work done by the committee.
There was great engagement by the citizens of this Province.
The next generations will have a great piece of legislation to know
that they have access to information.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand and speak to Bill 1.
Three years later, a million dollars later, loss in confidence in the
government later, embarrassment on the world stage or at least the national
stage later, some careers perhaps lost because of this, some careers perhaps
made because of this.
Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to stand and speak to Bill 1 because this is about
victory. What I would like to do
is look at exactly whose victory this is; victory perhaps because we have
some extremely good, solid legislation, but why?
Whose work is that? Who
deserves the victory? Who can
claim the victory in this situation?
That is what I would like to speak to a bit.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the staff who provided us with a very
thorough briefing. I would like
to thank the staff who worked hours upon hours upon hours under a very tight
deadline, once the Statutory Review Committee was finished, to have
everything ready for us to be able to debate this piece of legislation in
the House.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember when Bill 29 was presented to our caucus.
That was almost three years ago.
I remember when the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi – I was a
very new MHA at the time, not even a year.
I had been elected for just a little over half a year.
The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi looked at the legislation, it
was late on a Friday afternoon, and she said: Oh my God, I cannot believe
this. She read a bit more and
she said, I cannot believe this.
She said, we are going to have to filibuster.
This is so bad we are going to have to filibuster.
Mr.
Speaker, I hardly knew what a filibuster was at the time – and filibuster we
did. Everybody on this side of
the House participated. We
filibustered for seventy hours.
Not because we were just playing politics or deciding to give the government
a hard time, but because we knew the ramifications of the proposed
legislation. We knew how
regressive that legislation was.
Even
though we were minorities and government had a majority, we knew that we had
to do everything in our power.
We knew we could not stop it, but what we could make sure that we could do,
was to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understood
what the legislation that was before the House, the profound effects, the
regressive effects it would have on our democratic process.
So we did. We did it.
We filibustered.
People demonstrated. People
wrote letters, they wrote emails.
People filled the galleries, because people knew how important that
piece of legislation was. People
knew how regressive that piece of legislation was.
I think the government at the time was hoping that in fact people
would not really be engaged, and people would not really be that concerned
about this particular piece of legislation.
I truly believe, Mr. Speaker, that not only the outcome three years
later, a million dollars later –
AN HON. MEMBER:
One point one.
MS ROGERS:
One point one million
dollars. We also should take
into account the cost of the filibuster itself.
I am sure once we start adding all that in –
AN HON. MEMBER:
And the toner.
MS ROGERS:
And the toner; my
goodness, someone said here, the toner.
If
we take into account all of that expense, what we do have now is an
incredibly impressive piece of legislation.
Again, whose victory is that?
It is not the victory of this government, because the government had
created this problem. The
government went kicking and screaming and is being dragged into the
twenty-first century.
The
other victory we have is the victory on behalf of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador who did get engaged.
I do believe that because of the regressive policies of this
government, because of what this government attempted to do, and they did it
for a while, they did it for a few years, they got away with it for a few
years but not for much longer than that, Mr. Speaker, because this new piece
of legislation, Bill 1, is like a restart.
It is like pushing a button to restart.
The
reason that has happened is because it has given birth.
I believe it has given birth to citizens' advocacy in this Province;
something we sadly needed, something we desperately needed, that we needed
to have citizens once again fully engaged in our democratic processes, and
boy, did we see that engagement.
Again, by way of letters, petitions, demonstrations, people in the gallery
at 3:00 in the morning, at 4:00 in the morning saying to government, this is
important and we will not stand for it.
Mr.
Speaker, government did get away with it for a little while, but only for a
little while. One of the
wonderful things about our democratic process is that sometimes because of
citizens' action we can push back, and that is what we have seen.
I
had the honour on behalf of our caucus, on behalf of the NDP caucus, to
present to the Independent Statutory Review Committee of the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
I would like to go over a little bit about some of the things we
presented, which I think we see now, which I know we now see in the new
legislation and some of the issues that we raised during the filibuster
On
this side of the House, we all worked really hard.
When we were not actually in the House standing up speaking to issues
we were behind the scenes, along with our staff, doing research, consulting
with experts, consulting with academics in our own Province who care so
passionately about our democratic process because they saw how Bill 29 was
actually hindering our democratic process.
We all saw that. It was
clear. It was as clear as the
nose on your face, Mr. Speaker.
The
people of the Province saw it.
It was undeniable, yet this government was talking about openness and
transparency and Bill 29 was actually the antithesis of that.
The way government worked to introduce this bill, we received it on a
Friday and started debating in the House on a Monday – such a major, major
piece of legislation. The way
that government worked to introduce this bill and to have this bill debated
in the House was also the antithesis to open, democratic, and accountable
processes.
This
was such a clear example of why it is so important that we had a committee
structure, that we have a standing committee structure in this House.
A democratic tool that is available for the use by this House of
Assembly, but that is controlled at this point by this government as to
whether or not we would avail of a very important democratic tool – they
chose not to use it.
Had
government chosen to use a parliamentary, democratic tool to look at Bill 29
before it came to the House, I doubt if it would have done as much harm to
them as it has now. Because harm
to government – we know that what happened is that it shook people's
confidence in the democratic process and it definitely shook people's
confidence in this government.
Everywhere you went and after the debate, people talked about Bill 29, about
the secrecy of this government, about the antidemocratic processes of this
government – and government is wearing it; we know that.
We know that they are wearing it.
The
role of government is to lead and to be the voice of people and to ensure
that our processes, how we deal with one another, how we live together, how
we share our resources, reflect the wants and the needs of the people.
This
government talks so much openness, transparency and consultation, but what
does this government did was totally ignore that.
They ignored what people had to say.
They ignored what experts had to say.
What I find very interesting right now, Mr. Speaker, is the
about-face because how many times did the government side of the House
during our filibuster criticize the Centre for Law and Democracy?
How many times did they criticize the Centre for Law and Democracy?
MR. KING:
Do you believe the
experts?
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for Justice keeps yelling out to me: Do I believe the experts – do I believe
the experts? What I do believe
is in a process where we consult with experts.
MR. KING:
Do you believe them?
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I would hope
that the Minister of Justice, probably because he says he is open and
transparent and interested in consultation, that he might maybe stop
heckling me right now and actually listen to what I have to say and then we
can talk back and forth.
Because, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing; we are debating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask for
protection.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
So,
Mr. Speaker, government a number of times totally discredited the Centre for
Law and Democracy when in fact what they are doing now is praising the fact
that they are getting an A plus from the Centre for Law and Democracy;
whereas during the filibuster, the Centre for Law and Democracy were not
fit. They were not fit for
anything.
Let
me read, Mr. Speaker, something from Hansard during the filibuster.
A Member of the House of Assembly said, and I am quoting word for
word, talking about the Centre for Law and Democracy, “This outfit, whoever
they are, this two-bit outfit that was quoted from TV, who supposedly have
some expertise in this stuff, rank us behind these countries I just
mentioned.”
That
is what this government felt about the Centre for Law and Democracy, and
incredibly they said, “This outfit, whoever they are, this two-bit outfit …
.” I would like to think that
maybe what we have is a government that is two-faced, because now what we
have is a government who is totally praising what they once called the
two-bit outfit.
So,
Mr. Speaker, again, it took this government a long time, a long time –
MR. KING:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I accept the
member's eagerness to condemn and criticize the policies of government, but
I believe that there are Standing Orders and a code of ethics that clearly
indicates that it would be unacceptable to indicate members here as being
two-bit Members of the House of Assembly or part of government.
I would ask her to retract that statement.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
never once called government two-bit.
What I quoted was that government members were calling the Centre for
Law and Democracy, as I quote, “this two-bit outfit”.
Never once did I call government a two-bit outfit.
I am
aware of the sensitivities of government; I know that they are
hypersensitive about this particular issue, because this particular issue
was so badly handled –so very, very badly handled.
I can imagine how they would think that they would have been called a
two-bit government. I can
understand why they think that could have been said about them.
However, Mr. Speaker, in fact –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, in fact, it
was their words. Calling the
Centre for Law and Democracy, which they are praising right now, a two-bit
outfit. Imagine, a two-bit
outfit.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Shame.
MS ROGERS:
Shame.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on because I have a few more
issues that I would really like to bring to the floor.
In Bill 29, the Progressive Conservative government with their
regressive policy broke its own commitment for greater transparency,
accountability, and freedom of information which it once claimed was the
hallmark of its government. They
did the antithesis – the absolute antithesis – of what they said they
believed in.
Mr.
Speaker, government ignored us.
Government ignored everybody on this side of the House.
Government ignored academics who were experts in this area.
Government ignored the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am sure government would be hard pressed to find anybody in the
Province who felt that Bill 29 was a good thing.
As a matter of fact, I would think that some of the political
activity that we have seen in the past year would show the loss of
confidence in government because of Bill 29.
We
are here debating this bill because of the public outrage.
The public was outraged by the
measures that government tried to foist on what they assumed would be an
indifferent public. They learned
the hard way the public is not indifferent.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the public cares.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador care passionately about their
democracy, about our democracy.
The public of Newfoundland and Labrador care passionately about the
parliamentary procedure.
What
has happened is that this government had a cynical view of the public.
I had an optimistic view, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
I had an optimistic view
and a respectful view of the public because we listened.
We listened to what the public was saying.
We listened to our academics.
We listened to expertise from across the country.
It
took the government losing so much face.
That was the only thing that moved them forward and having this
commission and inquiry.
Mr.
Speaker, the former Premier Danny Williams, who many people can credit their
own political careers because of him, quoted former American President
Abraham Lincoln about his own government.
He said, “Let the people know the truth and the country is safe.”
Williams said his government would, “keep the people of this Province
fully informed; there will be no secret documents, there will be no hidden
agenda. If you and I know the
facts then we will collectively decide the best course for our future.”
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not what this government did.
Bill 29 was full of the provisions for keeping documents secret and
tools for allowing government to hide agendas.
Bill 1 reverses so much of the damage that was done by Bill 29.
It is almost like pressing the restart button.
Mr.
Speaker, whose victory is this?
This is not a government victory.
This is a victory that has been gained by the parliamentary experts
in our Province, the academics.
This is a victory that can be claimed by non-profit organizations, by groups
who care about human rights, who care about democracy, and who care about
their communities.
Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador made presentations.
This is a victory on behalf of all the people who made presentations
to the Independent Statutory Review Committee.
This is a victory on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador; all those people who wrote letters, who wrote emails, who made
phone calls, and who spoke to their MHA.
This is a victory on behalf of our party who pushed and pushed and
worked through the filibuster.
Mr.
Speaker, three years later, $1.1 million later –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
– Bill 1 is a victory,
but it is not a victory that can be claimed by this government.
It is a victory that can be claimed by the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
It
is a new dawning, Mr. Speaker. I
believe that this Province is bursting at its seams with hope.
It is the dawning of a new age of citizen activism.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS ROGERS:
I am happy that we have
entered into that new age.
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the hon. member
that her speaking time has expired.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is certainly an honour today to rise and speak to Bill 1, An Act to Provide
the Public with Access to Information and Protection of Privacy.
I
have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with this legislation.
It was not very long ago when this government came out with another
piece of legislation. It was
actually the legislation that this legislation is replacing, Bill 29, An Act
to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
This
piece of legislation we could not support and we did not support.
When you look at what was in these two pieces of legislation if you
put them up side by side, Mr. Speaker, you will find, just as the commission
found, that there was a huge difference in the content.
When
you look through Hansard in the spring of 2012 you will find that we on this
side did not support this legislation, Bill 29.
Most people in the Province did not support it.
Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not support it to the
point, Mr. Speaker, where I think we set a filibuster record in debate which
eventually the government invoked closure on debate and it was taken off the
table. Our leader stated at the
time that our policy would be to repeal Bill 29.
As I
said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I will support Bill 1.
I think it is only fair that we take a look at what could have been
done to avoid having to go through this legislation, changing it, getting a
commission set up to go through the changes, and to look at what the savings
could be to taxpayers of this Province, and I think just as important, the
frustration the people of this Province went through with Bill 29.
I am
happy to see that the government has finally made the right choice, our
choice, by tabling Bill 1.
Unfortunately, for all of us, as my hon. colleague from St. John's North
stated yesterday, it cost over a million dollars of taxpayers' money.
This was only three years ago, I think it was, Mr. Speaker.
Nevertheless, it had to be done.
Access to information can now, we are hoping, be made available to
the people of the Province.
I
heard ministers on the government side, Mr. Speaker, as well as members back
in June 2012 stand up and support Bill 29.
Reference was made over the last two days, I think, to the comments
that ministers and members made back in June during the filibuster about how
they supported the previous bill, in all relevance to what is being tabled
here in this debate.
I
also listened to members talk about how good a piece of legislation Bill 1
is, Mr. Speaker, over the last two days – into today and a lot of comments
from yesterday. I found it
ironic that these very same members stood up and supported Bill 29 with
equal enthusiasm. As a matter of
fact, the Attorney General who brought in the legislation, I think, referred
to it as a bit of housekeeping.
I think that was the term that was used – a small bit of housekeeping.
Over
the last few days, Mr. Speaker – and I reference the Member for Bonavista
South saying that this legislation is vast, fair, engaging, and cost
effective. To a certain point
you want to agree with him, but does this mean that Bill 29, when he
supported that was slow, unfair, and disengaging?
I say at a cost of $1.1 million to change the legislation I do not
think it was very cost effective.
I think it was very expensive.
The
Member for Cape St. Francis, Mr. Speaker, spoke yesterday.
He actually said that Bill 29 was a bad word to the general public,
yet he supported it. The reason
I say this is because we had so many people from districts across the way
who came to us with their concerns because they knew they could not get
their MHAs to speak out against Bill 29.
That is why they came to us.
There was a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who came to the
Opposition with their concerns, because everyone on the government side
supported Bill 29 and they could not get their frustrations tabled.
I
heard the Minister of Wellness and Social Development, Advanced Education
and Skills –
MS DEMPSTER:
Seniors, Wellness.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Seniors, Wellness; I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Seniors, Wellness, Advanced Education and Skills.
He said yesterday they moved to a new place.
I am hoping he has referenced the transition from Bill 29 to Bill 1.
He said that the Centre for Law and Democracy said this is a piece of
world-class legislation.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, a short time ago that very same organization, in reference to
Bill 29, said it was a dangerously undemocratic move.
The same organization coming out in reference to Bill 29, and I must
say that the minister also supported, Mr. Speaker.
I am
not going to take up a lot of time, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to clue up because having
said you are going to support it, you need not beleaguer the point, but I
would like to reference the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker – and I listened to him intently – I actually
do not think he spoke at all to Bill 1 itself.
I do not think he did. He
spoke all around Bill 1, but he did say we understand what we are voting
for. That he did say.
So,
do I assume – and I am asking a question here, Mr. Speaker.
Can I assume, in reference to Bill 29, that the minister did not know
what he was voting for? They
voted on every amendment we put in, all six of them I think.
In
conclusion, I would just like to say that after many, many speeches, many,
many votes and over $1 million dollars, and I am assuming gallons of toner,
we are here to correct the legislation and to be on the verge of
implementing legislation that will finally benefit the people of our great
Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
always do, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say as I rise in this hon.
House here today, I would like to thank the great people of the District of
Lake Melville always for their continued support, for standing by me.
It is a pleasure and an honour to be part of this process here, Mr.
Speaker.
We
are listening to people on both sides of the House talk about where we were,
where we have come to, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to see a little more focus on where we are headed as
opposed to where we have been, obviously.
We have heard some commentary from this side of the House, that side
of the House.
The
Member for St. John's Centre stood up and talked about the filibuster.
We all remember that filibuster.
For the new people who are here, it was quite an experience.
I was certainly there, some long hours, some heated debate.
I saw a little bit of heckling here and there, a little bit of
catcalling. It was back and
forth, back and forth, contentious, then a little dull, and then back and
forth. It was heated and cooled,
heated and cooled.
When
you look at the filibuster and what we accomplished by going through that
process and by arriving at a point where we are right now today with Bill 1,
Mr. Speaker, looking at ATIPPA, we are doing our jobs.
It is as simple as that.
Anybody out there in the public right now, they have to vote in their
constituency for people who are putting themselves out there to come in here
and do just what we are doing right here, which is engage in the democratic
process. What we see here, we
see government brings forth legislation.
We see the Opposition and Third Party, they are going to hammer that.
They are going to try and make amendments.
Some will stick, some will not stick.
The
bottom line here is this, they get their say.
They are representing the people.
We have parties, it is a partisan system, and everybody knows that.
You are going to see that banter, but this is the process.
The process is simply this, and we heard the Member for St. John's
Centre reference that this was – and I love the flair, I love the fire, I
love the drama, I do – a victory for democracy, a victory for all those who
wrote letters in. Sure, that is
all well and fine, but what we are doing here is engaging in a process,
which by way we do our jobs and we end up having legislation that is the
absolute best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
That is what this is about.
Yes,
there was a filibuster. Yes,
there were amendments proposed, banter back and forth.
The long and short of it is this, we are arriving here in this
Legislature today and eventually we are going to vote on this.
It is great to see some people over across the way automatically say
that I am going to support this.
To
quote the member loosely there from Torngat Mountains: I have already said I
am voting for this, so why beleaguer the point.
There is no point to keep going on and on about it.
I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.
I think when we hear people – and again, I will drop a name here.
This guy Michael Karanicolas from the Centre for Law and Democracy,
said: we are going to arrive at a place which not only will we have the best
legislation and the best policies here, not only in terms of being a
Province of Canada, but perhaps anywhere, perhaps any jurisdiction in the
world, Mr. Speaker.
Here
we are, we have people across the way saying this.
They are going to support this.
This is going to make us the best we have ever been in terms of what
legislation we have in regard to access to information and privacy, Mr.
Speaker. We have heard people
say oh, well, no point in going on and on about it, we are going to support
that. I agree, we are going to
end up with an incredible piece of legislation here which is what we should
have.
This
is the process. This is what we
have to do on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at all times, which
is put things through the wringer.
It is the function of Opposition to come back against us.
It is the function of government to consider amendments and push
forward eventually ending up – and I can say this with all confidence, every
single member, regardless of political stripe, want to see the absolute best
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
If that means an investment in infrastructure, a piece of
legislation, a policy, a regulation, whatever that happens to be, Mr.
Speaker, I know we are all going to arrive at the same place.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion about the cost of this.
When it comes to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and no matter what
your motives are, if you are part of a group, if it is personal, whatever
the need for that information is, the ability to go out and get it, it is
hard to put a price on that. In
order for people who engage and do business with the government or are in
another organization, they could be – you know we are talking about
government agencies as well.
Maybe not in the public service proper, in the core if you will, but they
have to know that their privacy is going to be protected.
It is hard to put a price on that I say too.
So,
yes, we always look at what it is going to cost.
People are saying yes, well this is – oh, they are waving the Bill 1
around, this is the million-dollar bill.
The fact of the matter is that our particular – and we all know how
this came to be. We got our heat
from Bill 29, from the people out there in the public.
We got our heat. That
comes back then and we had a Premier on this side of the House who says, do
you know what? Let's put a
committee in there. Then our
current Premier says, without a doubt, whatever this committee comes back
with – these ninety-odd recommendations that came back – we are going to
implement them in their entirety, which says we are open to doing what is
best for the people of the Province.
We
talk about the price tag that was referenced on the other side by several
members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.
The people at home need to know one thing; it was not only the
amendments that were included in Bill 29 that we are looking at, but all
aspects in total of the legislation.
One piece of legislation affects the other.
In some cases subordinate legislation has to be looked at.
A
great exercise which will end up, as everybody is agreeing to, producing the
greatest piece of legislation in regard to ATIPPA that we have had up to
this point in time and make us leaders worldwide in this.
Everybody is saying they are agreeing with it, yet we are still going
to go back and we are going to banter, and that is fine too.
That is all part of that.
When it comes to transparency that is what we are about: protecting privacy.
There has to be an ability, and what we are going to do through this
whole process – we will fight it out in the Legislature all we want, but
when it comes down and we actually implement this, it will be user friendly
to the point where people who need that information, who want that
information, can get out there and access that information.
In
speaking to that, we know where we are all headed.
I think we can all say with some level of confidence, we know we
brought the legislation in here; we are going to want this to be pushed
forward. We are going to say
yes, they are going to say yes, and we have heard the Third Party say they
are going to say yes.
In
anticipation of that, Mr. Speaker, we have made a few moves in terms of
elimination of application fees, the increasing of hours – the enhancement
of the duties to assist applicants in looking for that information.
So what that says in a nutshell is simply this: It does not matter
what walk of life you come from, it does not matter what your financial
means allow you to do, you can engage and you can get information that you
are after, regardless of your financial circumstances in life.
That
just increases the level of open access to government, to government
information, to different bodies within government, Mr. Speaker.
Saying that, all the time while we consider taking away the fees and
increasing the hours and doing that stuff, we also made sure that the
identity of these applicants was going to be at the forefront in terms of
protecting the individuals who look for information.
This
all comes down, if you look at the whole gamut of what we are doing here, in
terms of the implementation plan that has to come with this, you have some
heavy-duty training that has to take place so that when people come looking
for this information you are going to know that they are being respected and
the co-ordinators within, whether it is a government department, some type
of public body or agency, they know, as the people who decide which
information gets out there, how to proceed with these requests and make sure
that everybody not only is being treated fairly, given the time that they
need in order to look at whatever piece of information they happen to be
after, but they are also respected, too, in terms of their identity as well.
So
with that, I will not belabour the point either, because I agree with the
Member for Torngat Mountains; I think this is a slam dunk in terms of where
we are headed. We are doing what
is best for the people of the Province, and we are fulfilling the function
of the Legislature, which is to put something to the floor, to consider it –
and the Opposition played a role in that too.
They proposed amendments, they give their critique on it, everybody
goes out into the media, and the media then put their take on it and put
that out to the people.
Yet,
the process is working, Mr. Speaker, because we are right back here today.
We are on the cusp, if you will – depending on how much the people on
the opposite side of the House want to live in the past, and they want to
get their pound of flesh, and they want to throw barbs back and forth.
That is all fine. The
bottom line here is that it is our duty, our responsibility, as members of
this Legislature, to end up in the very best place we possibly can with our
legislation for the people of the Province.
I
wholeheartedly believe we are doing that.
I think we are making changes right now in the interim to make sure
that this transition is going to be smooth.
We can all look back into the past and focus on that.
You guys can have your rhetoric and your spin and do whatever you
like, but the bottom line is this: We will be world leaders once again in
another area – this one just happens to be ATIPPA type of legislation.
We
are doing our job here. We have
no problem moving with forward on this side of the House.
I simply hope that all other members of the Legislature on the other
side of the House simply want to do what is right by the people of the
Province. Let's get this done.
Let's get this pushed through.
Let's get this to a vote, Mr. Speaker, and know that we will be
respected around the world for what we are going to be doing with this piece
of legislation. That this is a
positive news story for everybody who is either involved in looking for
information in this Province or they are part of a government body that is
going to be having their information accessed as well.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.
Once again, thanks for the opportunity to speak.
It is my pleasure and honour to get up on behalf of the people of
Lake Melville every time I do so.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the
Member for St. George's – Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
just want to make a few comments here on this bill today.
I do not think I will take my full time, but I just want to make a
few brief comments.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Take it all.
MR. REID:
We will see how it goes.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important that we put this bill into context of where
it came from and how we arrived at this point and exactly how this all came
about. I think it is important
that we review where things went and where things came from.
I wanted to look a little bit at where this legislation came from.
Mr.
Speaker, the PCs claim the credit for having brought forward these changes,
but, in fact, it is legislated that they have a review and the Committee
brought forward these changes.
So the government really did not have very much to do with bringing forward
these changes. They were just
the messenger, the courier, who brought it to the House.
They have not changed the legislation that was presented by the
Committee at all.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. REID:
Yes, maybe they should
try that more often.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Contract it out.
MR. REID:
Contract things out.
Mr.
Speaker, it is important to go back and look at Bill 29.
It is important to look at the
response to Bill 29 in this House at the time.
Democracy Watch – and it is interesting that some of the members
opposite are quoting Democracy Watch now, what they said about this current
piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. What
did they say about Bill 29? What
did they say? It is important to
note that Democracy Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan organization,
Canada's leading citizens' group advocating democratic reform, government
accountability, and corporate responsibility.
They are hardly a two-bit organization.
Mr.
Conacher, in a CBC interview, said: It is a dangerous and undemocratic move
that reduces access to public information that they paid to have a right to
know. That is what Democracy
Watch and Duff Conacher said at that time about Bill 29.
It is important to hear that.
Mr.
Speaker, he said as well: It goes against what the trend is across the
country which is towards more openness.
Instead this is towards more excessive unjustifiable and undemocratic
secrecy. He was not in favour of
Bill 29. He goes on to say
essentially it is in every area, there are more loopholes, more exemptions
to disclosure of information and they weaken enforcement as well.
When you do this, it is a double whammy and it leads to excessive,
unjustifiable secrecy at a greater level. That
is what Democracy said about Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, at the time.
It
is interesting again to note that the members are now sort of praising
Democracy Watch and what they have to say.
It is interesting to hear.
Mr. Conacher went on to say everyone should care about this piece of
legislation he was talking about.
Secrecy is a recipe for corruption, waste, and abuse of the public.
The strongest governments have weaknesses, and these weaknesses and
loopholes are always exploited when government wants to hide abuse, waste,
and corruption. If you do not
have a strong, open government law and enforcement system, with high
penalties for keeping excessive secrets, you will have bad governments that
will abuse people and communities and waste people's money.
Democracy Watch was very much against what the government at that
time was doing with Bill 29.
Other groups such as the Canadian Association of Journalists also spoke out
about this legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Newspapers Canada does an annual audit of freedom of information.
They noted that ours was the worst, most regressive piece of
legislation. It is interesting
to see the reaction to Bill 29.
Mr.
Speaker, the government at the time sort of hoped that people would not care
about an issue so inconsequential or immediate to their everyday lives as
freedom of information. They
thought it was too abstract for people to get engaged in and care about.
Mr.
Speaker, they were somewhat surprised when they started to find that the
galleries were full in this House as they debated this legislation.
They were surprised to find that people were talking about this in
their daily lives. It became a
real issue, but they pushed forward anyway in the face of this public
opposition to this bill. They
pushed forward anyway.
Because they could, because they were a majority government, because they
had the powers that a majority government had, they thought they did not
have to listen to the public.
They thought the public would forget about it and they could just continue
on and move on to another issue.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the public rose up and opposed Bill 29
at the time.
While everyone in the Province was speaking out against Bill 29, speaking
against it, Mr. Speaker, what were members of the government opposite
saying? What were they saying?
What kind of things were they saying about the legislation?
It is important to know and to review some of the things they were
saying about the legislation as well.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice at the time, talking about Bill 29 said,
“The cornerstone of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
is openness, transparency, and accountability, and our government is
committed to this important piece of legislation.”
They were committed to that important piece of legislation.
That
is the piece of legislation that everyone now recognizes needed to be
replaced by this new bill that we are debating today.
It is important to see what some of the other people – Mr. Speaker,
one of the members who is maybe most honest in his expression of the
government's view on this Bill 29 was the Member for Gander.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who?
MR. REID:
The Member for Gander.
Yes, he was one of the most honest people when it came to expressing
the government's view on this.
What
he said at the time, he argued that the public did not have a right to know,
actually. He was expressing the
government's view, I assume, at this time.
He said: everything would be on the table except every day scrutiny,
not only of the Opposition but scrutiny of the government, scrutiny of the
public at large, and scrutiny of the media.
Is that the way a democratic society works, he asked.
I
say to the hon. member that this is not the way a democratic society works.
So he was speaking out against access to information and excessive
access to information, Mr. Speaker.
I think he was really expressing the views of the government at that
time. It is important to note
that as well.
It
is interesting as well that others of the government at the time talked
about the difficulty of keeping track of all these – really the bother that
it would be if people had the right to ask for information and get it, the
bother for government to go and look for information about things that were
happening in government. What a
bother that would be.
Several members talked about the countless number of Access to Information
requests somehow blocking up government.
They talked about numbers in the thousands.
The current Premier talked about and I quote from him, he said: they
make countless requests for information, Mr. Speaker.
One
of the problems they had with access to information is that people might
want to actually access information.
It was a bit of an issue there.
CBC sort of did a little bit of investigating on this.
What they found out was that in 2010-2011 there were 581 requests for
the full year. Then the next
year there were 579 requests under freedom of information legislation.
So it was hardly excessive at all, Mr. Speaker.
It is important to note some of the
comments that were being made by members opposite at that time.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, what did the Liberal Party do at this time?
What did the Liberal Party, what did the NDP, and what did the
Opposition do? What did the
other people in this House do at that time?
They spoke out against this bill.
They raised amendments to this bill.
They used all the options that were available to them to try to stop
this piece of legislation, to slow it down so people would have time to
think about what was actually happening, to give the government an
opportunity to rethink what they were doing.
Did they rethink it?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Three years later.
MR. REID:
Three years later.
Yes, it was one of the longest debates in this Legislature.
Government just pushed forward.
In fact, they did not just allow the debate to go on, Mr. Speaker.
What they did was they used the most dramatic instruments they had.
They used closure to close down the debate.
They brought in closure to stifle the debate, to stifle the
Opposition, to close them down in this House.
There is a saying about House operations.
It is said that Oppositions have a chance to have their say, but then
governments get their way. So,
Oppositions have a chance to speak out against a piece of legislation, but
the government, if they are a majority government, eventually gets their
way. One of the ways of
determining how democratic a government is, Mr. Speaker, is how much of a
say do they let the Opposition have.
How much of a say do they let the Opposition have on legislation.
There are a number of things that a government can use to close down debate
in the Legislature. One is
closure, which they do not allow any more amendments – when everyone has a
chance to speak, they do not allow any other amendments, and they close it
down. That is the instrument
they used to close down, to stifle the debate on this piece of legislation.
That
is what happened. That is how
cocky they were. That is what
they did, Mr. Speaker. People
should remember that when we look at what is happening here today.
Mr.
Speaker, the other point I want to make is about the review committee.
Government seems to be taking credit for this piece of legislation,
but really government did not write this piece of legislation.
They are taking credit for it – how great it is; it is wonderful.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who wrote it?
MR. REID:
It was written by the
Committee. Did they appoint this
Committee just out of some sense of we think we have made a mistake?
I have not heard too many people over there even say we have made a
mistake. Has anyone actually
said we have made a mistake with Bill 29?
No one said we have made a mistake over there.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I do not think so.
I did not hear it.
MR. REID:
No, I did not hear it.
Usually there is some kind of truth and reconciliation.
Usually the first part is saying I am sorry; I made a mistake.
That is usually the first part of winning your way back into
respectability; but, no, they have not said that.
Maybe the next speaker will get up and say we are sorry.
Maybe when the minister closes debate, he will get up and say we are
sorry. I do not know.
I am hopeful.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Maybe he will say
whoops.
MR. REID:
Yes, even whoops would
do. Even if he could say whoops,
sorry, then we could maybe move on but I do not know.
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee came forward with this bill and it is here in this
House and we are dealing with it now.
Three years later, after people have been denied information, they
have obstructed the type of political debate that we have on important
issues in this Province for three years with their draconian Bill 29 that no
one agreed with, and they have not even said they are sorry.
I am
going to conclude now, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say that this story has a happy ending, I guess.
This story has a happy ending.
It has a happy ending not because of anything that government has
done or not because of anything the government has said; it has a happy
ending because the people stood up and said enough.
They finally forced the government to come back and bring in a better
piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
This
story has a happy ending, but it will be interesting to see if the attitude
is there, which is really needed, the attitude of openness and transparency
when it comes to a political debate that we need so much in this Province,
Mr. Speaker. That is why freedom
of information and access to information is so important, because we should
have a good political debate.
People who pay to have studies done and people who pay employees' wages
through their tax dollars should have a right to information that the
government has so they can have a good debate and participate in a good
debate.
Mr.
Speaker, those are the points I wanted to make.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker; those are my comments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
happy to stand in my place on behalf of the people of the beautiful District
of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
Everyone has been mentioning their districts here, so I thought I would
follow suit and do the same, Mr. Speaker.
I
was not around for the Bill 29 debate, but I have not heard more about any
other bill than Bill 29. That
was back in 2012. I have been
here two years and here we are still talking about one of the longest
filibusters in the history of the House.
The
Member for Lake Melville got up a few moments ago.
He said today we should be talking about where we are going.
I think it was Alice in Wonderland or someone who said we cannot know where we are
going unless we know where we came from.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, even though we support Bill 1 going forward
today, we have a responsibility to talk about what happened and the
expensive mistakes that happened around Bill 29.
That is why even though we support it, we are not just going to stand
and vote, we are going to stand and have our say and we are going to remind
the people.
It
is hard to believe. I have sat
the last couple of days and I have listened to members across the way get up
and act cocky and quotes – I could hardly believe it, Mr. Speaker.
If they were not going to stand and say we are sorry that we have
cost the taxpayers of this Province over a million dollars, stay sitting
down for shame's sake.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
I was thinking as I
walked down this morning – we go to a meeting every morning in our caucus
room. When we are going down the
stairs, Mr. Speaker, there are windows there to the playground of the
children who are cared for here on site.
I could not help but think, as I looked at all those little children,
that is why we have to get this right.
That is why we cannot continue to make million-dollar mistakes on
pieces of legislation. I do not
know how many pieces of legislation goes through the House in the run of a
year, but I can tell you now if everyone cost a million dollars we would be
in a sadder state than the serious fiscal state that we are already in.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to mention the empty promises of the PC Blue Book.
When I look at it, I think it is no wonder that the public is so
skeptical of politicians – it is no wonder.
I quote him often, my colleague for Carbonear – Harbour Grace, when
he talks about it is the people's House and it is the people's money.
It would do us all good to remind ourselves on a regular basis that
is why we are here; we work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are not in the House to play house, Mr. Speaker.
Bill
29 was a very, very expensive mistake.
Our leader is on record, he said many times, that the first order of
business for a Liberal government would be to repeal Bill 29.
They knew that and one by one by one, like my colleague for St.
John's North says, you can hear the beep, beep, beep; the bus is backing up.
As we put things forward, slowly we are seeing them implement the
changes, but some of them are very expensive ones like this.
My
colleague for Torngat, one time, said it is hard to govern from this side,
but we are doing the best we can.
We could list a lot of examples of items that we have put forward and
that they are beginning to listen –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS DEMPSTER:
They are beginning to
listen a little bit too late, Mr. Speaker.
Twelve years in, and now they are saying that they are starting to
listen.
In
the Blue Book, it was quoted that information belongs in the public domain.
It was Williams I think who said it would significant to completely
ignore recommendations of citizens, and a PC government will proclaim new
Freedom of Information legislation which will include Cabinet documents.
What did we actually see in reality, Mr. Speaker?
We saw a draconian piece of legislation, the most careless, the most
ruthless probably that the Province have ever seen.
I
could cite numerous examples where reports were not released within the
thirty days that they had promised, and some that had never been released at
all. The infrastructure report,
Mr. Speaker, denied access to documents of $5 billion infrastructure program
– $5 billion – and the report was not released.
When asked about it, the former Premier said government had nothing
to hide. She talked about how
Loveys had alternate ways of finding the information, but she could not
suggest any. She could not
suggest any of the ways that he had in finding alternate information.
Mr.
Speaker, I will go back to Bill 1 that we are debating here today.
Wangersky in The Telegram in 2008 said, “Transparency and accountability are like
an exercise program: practice conscientiously, or it'll end up doing you no
good … .”
Mr.
Speaker, I thought, what a lot of truth in that statement.
It reminded me of when you buy a treadmill.
Some people buy a treadmill and they think well, I am going to lose
all kinds of weight now because I bought a treadmill, and they stick it in
the corner. That is what this
government reminds me of, they think they are fooling the people because
they are saying we bought the treadmill.
We bought the treadmill, so now the results are going to come.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, that has not happened.
Now
they are saying, listen to us.
We did not do it right the past twelve years.
We did not listen, despite the public outcry during the Bill 29
debate, seventy hours of debate.
The House Leader said we are going to give you all the time in the world,
this is important. We are going
to give you all the time in the world.
What did they do? We were
talking about something as important as Bill 29 and they shut down debate
and invoked closure. That is
what they did. Here we are now,
three years later we are back and we are discussing Bill 29 again because
they did not do it right the first time, I say, Mr. Speaker.
At
the time the Bill 29 debate was going ahead, government said no one cares.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people out there who do not follow
politics on a day-to-day basis.
They have their work, they have their family, and they have their lives.
You know, I could not help but think about that quote: you can fool
some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people
all of the time.
People saw what was happening.
They got involved. They began to
listen, Mr. Speaker, as the debate went on.
I am glad that the people spoke up.
I am glad the people said we have a concern about what is about to
happen here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS DEMPSTER:
Because we had a
government that was elected by the people to represent the people, and
clearly they never listened.
That is why we are here in April, 2015, discussing a bill that was rammed
through in 2012.
I
could not help, Mr. Speaker, as I sat here thinking about Muskrat Falls and
all of the headache, the multi-billion dollar project, and our
grandchildren, how they are going to pay for that.
Bill 29 was rammed through in time to sanction Muskrat Falls.
I truly believe that.
That was a big reason why Bill 29 was rammed through, so they could sanction
Muskrat Falls and they could cover everything up.
The only two independent reviews, the Joint Review Panel and the PUB,
were not even given time, Mr. Speaker, to do their work, to say whether
Muskrat Falls was the least-cost option or not.
That is a conversation for a whole other day.
Mr.
Speaker, we see that at the time when government said no one cares, we know
the public was calling. Emails
were coming in like never before.
We have to give credit where credit is due.
As I said earlier, they may not follow everything that goes on, but
they know when something does not look right, when something smells wrong.
Here we are a million dollars later.
CBC
did a poll at the time. Media
was beginning to weigh in on this.
Media likes to follow what happens here in the House of Assembly.
They have a job to do.
They like to report to the people.
They were concerned about things being covered up and information
that they would not have.
CBC
conducted a poll when the debate was going on.
There was concern that government wanted to shut it down, stifle
people, just like was common of this government.
We will no longer listen, we will no longer allow the Opposition to
have a say, to debate this in a healthy democratic way.
CBC
put out a poll and said government plans to invoke closure.
Do you know what the results were?
Mr. Speaker, 57 per cent said keep the debate going.
Eighty per cent said they supported the filibuster – 80 per cent of
the public who responded in that poll – and 69 per cent said they did not
support any changes at all.
I
would be remiss if I did not mention the former Liberals who made changes to
this piece of legislation that had not been changed for a couple of decades,
Kelvin Parsons and Roger Grimes.
The work was done, Mr. Speaker.
As I
was doing a little bit of research, Mr. Speaker, when I decided I would get
up and speak on Bill 29, everywhere I looked anything connected with Bill 29
was overwhelming negative comments.
I could not find anywhere where there was support for Bill 29, which
just amazed me. It amazed me
that it ever got through.
It
gained national coverage. The
bill we are discussing here today at the time the filibuster was happening
gained national coverage. Many
groups were advocating, Mr. Speaker.
When
I think about Premier Marshall, the former Premier, yes, he was a fine man.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that even a man of his calibre would
refer to it as a bit of housekeeping.
I am sure now if you were to ask former Premier Marshall, he could
not agree that it was a bit of housekeeping.
Our
current Premier, Mr. Speaker, said this is not a bad piece of legislation,
it is a good piece of legislation.
I wonder what he would stand here today and say.
Is he saying now it is still a good piece of legislation but we had
to listen to the people, or would he actually stand and say the people were
right, this was bad legislation.
My
colleague for St. George's – Stephenville East mentioned earlier, not one
person got up on that side, not one person, and said we are sorry to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we made a mistake.
We did not listen. We
plowed ahead. We ignored not one
road sign telling us there was something wrong, not another road side, but
seventy hours of road signs, and media coverage, provincial coverage,
national coverage. As a result
of that, it has cost the taxpayers of this Province a million dollars.
Mr.
Speaker, I represent a district with lots of issues.
We just celebrated in a number of communities volunteer week.
It is amazing what some of the volunteers do in my community.
They often come to me and say, can you help push this through,
$5,000. If we could get $10,000
for this certain program we could run programs in our community for a year.
When
I think about the wastage that happens like this, that should never be.
It just bothers me when I think about what a million dollars could
do, and over and over again.
People do not listen when they are elected to represent the people and to
work for the people. You do not
listen.
The
people have the final say. That
is what we see here with Bill 29, the people had the final say.
Just like when we go to the polls very soon, Mr. Speaker, we are
going to see the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are going to have
the final say again when they put the X on the paper.
Mr.
Speaker, closure was imposed after seventy hours of debate – imagine.
Here we are today, flip-flop, flip-flop.
I looked back through a number of the press releases that our leader
put out. He had so much concern,
but because the numbers are more when they voted to shut down, the House
shut down. At the time when this
was being debated our leader said: proposed changes are severe and harmful
to democracy. We proposed on
this side a number of amendments, but they refused and they wanted to bring
in those sweeping changes.
My
colleague for St. Barbe at the time said: Why do we still have to fight so
hard to get government to do the right thing?
I thought about that, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know how it seems so clear to us when you are listening to
the hundreds and the thousands of people giving you a message and you ignore
that. My colleague for St. Barbe
said: Why do we still have to fight so hard?
Open your ears, listen to the radio, read your emails, the people
know.
At
the time this was going on our leader called it a national embarrassment.
Here we are three years later still talking about it.
Mr. Speaker, our leader said it is ironic that government shut down
debate and forced a vote on access to information.
The irony is not lost on the people; shutting down debate and forcing
a vote on access to information.
In
my closing, I would like to sum up a few things of what I see around Bill 29
and this government. They
promised openness, Mr. Speaker, but they provided closure.
They promised transparency and buried information where the people
could not see it – buried it.
They promised accountability. We
heard it over and over and over, but they passed legislation that made it
impossible to achieve.
Mr.
Speaker, yes, we are moving forward into a new age.
Many around me will know there is a quote that I love.
It says: There is a reason why your windshield is bigger than your
rear-view mirror. That is
because we are moving forward and we are looking forward.
We
have to glance back from time to time to learn valuable lessons.
Bill 29 was a very expensive lesson.
I hope we have learned from that.
I hope we do not have to stand here too many more times and debate
issues and legislation similar to this that is repealed, Mr. Speaker.
I am
very pleased, along with my colleagues here today, to say I support Bill 1.
I think it is a fantastic example again of where the people know what
is happening. The people deserve
the truth. The people deserve
openness, honesty, transparency, and accountability.
I know that is what myself and my
colleagues work every day on this side of the House to give them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
will just stand to have a few words on Bill 1, the repeal of Bill 29.
I do not know if anybody in this House finds it ironic.
Here we are bringing in a bill for openness and transparency, and
here is the government forcing night sessions so they can get it out of the
House of Assembly. I mean there
is something ironic about that.
Here
they are saying mea culpa, we cost the Province a million dollars.
We made mistakes. We
tried to hide everything from government, but now we want to rush everything
through so that we can get it done.
Do you notice, Mr. Speaker?
I do not know if anybody noticed here the last three or four times,
not one of those members will stand up and speak to this bill.
They
will not even stand up and speak to this bill.
Can you imagine that?
What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker, having a government bringing in a
bill and not even putting up members to speak to the bill?
That just says a lot about this.
That just says a lot about this bill.
That says a lot about the actual embarrassment of this government and
what they put the people of the Province through.
It
is fine. I thank Clyde Wells and
the committee for doing their review.
It was a great review. It
was a thorough review. They
brought in a lot of great recommendations.
We will support this bill, but again we have to explain the process
of how this came through because there are going to be other times.
Like I said earlier, this cost the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, the taxpayers, over a million dollars – $1 million dollars excess,
more than that actually.
I
just look back at some of the things you could do with a million dollars;
water and sewer, some roadwork –
AN HON. MEMBER:
The Family Violence
Intervention Court.
MR. JOYCE:
The Family Violence
Court, Mr. Speaker. We look at
some people who may need home care –
AN HON. MEMBER:
A seniors' advocate.
MR. JOYCE:
– seniors' advocate. Yet that
just gets pushed off. They will
not even put anyone up there on the other side to speak about the waste of
money.
I
remember when the Premier stood up and talked about the deficit that they
were having. They were saying
everything is on the table, but they can go out and waste over a million
dollars – absolute waste, over a million dollars.
Mr.
Speaker, I was a part of this debate.
I will tell you the quote that I made and the biggest winners of that
debate on Bill 29 that the government rammed through.
I was part of debate and I was here the whole time.
We went through it.
Sometimes it got heated and other things.
You know the biggest winners of Bill 29 were whoever owned shares in
Sharpie, the black markers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Those are the biggest
winner of this. I said that
then, Mr. Speaker. I was scoffed
at. I was mocked.
I did not know what I was talking about.
It was the best piece of legislation in this Province this government
ever brought through.
Mr.
Speaker, day after day after day they tried to wear us down.
We even took shifts.
There were six of us here; we even took shifts.
We even took shifts to make sure that this did not get through until
people and other groups got to really look at it.
We got scoffed at for doing our job.
Actually we were berated, wasting money.
We
were told we were wasting money keeping the House of Assembly open in the
night times over Bill 29. Mr.
Speaker, guess what? They
changed their mind. Public
pressure from all the groups outside that my colleagues mentioned; the
public pressure.
This
has nothing to do with conscience.
This has nothing to do with wanting to be open and accountable.
This has all to do with public pressure.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, I was proud to stand up with
the Liberal Opposition and put in all those amendments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
I was proud that we stood
tall and we said there are major problems here.
I was proud that Dwight Ball, the Leader of the Opposition – sorry,
Mr. Speaker – stood tall, kept up the filibuster until this government
brought in closure on an openness and accountability bill.
Guess what? I was out in
that room I guess about 5:00 in the morning when they brought in closure.
We got it done.
Do
you know the first thing Dwight Ball, the Leader of the Opposition did – I
am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Do you
know what he did? He put out a
press release saying we are going to repeal Bill 29 the first move that we
get in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
That is the first thing
he did. I was proud to be part
of it. I know all of our caucus
were proud that we all stood tall together, Mr. Speaker, for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I heard the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale and the Member for
Lake Melville saying stop going back in the past, let's move forward.
MR. RUSSELL:
Absolutely.
MR. JOYCE:
The Member for Lake
Melville said, absolutely.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, if you really mean it, the Member for Lake Melville who said,
absolutely, and the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale – when they gave the
Speech from the Throne, the Premier started criticizing the Liberals from
2003. Here in my next fourteen
minutes, stand up and say: Premier, do not go in the past.
Do not go back, go forward.
Here
is your opportunity if you really mean it.
If you do not, don't get up here with rhetoric and try to embarrass
us. Here is your opportunity.
I have fourteen minutes left.
Stand up – they are both sitting in their seats – and say: Premier
Davis you were wrong. Do not go
back, go forward. Here is your
opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
They can sit and smile,
Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you when they want to look over here and try to
be condescending on the people on this side – if you really mean it, do it
to everybody in the House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said before, they do not have the intestinal fortitude or
the courage –
MR. A. PARSONS:
He said guts today.
MR. JOYCE:
– or what we call guts in
Newfoundland and Labrador, to tell the Premier what you are doing is wrong.
He can tell us, though.
So you keep your position now, but do not go telling me that I should have
look in the past when you do not have the guts to tell the Premier do not
look back in the past. I just
got that off my chest because I hate people being condescending on us.
Mr.
Speaker, when they were forced to bring this Bill 1 in, when they were
forced by the general public – and the Leader of the Opposition vowed to
bring it in – they were out in the media.
What a spin was given about the Opposition.
I
will just go back, Mr. Speaker, even before Bill 29.
I am going to bring something up in this House – and I know there are
some people who are going to say not this again – the hospital in Corner
Brook. Do you know how long it
took me to get the Stantec report for the hospital people in Corner Brook?
AN HON. MEMBER:
How long?
MR. JOYCE:
Almost four months under
Bill 29. The other reports, they
even put in extensions after extensions after extensions because there is
some third party, the contractor, the person who actually did the report.
Mr.
Speaker, people expect me to stand here and say oh, let's forget about all
that. When the people out in
Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland and Labrador have been fighting for
the hospital since it was committed in 2007, eight years ago, they have been
fighting for it, and they expect me – oh, that is all right; do not worry
about Bill 29. Do not worry
about the past. The people in
Corner Brook could have waited a few more years.
That is just one big example, major example, Bill 29 – why the
pressure was put on this government to repeal Bill 29.
There are three or four ministers over there; I can look at three of them.
The member – I do not even know – for Whitbourne.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Harbour Main.
MR. JOYCE:
Harbour Main, Whitbourne,
Mr. Speaker, and I said it before – Harbour Main, Whitbourne.
AN HON. MEMBER:
No, Harbour Main.
MR. JOYCE:
Harbour Main, sorry.
He was the only member, when I had when I got in Estimates, who was
honest to the people of Western Newfoundland.
Forget Bill 29, the rest – even the Premier who was Minister of
Transportation and Works sat there.
I stood up because I asked him in Estimates for a copy of the report.
He
got up and the Premier said to me: I did not say that.
I said: Yes, in Estimates.
I did not, he said.
Estimates, he said, is not even transcribed yet.
So I said is that right now, trying to embarrass me and the people of
Western Newfoundland. What did I
do? I went down and got an
audiotape, got it transcribed, got up and tabled it.
Guess what? We got the
report after embarrassing the Premier who was the Minister of Transportation
and Works.
That
is the kind of stuff that people – this is not about me.
This is not about the Opposition.
This is about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
When you want to talk about the health care of people of Newfoundland
and Labrador – and I happen to be the one elected for the Bay of Islands to
speak on their behalf and they are coming to me and saying let's get the
information and I go to government and I cannot get the information.
You cannot get the information because you are stonewalled.
You are actually stonewalled.
Mr.
Speaker, I will give you lots of good examples.
I will give you another one.
I put in a freedom of information, and I have to say whoever was on
the government they did pretty good.
They gave me back fifty-three pages and not one word was given to me
without the blackout, not one word on fifty-three – even the pages were
blacked out and I had to count the pages.
Even that was blacked out because they did not know how many pages
were in the report. I actually
had to count them myself.
That
is the kind of stuff that this government was forced into.
Actually forced into, Mr. Speaker, to the people.
I can see why no one wants to stand up over there to be embarrassed
by what they put the people of the Province through.
I can see why now they want to say let's go all night now so we get
this out of the House of Assembly, so we can get this done.
I am
willing to bet, from what I am saying here now, they are going to start
putting speakers up. I am
willing to bet they are going to start putting speakers up, because the
embarrassment is getting too loud.
Because if you put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through
what they had for a number of times, telling them we know what is best for
you – we know what is best.
Mr.
Speaker, a government needs to be open, transparent, and accountable.
We always said that, and you have to keep the privacy of individuals.
There is absolutely no problem with that; you have to have privacy of
the people. When you try to have
the openness and be transparent, you cannot give the facade that you are
doing it. You cannot just do
that. Under Bill 29 that is
exactly what they were doing: Telling all the people of the Province do not
mind the Opposition, do not mind all the other groups, do not mind the
reporters that were around saying all this, they are just looking to get
more information and print more stories.
We know what is best, Mr. Speaker, without listening to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
find it strange that when we get into a debate like Bill 29 and you put in
amendments that this Legislature is supposed to work properly and when we
put in amendments we get scoffed at and we get laughed at.
There was not one amendment – and I have a list of them here – not
one amendment that was accepted by government.
Do you know why? Because
Bill 29 was perfect. Bill 29 did
not need any amendments. It was
the best piece of legislation that was brought in this House of Assembly,
Mr. Speaker. That is what this
government said: the best piece of legislation.
There was no need – how can you make something more perfect than it
is already? How can you do, Mr.
Speaker? How can Opposition or
how can the general public know something more than this government?
I
tell you another part of this Bill 29.
I really feel, not only as Opposition, but as people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, this is one that I think made the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador suffer. What happened
here – and part of this Bill 29 that the government brought in either
overtly or quietly, however they did it, is when myself, as a member of the
Legislature doing some inquiries – get this; if I had to do an inquiry on
behalf of a constituent, I had to go to a minister's EA to get an answer.
Here is the ironic part about that; that was one of the most
degrading things this government ever brought in as part of Bill 29.
Guess what? Here is the ironic
fact, and here is the degrading fact for the people that we are elected to
serve: If I was making an inquiry on behalf of a constituent to the
department, I have to sign a declaration and this person has to sign it
saying I give you access to my information.
Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of that; you had to do it, probably.
The minute we take it and make an inquiry, the EA to the minister
does not need to sign any declaration.
They can take all the private information they want, because this
government said no, we are going to have control of everything.
Now
is that a double standard? What
do you think, Mr. Speaker? Do
you think that is a double standard?
Honestly –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Sounds like Stephen
Harper.
MR. JOYCE:
Sounds like Stephen
Harper – no, I do not know if he was that bad.
He is pretty bad, but I do not know if it works like that in Ottawa.
Mr.
Speaker, that was degrading – that was actually degrading.
Not only was it degrading to the constituents, it made them suffer
because it slowed everything down.
I can give you examples where I personally made inquiries, had to go
to the EA, the EA was off for ten days – ten days, off.
So I said: Is there someone else?
Oh no, we have no one to fill in.
Well, can I speak to the minister?
Oh no, they are busy, they cannot talk to you.
So I said this person has to wait – in one case up to ten days; ten
days and you could not get an answer.
You
can see why the frustration is on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Can you see the frustration built up?
Can you see why there was so much pressure on this government to
change this, Mr. Speaker?
It
is common sense that if we are here to serve the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, we should do it to the best of our abilities.
Take any position you like, but if there are barriers set up we
should take them down. We should
not put up barriers, like go to our EA.
Then by the time you get an answer back from the EA either the issue
has resolved on its own, or there is so much suffering done to the
(inaudible) that you are supposed to be working with.
That
was just another part of Bill 29 that came in, Mr. Speaker.
I will just give you another example.
I do not want to bring up too much because there are a lot of
issues.
I
know the minister may have brought it in today that he is going to do a
review on Crown lands. He is
going to bring in a review on Crown lands.
I am going to put another Freedom of Information in because I know I
am not going to get the information – on the land use advisory committee,
Don Downer. The last count I had
from Don Downer he was up to $700,000 of a land use advisory committee for a
committee that was set up five years ago, Mr. Speaker, and they do not even
have it done.
For
three years there were no meetings, yet it is up to $700,000.
I have to put in a Freedom of Information to find out how much it
costs and try to get a copy.
There is no report, by the way.
There is no report. I am trying
to get a copy of where they are right now.
That is what I have to do.
Why
doesn't the minister, who is here listening, save me the time to put in a
Freedom of Information. Stand up
and say how much Don Downer is after getting paid for this part-time
position. Oh, he is part of
waste management now.
Here
is what happened, Mr. Speaker, and I had to put this into the Freedom of
Information to get this. When
they stopped the land management use committee – which is an advisory
committee that wasted almost $700,000 – when everybody stopped that, they
said: oh, bye the way, oh geez, you have no paycheque.
We will put you part of land management now.
He is over there now getting a
paycheque. He ran for the PC
Party. There is so much
disgruntlement over there, over in waste management, it is unbelievable.
Now,
the big question I am going be asking, Mr. Speaker, because for three years
he was not getting any money from land management for that advisory
committee apparently. Now he is
over doing the waste management.
They said we started up this land use advisory committee, is he getting paid
again? Mr. Speaker, I cannot
find out.
This
is the kind of information, Mr. Speaker, under the Bill 29 that we are
trying to find out. This is
another one. Just look at that,
$700,000 for an advisory committee for five, six years and still no report.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, $700,000.
That was the last now. It
might have gone up a bit, I am not sure.
I cannot find out.
Mr.
Speaker, if you want to talk about waste in government, if you want to talk
about how we like to find out information and how we are going to do other
things differently, this Bill 29 was an example of not what to do in this
Province. I will not get into
any of the quotes that were used.
I will not get into that.
I will just use an example.
My
last example, Mr. Speaker, is Coppermine Brook.
The Member for St. John's West, the Minister of Service NL – I put a
freedom of information in. Get
this – because they stopped forty cabins from doing anything.
They cannot sell it, cannot give it away for the last two years.
The
Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, I put a freedom of
information in and said let me see the report.
Guess what? I got it back
three days ago saying we need a thirty-day extension because there is a
public body, the people involved.
At a public meeting, Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, they said we did not
do any report. Yet, I get a
letter back from Service NL saying that we cannot because there is a third
party. There is no report done,
Minister. There is no report
done.
Mr.
Speaker, I am willing to bet they are going to put someone up.
They are so embarrassed, they will put someone up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, thank you for the applause on the other side when I sit up.
I really appreciate that.
MR. JOYCE:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Bay of
Islands on a point of order.
MR. JOYCE:
I just want to say to the
minister, we are not applauding you.
We are just applauding that government finally put someone up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of
order.
The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MR. CRUMMELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, certainly it is an honour and a privilege any time I stand in this
House and speak to a bill, and certainly a bill of this magnitude.
I
got elected a little over three years ago for the first time, like many
people here around me and many people on the other side of the House.
We made a commitment to honesty, integrity, to be honourable members
of this House, to represent the people of this Province as best we can, to
do the very best we can in everything we do inside this House and outside
this House. There is not one
time in the three and a half years did I lose sight of that, Mr. Speaker,
not one time.
Mr.
Speaker, when I look at a lot of the legislation that was passed in this
House that I spoke to, I am very proud of the work I have done.
The information we had at the time, that we had when we spoke to
legislation that was provided to us, we researched and we committed to it.
There is some legislation that we are going to look back and say,
wow, what have we achieved? How
have we moved Newfoundland and Labrador forward?
Muskrat Falls is a prime example of
that, Mr. Speaker.
There is other legislation, Mr. Speaker, certainly we would look at as a
government, as a people, as a party, that you look back and say: Could we
have done better? We find
ourselves today on our feet in the House of Assembly speaking to that in a
humble way, in an honest way, with integrity and respect.
Mr. Speaker, that is where I am going to start my debate from today.
Bill
1, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of
Privacy, is an important piece of legislation.
It is going to change how we do business in this Province.
It is going to add to some of the things that we started as a party,
as a people, and other parties had started before us.
The
Liberal Party was the first one to do the work around access to information.
They did not enact the legislation.
It was our government that brought in that legislation.
So I give them credit for doing the work previously, but we are the
ones who brought that legislation in.
When
I was in private business, I actually went through an Access to Information
request. We were not happy with
the decision the government made, my company.
I was the one who took the lead on that.
It was an interesting process.
When I got the first documents that were pretty stacked, much of it
was blacked out. So I had to try
to understand exactly what was going on here, because I did not fully
understand. I had come from the
business world and getting involved in the government bureaucracy of such
requests.
Mr.
Speaker, the more I dove into it and the more I understood it, the more I
realized that it is there for a reason.
This is the original legislation before Bill 29, long before that.
It was there for a reason, and we went through the process.
We understood why there was some
redaction going on. We
understood there was information that was privileged to the company, that
was mentioned in the information we were looking for that we thought maybe
had gotten an unfair advantage.
At
the end of the day, we agreed with government of the day to disagree.
We did not agree with the decision they made.
It was this government here, Mr. Speaker, and I stand on my feet
again with honesty and integrity and communicate that.
At the end of it, I understood the decision they made.
We were fine, and we went about our business.
They did not hurt our business one little bit, but I understood why
that legislation was put in place. I
understood why it was crafted and I totally got that.
Mr.
Speaker, as we moved forward as a government and we decided that we wanted
to amend that legislation, we looked at it from a number of different ways.
The advice we had at the time was good advice.
It was solid advice, but was it all the right advice?
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are here today to show you that we are willing
to change some of our thoughts and our beliefs, originally, and move
forward. That is why we are here
talking about this.
So
over the last number of months since the release of the ATTIPA Review
Committee's report, a number of things have occurred in carrying out our
government's commitment to implement the recommendations.
A comprehensive analysis of the report has been carried out.
An interdepartmental team has been assembled to provide further
analysis to assist with the implementation.
The Office of Public Engagement has taken the lead.
There were a number of recommendations that we had to consider.
So there were a number of things that we had to do to get us to this
place in time right now where we are debating this bill in the House today.
There were ninety recommendations including draft legislation, which became
the actual legislation. There
might have been a couple of tweaks there, I believe.
Changes to practice and procedures – we have started some of that
already, Mr. Speaker. Of the
ninety recommendations, sixty-five are legislative recommendations contained
in Bill 1. Once the
recommendations are fully implemented, we expect Newfoundland and Labrador
will be a world leader in Access to Information and Protection of Privacy
legislation.
Some
of the things we are talking about, and I have heard the debates back and
forth, we have not really talked much about the protection of privacy for
the people of the Province. That
is an important piece. Most of
the conversations have been around access to information.
When
I talked to the people of the Province, when I talked to my friends and
neighbours who do not fully understand what ATIPPA really means, when I
asked them what is more important to you, they say protection of my privacy
is really important. We take
that very seriously.
So
that has been lost a little bit in this debate, Mr. Speaker, but I just
wanted to get it out there and make sure people understand that the
protection of their privacy is paramount.
That we need to protect the privacy of individuals and companies as
well as they go about and do their business.
The
recommendations in the report include greater emphasis on transparency,
broadening the role of the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner
and developing a user-friendly application of the act.
Mr. Speaker, this feeds into something that we came out on a few
months ago, something that probably really overshadows this legislation,
which is important legislation.
We
made a decision as a government to become the most open government we
possibly can be and could be. We
made that decision a number of months ago.
We want the best open government practices in the world.
We want to build on a culture of openness with a government by
promoting access to information, like we are doing with this bill, by
providing access to information and data freely online within our online
systems, and have an enhanced dialogue with the people of the Province to
make sure we fully understand where they are coming from.
They may not always agree with the decisions that we make, but we at
least understand where they are coming from.
We
know that, Mr. Speaker, when we make decisions to govern, there are going to
be two sides; one side over here and a side over there.
We try to balance and we come up the middle.
Usually it is what we do, or we make firm policy decisions and we go
forward with that. That is what
you do as a government. That is
what you do as a government that has a mandate to lead and govern.
The
Open Government Initiative will only work if we have the strongest possible
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation possible, Mr.
Speaker. That is what we are
trying to achieve here. It is
all about our goal to have the best open government in Canada and in the
world.
Before I talk about the bill, and get into more details about that, I just
want to talk a bit about this context, about open government and how this
legislation relates to that, and how it relates directly to the act.
First of all, what is open government?
I mean that is a question people ask.
What is open government?
How do we measure that? We need
strong institutions which we have in this Province.
We are lucky to have them.
Open
information is about the practice of the proactive release of government
information, records, and reports.
Mr. Speaker, you can go online now and have a look and see what we
have online. There is an
absolute wealth of information about what our government is doing, what we
are planning to do, and what we have done.
It is a mix.
I
mean, you can spend hours and hours online and find out things – anything
that relates to you, or relates to your community, or relates to your
workplace. It is amazing what we
have online right now, but we want to do more.
We are committed to do more.
We are committed to becoming more open.
We are committed to becoming more transparent.
We want to have as much information online as possible so you do not
have to go through requests for information, so that you can go online
yourself and gather and get that information that you require in a quick
manner.
The
ability to do that is there now.
There is a lot of information out there.
I encourage people to check out our government website and go from
department to department. You
will be amazed and surprised to find out what is there; things that could
change your life, things that could point you in a direction to go in your
career, things that you can do to help your community.
There are so many things that are available on our website to talk to the
people of the Province. There
are ways for you to talk back to us and ask us questions.
That is a goal of open governments.
We think it is so important, for good governance, to make that
happen. We have made that a
priority, Mr. Speaker.
So
when we look across departments and release of government-wide information,
it is a good thing. It is what
people want. They want that
openness and transparency, and we are committed to that.
This bill is just one part of that open governance model that we are
talking about.
We
have Orders-in-Council that are online.
We have ministerial expense claims online.
We have member accountability and disclosure reports online for all
to see. Awarded tenders –
online. Information by topic –
go in there. Business, child
care protection, education, financial, environment and parks, health care,
income and employment, lands and property.
When
you look at my department, Mr. Speaker, my two departments, Environment and
Conservation, you can go online and see what environmental assessments are
out there, or EPRs that are out there – Environmental Preview Reports.
You can see what we are saying about the moose population and caribou
population in the Province. You
can go online and check out our campsite reservation system.
There are so many things in Environment and Conservation where you go
online and see what government has to offer, services that we provide to
people of the Province, and that is all about open governance.
When
you look at my Department of Service NL, it is the same thing; there is a
multitude. You go online in my
department, it is amazing what is there.
It is about being open and transparent and speaking to the people of
the Province and making sure that they understand that their government is
working for them and doing the right things.
Just like I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, when I got elected I made a
commitment to openness, honesty, integrity, representing the people of my
district as best I possibly can be, and acting in an honourable way.
Government wants to do that.
There is not a member in this House here who does not have that goal
in mind.
So
this legislation is consistent with that goal, that everybody here has in
their mind about what they want to do themselves, and how they want to act
and behave and represent the people of the Province.
It is so important, Mr. Speaker.
So
when we look to Bill 1, which again will enhance and build and complement
our Open Government Initiative, it will help provide a framework that will
put us in a new place when it comes to governance.
We have heard the institutions that are out there that are looking at
us, providing feedback as to the quality of this legislation, and we know
that we hit the mark. We know
that the review committee did great work and excellent work, and we are
going to support that work by enacting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we know that we are doing it right in the right way, and
we are doing it for the right reasons.
As I
said, there were some important changes in this legislation that will help
move us forward to get us to that better place of good governance, open
governance, transparent governance.
The
elimination of the $5 application fee which allows anyone to make an Access
to Information request regardless of their financial situation – now, we are
hopeful that our Open Government Initiative will not require anybody to put
any money down but if somebody finds themselves in the situation where they
cannot find the information online, that it is not readily available when
they make a phone call to their member or to the department or if something
there is holding them back well, it is not going to cost them very much
money to put in their information request.
We think that is very important to the people of the Province.
More
free time has been granted to applicants (inaudible) of the public body's
ability to charge applicants from locating, reviewing, and severing records,
locating them – again, that is going to help people when they are looking
for that information that is not readily available.
Over time, again we are hopeful as we put more information online,
more data online, that people will not need to go through this process, that
it is going to be there at their fingertips when they want it in the format
that they want it in.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there are several notable early changes we have
implemented already related to the protection of privacy; I alluded to that
earlier. There are many people
that I spoke to who were more worried about that than the access to
information. Well, this bill
obviously provides balance but the protection of privacy – protecting the
identity of applicants through the ATIPP request process is important, so we
are making sure the integrity of that process is in place so that when
applicants put their requests in for information, that their identity is
kept as private as possible and that the information is not provided, about
their identity, to the people who are doing the work – and certainly to the
politicians as well, which is the most important piece as well.
A
requirement that departments report all privacy breaches to both the Office
of Public Engagement and the Office of the Information and Privacy Officer.
Mr. Speaker, I was in a department that had a couple of instances
recently, that had privacy breaches – absolutely unacceptable.
I will not tolerate that in my department, Mr. Speaker.
Accidents happen, we can understand that, we can get that; but
intentional privacy breaches, not on for it, and we report that immediately
to the Privacy Officer and we make sure that is done in a timely manner, and
timely is immediate. The people
of the Province want that. We
report that. We make that
public.
Mr.
Speaker, we are not afraid to own up when we make mistakes.
We are not afraid to own up that government is not perfect at times.
This is what this bill is all about.
I
just want to bring some balance to this.
I just want to bring some calmness to this.
I want to take some emotion out of this, and that is what I am doing
standing on my feet here now. We
just want to make sure that people of the Province understand why we are
doing this. We are doing it for
the right reasons. We are doing
it because we believe in this Province.
We believe that you deserve the best government possible.
We have done so much work in the last ten years, as a party, as a
people, to get us to this place where we are today.
We want to make sure that we have the most open government possible
going forward now and into the future.
Mr.
Speaker, that will be a legacy we will leave behind when we are done ruling
this Province. That is not going
to happen any time soon because we are in good shape coming into the fall.
We want to make sure that this works for us for the next four years.
We will let the people of the Province decide that.
I have confidence in the people of the Province that they know we
made more good decisions than bad decisions.
This is a good decision we are making here today, to put this before
the people of the Province, to let them know that we are solid, that we are
going to govern with honesty and integrity, that we are going to take care
of things that need to be done and we will correct wrongs.
In
closing: open government, transparency, accountability, participation,
collaboration, increasing access to information and data, increasing
opportunity for involvement, commitment and action by all departments across
government, use of online tools, share information as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, open governance is what this is all about.
This is not just about ATIPP.
It is not just about access to information.
It is not just about privacy.
It is about the bigger concept of open government.
Mr. Speaker, that is where we want to be.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you
about this today and to bring some common balance to this discussion.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the
Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
leave of the House, and I think in agreement of the parties, we are going to
take a supper break and resume our debate at 7:00 o'clock.
MR. SPEAKER:
With leave of the House,
we will resume at 7:00 o'clock and take a recess until then.
Hearing no objection, we will resume at 7:00 o'clock.
April
28, 2015
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 5A
The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Sir.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, second reading of
a bill, An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection
Of Privacy. (Bill 1)
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Resuming debate on Bill 1.
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
FLYNN:
Mr.
Speaker, I stand to announce, I guess, my support for Bill 1 this evening.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
I
thought you were going somewhere else.
MR.
FLYNN:
No,
I enjoy the district I am from very much.
I think the real winners in this debate and this new
bill are the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is what
this should all be about at the end of the day, but it is important I think to
understand our past so we do not make the same mistakes in the future.
Someone once told me that if you do not know where you
came from, how are you going to know where you are going?
As a result of this and not being around when Bill 29 was being
implemented at the time and put through the House, I was not here for that bill
so I had to do a little research.
The first thing I found out is that government has been out, since this
legislation – which was presented by Clyde Wells – out patting themselves on the
back for a great job on this bill.
I would like to remind the people opposite, and the
government opposite, really they did not present to Clyde Wells and they really
had no input into the design of this bill.
It was actually the Leader of the Liberal Party who went and brought a
number of motions forward and seen that they were adopted into this bill.
That I am very proud of, not only from day 1 of Bill 29 – the draconian
bill I think I heard someone say earlier – but the Liberal Party has stuck with
this bill and saw the importance that the people of the Province should really
be informed.
If we go back, why should we try to hide information
from the very people who pay the taxes, who pay government to operate daily, who
pays my salary and all of your salaries?
It is not something we should really be proud of, Bill 29, and how it was
passed.
I think the other interesting thing that may come to
light over the coming months is what was hidden behind Bill 29.
I think the future will determine what was hidden from the people of this
Province under Bill 29. I think the
jury is still out on that.
One of our first bills was introduced in June, 1981.
It became Newfoundland and Labrador's first Freedom of Information Act.
It came under review a short time later, but at that time both government
and Opposition members of the House noted that this legislation created an
important right for the people of this Province.
It established a statutory regime for citizens to access information in
the records of government, in government departments, and in scheduled agencies
subject to certain limitations if it did not cross the line from an individual
perspective. I think it is important
that we remind ourselves of why we should never try to hide behind a bill.
We were elected to be the servants of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In the first reading of Bill 29, it is from my research
I found that thirty-five amendments – I am sorry, that was not in Bill 29.
The first bill that was introduced for legislation for the Freedom of
Information, the Opposition at the time, which was the Liberal Party, had
introduced thirty-five amendments, and thirteen of these were accepted or
somehow changed somewhat, but at least the government of the day saw fit that we
should not protect and hide away from what is duly open access and open
government.
It took almost four years for this legislation to come
into effect and then get out into the communities and make sure that everyone
was aware of the content of that piece of legislation.
If you might allow me to just highlight some of the openness and
transparency in 1999, the Blue Book that the provincial government, or that the
PCs ran on at that time. They said
they would establish a new Freedom of Information Act to reduce the wait for
information, and to ensure ministers actually provide the information requested
where that information belongs in the public domain.
In 2003, Danny Williams said that the PCs will stand by
their commitment to integrity, accountability, responsibility, and earning the
public trust. Also in that book it
states: A Progressive Conservative government will proclaim new Freedom of
Information legislation which will include amendments that clearly identify
information that should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents,
and will require full and prompt disclosure of the information.
The book goes on to say: released to the public every
government commissioned report within thirty days after receiving it, indicate
the action government will take on the recommendations within sixty days, and
ensure prompt and public access to all government reports in a hard copy and on
the Internet
We put forward, for your information, the identical
amendment in clause 8 and it was never accepted when you rammed through Bill 29,
so you were not open to any changes for Bill 29.
On December 15, 2005 the Province proclaimed the
Transparency and Accountability Act.
According to a government news release issued the act was to ensure greater
openness, accountability of all government departments.
According to the then Premier Danny Williams: We are committed to
ensuring government is fully accountable to the people who have entrusted us to
run the Province.
The question is at that point: Where did it go off the
tracks? It may have something to do
with Muskrat Falls. I do not know,
that is just speculation on my part; but certainly, Bill 29 did not make it very
transparent and became even more difficult to get information for the people who
elected us to do a job.
I know some of the speakers repeated some of the
information that I am about to present to you again, but I think it is important
that we listen not only to the people of the Province, but experts in the field.
When Democracy Watch, which is a national non-profit, non-partisan
organization, and Canada's leading citizens' group advocating democratic reform,
government accountability, and corporate responsibility – just let me pick out a
sentence they actually said in that.
They said: Everyone should care.
Secrecy is a recipe for corruption, a recipe for waste and abuse of the
public. The strongest governments
have weaknesses and these weaknesses and loopholes are always exploited when
government wants to hide, abuse, waste, and enter into corruption.
If you do not have a strong, open government, law and enforcement systems
will have high penalties for keeping excessive secrets and we will have a bad
government that will abuse people, communities, and a waste of people's money.
So I think it is fairly clear what experts in the field had actually
thought of Bill 29.
The access fees, which have been dropped in the new
bill, are something like the big game licence fees that the government just
introduced. The fees could increase
– specifically processing fees which jumped by 66 per cent – from $15 an hour to
$25 an hour to actually access you own in information that belong to the people
of this Province, Mr. Speaker.
Newspapers Canada quoted, and I am quoting from them:
Bill 29 which amended Newfoundland and Labrador's Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy this spring came in for popular criticism in Newspapers
Canada annual National Freedom of Information Audit.
Newfoundland and Labrador tightened its grip on information with new
amendments that will make records harder to obtain.
They said that the biggest setback came in Newfoundland and Labrador with
the passage in June with the amendments to ATIPPA.
The bill went further than the Cummings report had recommended, creating
several new ways for the government to refuse processing for access requests.
So all of these are quite significant because you have
out there again the leading people watching over us, the Democracy Group, you
had newspapers really calling us a Province with laws that were even stricter
than some of the remote islands down in the South Pacific.
As I stood here this week and listened to some of the
government members make arguments of why this bill is so important, I had to tap
myself on the head and wonder are these the same people who actually sat up and
tried to justify Bill 29. Because
back when Bill 29 was introduced on June 9, 2012 the then Justice Minister said
that the cornerstone of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
ATIPPA, is openness, transparency, accountability, and all of our government is
committed to this important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Then the same minister went on to say this would
modernize our legislation. He
claimed the bill was based on consultation, research, and the best practice
across the country.
As I listened to members opposite, I was kind of
shocked to hear that the same people now fighting to have Bill 1 introduced and
passed certainly had no argument back a few years ago to try to ram through Bill
29. The then Municipal Affairs
Minister argued that the public actually does not have the right to know,
everything will be on the table and every day up for scrutiny, not only of the
Opposition but scrutiny of government.
Imagine that, taking our tax dollars and we should not let the public
scrutinize what they are actually paying for.
The same minister went on to say: I firmly believe in
it because we are and have been the most transparent government Newfoundland and
Labrador has ever experienced since 1949.
Both the Justice Minister and then the Government Services Minister, who
is now Premier, talked about receiving countless – countless – numbers of Access
to Information requests somehow blocking up government.
Collins put the number – I withdraw that.
The minister at the time put the numbers in the thousands.
The Premier at the time was a little bit more vague: You know, they make
countless and countless requests for information.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, when the research was done by CBC, there
were 581 requests to all public bodies and for the preceding year there was even
less: 579. That certainly is not the
thousands as the minister talked about at the time.
Then in June 2012, the Premier said, “Mr. Speaker, I am
going to tell you, this is not a bad piece of legislation.
Is this tightening up some of the processes that occur?
Yes, it is, but it is for the right reasons, Mr. Speaker.
It is for the right reasons.”
Well, I am glad the people of the Province saw the light because, truthfully,
this was a bad piece of legislation.
I am glad that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador spoke up,
saw this piece of legislation for what it was, and that was to hide information
from the residents that we are elected to serve.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding on the official secrecy
act, I would like to suggest to the members opposite that maybe the lesson that
we should learn from this – and sometimes when the Opposition brings forward
suggestions in changing a piece of legislation so we do not have to go back and
spend the millions of dollars that this piece of legislation truly, if it was
totalled up, would have to spend, just maybe, sometimes the Opposition has
suggestions to bring forward and it would be worthwhile for the government to
listen to them sometimes. If you
would look at the presentation that our leader made to the commission that drew
up the articles that we are about to pass tonight or tomorrow or the next day,
you will find that our leader was the one who brought forward most of the
suggestions that was actually in the new legislation.
I know some of the members on the other side are
saying, now right; but, Mr. Speaker, the information speaks for itself.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
FLYNN:
It
was something like that, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad you recognize the power the Liberals have.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
FLYNN:
Well, that is why, Mr. Speaker, we have to know where we came from.
We have to recognize the mistakes that we have made in the past and,
hopefully, as a lesson from this moving forward, when an Opposition Party brings
in suggestions, changes to a piece of legislation, just sometimes we may have a
better solution than you did.
Democracy is, at the end of the day, here.
It is not about me and it is not about you; it is about the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, people who we were elected by and people who we are
asked to serve. So, mistakes are
expensive, and it is more than $1.1 million for this report; but, at the end of
the day, hopefully we have it right, and this time we can move forward with an
open, transparent government to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to speak
to Bill 1, a bill to amend or to repeal, I guess, is the word, Bill 29.
Mr. Speaker, as has been said by some of the members opposite, I voted
for Bill 29 and I have no problem in saying it.
I notice some of the members over there did not want to say it.
They did not want to say Bill 29.
They talk about the previous bill, that bill, and so on, but it was Bill
29. So we are quite clear: Bill 29,
Bill 29, Bill 29. That is what we
are talking about, and I voted for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
LANE:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe –
MS
PERRY:
(Inaudible) Hansard.
MR.
LANE:
Yes, and I say to the Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune, we can look at Hansard, absolutely.
I am not afraid to look at Hansard at anything I have said, and I hope
that you feel the same. I hope you
feel the same because what you say is recorded and we have to be held
accountable for what we say in this House of Assembly.
I went to the
microphones over a year ago and I was accountable to the people.
I indicated at that time that Bill 29 was a mistake, but I am going to
say it again right here in the House of Assembly.
I am going to say Bill 29 was a mistake.
Unlike members opposite, who some have been hinting around it, some have
not spoken at all, some have spoken to it in a very flippant manner, as I would
say, I have no problem in saying I was wrong for voting for Bill 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
I will be accountable to the people of Mount Pearl South for that
decision. I will be accountable to
the people for that decision. The
people of Mount Pearl South will determine – or Mount Pearl – Southlands –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
– or wherever it is to. The
people will decide whether or not they accept my unequivocal apology for voting
for a bad piece of legislation. I am
man enough to stand up here and say it, and I will challenge the rest of the
members to do the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
Now, Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe
there is nobody in this House of Assembly –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
LANE:
We
are getting all the heckling now because I guess they just cannot take the
truth. They cannot handle the truth.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the operating of the House
of Assembly and all members, I honestly believe in my heart that everybody on
all sides of the House, they were elected in their districts and they wanted to
do what they felt was the best thing for the people who elected them.
They honestly believe that.
I really think the members over there quite sincerely,
most of them at least – I think they quite sincerely believed at the time that
Bill 29 was the right way to go. I
think they were convinced it was the right way to go.
I have heard some innuendo about the fact that perhaps there was this big
conspiracy theory out there that there was this master plan to hide all kinds of
information from people.
If such a master plan existed, I can tell you I was not
aware of such a master plan. I
cannot speak for what might have been discussed at the Premier's Office or the
Cabinet Table, because I was not there.
So I cannot speak to that, I have no idea.
I can only speak as a member of caucus.
I was not aware of any kind of plan like that and I believe the –
MS
PERRY:
(Inaudible).
MR.
LANE:
The
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune is going on again.
She cannot take it; she does not want to hear it.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
She
cannot handle the truth.
MR.
LANE:
She
cannot handle the truth.
I honestly believe the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La
Hune, like myself, like other members who were in the backbench at the time; I
think we really believed we were doing the right thing.
We had our briefing, and from the information we had, we felt we were
doing the right thing.
Now, it is a funny thing that happens I think when you
are in government, you are in that group, and you tend to get inside of a little
bubble. You get inside of a little
bubble. There is this concept – I
think some members might have heard of – it is called groupthink.
It is a concept of groupthink.
You convince yourself that what you are doing is right.
Then you convince everybody within that group that what you are doing is
right.
Quite often anybody who would be contrary to that, you
would view those people as: oh, that is just the Opposition.
They are just trying to make political brownie points; or, you hear some
of these people who are bloggers or people in social media: oh, that is just
these people, they are against everything.
They have nothing better to do but complain about everything that
happens. That is the mindset you get
into. I think you can fall into that
trap, and it certainly happens when you are involved in partisan politics and in
a party system with a whipped vote and with that type of situation.
Now, having said that, I am not suggesting that anybody
–
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I have given the member some leeway here, but second
reading is about the principle of Bill 1, and I would ask you to make your
comments relevant to the principle of Bill 1.
The hon. member to continue.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was referring to how we got to Bill 1
and Bill 29, I think when we look at that concept and that decision-making
process and so on that happens you kind of get tunnel vision.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of that I voted for it, other members voted for
it, and I really believe and I know many –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
LANE:
I
know, obviously, all of these members and I have nothing but the utmost respect
for most of them. Mr. Speaker, I can
say to you, I really believe they thought they were doing the right thing.
Obviously, they were not listening to what the people had to say.
Now, after it was passed, I think we were hearing loud
and clear what people had to say.
One member mentioned, oh, I was not bombarded with calls and emails, and I was
not either. I was not bombarded but
I was getting some calls, some emails.
Certainly, some of the people that you would hear some of the – what is
the word I am looking for? The
strongest feedback – I am trying to be nice – was probably from people you did
not even know, they were not from your district and so on, so maybe you sort of
dismissed it.
I was not getting bombarded by people in the district
but I was getting feedback, and I know other members over there were getting
feedback too. They absolutely were
getting feedback. I know there are
members over there who wished they had not voted for Bill 29.
I know there are members over there who wished this had gotten reversed
sooner than it did; but, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it is being done.
Now we have Bill 1, and I am glad we have Bill 1.
I am glad we have an opportunity to now do things the right way, put in
legislation that makes sense for the people.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, before we got to Bill 1,
when Bill 29 was enforced, I do not know if we all thought that we would see all
of this redacted information like we saw at the time, and when we heard about
stuff that was frivolous and vexatious.
I can remember one of the ministers standing up in the
House of Assembly and telling a story – it was in Hansard.
I think it was the former Member for Conception Bay South, talking about
this particular person who owned a piece of Crown land up in Triangle Pond, or
up there somewhere. He put in a
request, he wanted to know: Who owns the piece of Crown land next to me?
They did their work and they told him who owned the piece of Crown land.
Then he said: Who owns the piece of land on the other side of me?
Then he said: Who owns the piece of land across the street?
Who owns the piece of land across the road?
As he described it at the time, there had been
something like sixty or seventy requests from one person wanting to know: Who
owns this piece? Who owns that
piece? He had no real purpose other
than curiosity I suppose. At one
point, he said in the story, this gentleman, apparently, must have lost all the
information he had. So request
number forty or forty-five was: I want to do an ATIPP on myself.
I want you to tell me everything that I have asked for the last
forty-five times because I lost it.
That was the story he told.
When we were talking about that example – absolutely.
I said, do you know what, this makes sense.
There needs to be some kind of mechanism put in place to deal with those
types of – that is definitely frivolous.
There should be something there to deal with that.
There were other examples that were given about people
making some of those requests, and it made sense.
There were a lot of things that made sense.
I think we all realize that it is important to protect
personal information. We have seen
where there have been privacy breeches and so on that have occurred, and the
chaos that causes. So it is
important that we protect information.
We all realize it is important if we are trying to do
deals with oil companies or companies that want to do mining operations, or
whatever the case might be, but there is commercially sensitive information that
has to be protected. We all realize
that. So we talked about that.
I agreed with that as well.
There were a number of things here.
I think even former Premier Wells indicated there were a lot of good
things here, but there were also a lot of things that he said were not so good.
There are things that were pointed out as things that we should have
listened to but we did not listen to them.
I do not think there was any kind of an agenda, that I am aware of at
least, but as Bill 29 was applied, we saw all these stories coming forward of
all this redacted information.
One of the other pieces certainly was this concept of
the Cabinet Minister, or the minister in the department, being able to have
discretion to determine what should be released and what should not be released.
I think maybe the intent, as I understood it at that time, was that if
there was any information that reasonably should have been released, it would be
released. That was my understanding.
I think what ended up happening, in certain cases – not
necessarily all departments and all ministers, but the sense I got was that
there were certain departments and so on where they were taking the approach of
give them nothing – give them absolutely nothing.
Instead of saying look, here is a bunch of information that someone is
looking for, and all this is reasonable, but there is one part here that for
good reason we cannot release. I
think the approach that was taken was nah, give them nothing.
So, I think the intent, perhaps, of how things were
meant to go and how these things actually got applied – whether it be by the
minister or the deputy minister or whoever at the time, I think that made things
a whole lot worse. I think it made
it a whole lot worse. Of course, as
time went on and we saw more and more requests for information, we saw more and
more requests being turned down, more and more requests having to be challenged,
more and more often people standing up with just binders full of blacked out
paper and so on, I think we realized that perhaps what the intent was, that is
not exactly what was happening.
I think it needed to be changed.
I think that nobody on the other side is going to stand up and admit it.
Sure they are not, but I think in their private moments they would
acknowledge that there were problems with that legislation that was passed and
it did not go down the way that they thought it was going to down.
It was not implemented the way they had envisioned.
They were getting calls and concerns and so on, and
long before this happened there was a will to make changes.
At the time, it was driven then by the Premier's office and the former
Premier, or two Premiers ago, driven by that office that they were not prepared
to make any changes. They were not
prepared to repeal, and they were not prepared to make any changes.
I personally requested that we do it, that we look at making some changes
and it was shot down.
I know there are other members over there who wanted to
see it too, but it did not happen.
Now, thankfully for whatever reason that the next Premier or the next interim
Premier, Premier Marshall – former Premier Marshall – he decided, for whatever
reason –
MR.
KIRBY:
One-and-a-half Premiers.
MR.
LANE:
Yes, one-and-a-half Premiers ago.
He decided that he was going to bring forth this
Committee to look at changing the legislation because I think he realized that a
mistake had been made. He
acknowledged it and as a result we know what has happened.
We know the public hearings, we know the outcry that came from the
people, the academics, and the media and so on, and as a result we have seen
this piece of legislation.
I believe this is a good piece of legislation; I really
do.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Long (inaudible).
MR.
LANE:
It
is long overdue and it is a good start, but we have more things that we can do.
I am very glad to hear the Premier talking about
all-party committees and all of that stuff.
He is talking about it now.
We were not open to that idea either because any time that anyone brought that
up it was shot down, but the Third Party raised it and the Official Opposition
raised the concept of all-party committee, for example, and I think, again, it
is an important thing.
It is good that we are now finally going to do it.
It is great we are going to do it.
You do not realize it when you are on the government side unless you have
been on the Opposition side. You
really do not appreciate the concepts because I think that thought process that
goes through your head is – I can remember Premier Marshall saying it himself:
The Opposition has their say; government has its way.
I think that sometimes that gets carried over in the
thought process of we are going to do what we are going to do anyway.
Despite what you have to say, we are going through with it.
As a result, every time the Opposition brings forward any concerns on a
particular bill – we do not see the bill until the day before, generally.
It could be two days before.
Usually it is the day before. They
give you a twenty-minute or a half-hour briefing, whatever the case might be,
now all of a sudden we have to – while government has had lots of opportunity to
study the bill, do the research and so on and bring the legislation forward, the
Opposition does not have the opportunity so you have to try and scramble, go
through it, try to figure out what they are trying to do and have some input as
to whether you think it is good, bad, right or wrong, and so on.
Lots of times Opposition and the Third Party might have
some good ideas of how you could change a particular clause or so on.
It gets shot down; 99.9 per cent of the time none of the amendments, none
of the changes, ever go through because it is this concept we are the
government, we are going to do whatever we want to do, we do not care what you
have to say, and we are not going to swallow our pride to say do you know what,
we never thought of that – good idea.
They do not want to say it.
You cannot swallow your pride and say it.
So, having the all-party committee structure, which
again I am glad the government is now looking at doing, at least that gives us
an opportunity to have input from all sides.
So that when you come to the House of Assembly to debate a bill, like
Bill 1, we can say that we all had an opportunity to review it, understand it,
have input into it, and make suggestions, meaningful suggestions, meaningful
input, and meaningful changes. Then
when we get to the House of Assembly, we do not have to fighting and arguing
about everything all the time; but, quite often, when you talk about some of the
debate and the heated debate that goes on or fighting and arguing, whatever you
want to call it, it is simply because it is a case of here is the bill, we are
bringing it through, we are passing it as is and any time anyone speaks about it
oh, you are just complaining, you are just playing politics.
We have a role to play as Opposition members to bring
these concerns forward. That is what
we do and that is why it should work.
So I am really glad to see that members on that side now have seen the
light when it came to Bill 29. I
wish more of them would stand up and acknowledge it and say I am sorry, I was
wrong, I made a mistake, I think the people would appreciate it; but,
nonetheless, they are making the changes now.
I think they are good changes.
I think that it is a start. I
think there are other things that we can do to improve our democratic process,
and I hope that government intends on going down the same path with other pieces
of legislation and change the attitude and the arrogance that has prevailed for
quite some time to change that and actually get up, represent the people, and do
the right thing.
In this case regardless of the motivation, regardless
of what people might say, they are doing the right thing, and I am going to do
the right thing by supporting it because that is the right thing to do.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly welcome the opportunity to get up here
tonight and, as some members say, represent the district that I represent which
is the historic District of Harbour Main –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
–
and bring to the debate, I hope, some good points.
I am hopefully going to stay away from the clichés.
I am kind of sick of the clichés about this that and the other thing
because I think it is brass tacks that we should be looking at here, Mr.
Speaker. I do not need anyone on the
other side, I say to the member who was just up, to tell me – yes, that is
right; you can shake your head, but you do not have to try to put words in my
mouth. I have been here long enough
to speak for myself and I do not need you to speak for anyone on this side,
especially myself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Mr.
Speaker, I have been here as much as anyone in this –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Exactly. There is a member over
there probably here longer than I have been.
I certainly know all about ATIPPA.
I have lived through it. Yes,
I was in Opposition and I did hopefully represent my district and the Province.
When I spoke, I spoke with honesty.
I spoke for the good of the people I represent.
For anyone to get up and suggest that simply because I voted for a
particular bill, then I am not doing my job over here – because I did do my job.
I did it on Bill 29 as the hundreds of other bills that I was a part of
in bringing forward in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I will say I am not perfect and I have
made mistakes. I will continue,
perhaps, to make mistakes. I do own
up to any mistake that I would make.
On Bill 29, I say to you and I say to the people across me, I went forward in
voting for Bill 29 because I believed at that time it was the best thing to do.
Now, am I sorry for that?
Absolutely not, because I stood on my feet and what I said I believed in, I
worked on the advice that I was given, and I brought it forward.
I am not ashamed of that, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this bill – and I
am supporting this bill. Who is to
say in a couple of years' time someone will look back and say ha ha, there is a
part of that bill that you did not understand, and look what it has done.
If anyone thinks that this bill is going to solve all the ATIPPA
problems, you have your head somewhere that you should not have it, really.
I hope that is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Okay.
So let's be honest.
If you are asking for honesty, let's be honest because when we look at
Bill 29, that is a small part of this bill that we have here today.
That was an amendment of the original bill, Mr. Speaker.
If we had to just repeal Bill 29, we would not be doing
our work in this House today. I
realized, as time went on, that there is more to this than meets the eye.
In Opposition, you did not see as much as we did in government because
guess what? We were given the task
to really bring ATIPPPA into this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was on the other debates, by the way, and put up my
hand. The bill was passed back in
2000, whenever it was, and not proclaimed by the way.
It was not proclaimed. There
were all sorts of promise. We all
stood up on both sides of the House and zip-a-dee-do, we are going to make
everything transparent, you know those words, accountable and so on and so
forth; but it was not until 2006, I believe, that we as a government brought in
– now the principles basically have not changed.
We wanted, on both sides of the House, Liberals, Conservatives and NDP,
we wanted to make sure that what we brought in was going to do the job and that
the ATIPPA was going to be robust, timely, and so on and so forth.
If anyone suggests that there was a conspiracy – oh,
gees, we are going to do this and going to do that.
It is not true. That does not
happen because, again, this is the House of Assembly, we have the Opposition, we
have the government – and as time went on, back in 1999, getting help from the
EAs in government on the Opposition side, I was doing something in the wind
because it just was not happening, could not get to them, getting information –
do you know what we had to depend on?
Someone slipping an envelope underneath our door – a brown envelope, the
famous brown envelope; we could not get any information.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Kevin said do not look to the past.
That is upsetting.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Oh
no, I do not always listen to Kevin, I say to you.
I do not always listen to him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, what I will say –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
As
I was saying even though I am going back into the past, it is so important that
we have a realization what we were faced with as a government when we came in in
2003, trying to make sure that we fulfill the commitment of transparency,
openness, information sharing and so on; but it was not easy – implementation is
a key to any piece of legislation and there were difficulties.
No doubt about it. I think
this bill has addressed some of those difficulties in making sure that we have
the proper training, making sure everyone is aware of what the definitions are
and so on and so forth.
So there were growing pains.
Once that bill was proclaimed in 2006, there were some growing pains.
That led to the amendments in 2011.
The big part of it was Cabinet confidence and to make sure, instead of
just looking at the substance of the decision making and that sort of thing, it
was extended to even look at factual information and so on that could have
easily have been released. That was
the crux of the whole matter. It
went too far.
In Newfoundland we say too cute by half, and we paid
dearly for it. The funny thing about
it is the consultations before that amendment, I think nine or ten people showed
up in all of the Province. It was a
sleeper. It really was a sleeper.
We brought the bill in. There
was a great opportunity for consultation, but nobody turned up.
So we bring the bill in. We
dig in our heels. We get it passed.
As time went on, the realization was the problem was not necessarily with
Bill 29 – that was a catalyst that opened our eyes that we had to return to the
original bill. I am glad we did.
If we just had to tackle Bill 29, you would not have
the piece of legislation that you have before you today.
You would have tweeted or twirped or whatever in the hell you did with
those –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
(Inaudible).
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Yes, we would have extended to this, that or the other thing, but we would not
get back to the crux of the matter which brought us, as a Legislature, as a
government, closer to where we should be.
I say closer because I am not convinced that we have hit it right dead
on. Implementation will tell us
that.
As well, people are still bringing up the money: the
million-dollar bill. Okay, so was it
$1 million this year or was it $1 million next year?
Because it was going to be done next year; it was going to be carried out
next year. Did we spend too much
money on getting the Committee and giving them the mandate and the money to
carry it out? I would hope that if
it was delayed until next year that that would have happened anyway.
So we have the right people, we gave them the right
resources –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
You
should have done it right in the first place.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Someone said, should have done it when?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Right in the first place.
MR.
HEDDERSON:
That is right. That tells you how
arrogant some people can be in thinking they have all the answers.
We do not have all the answers.
If you believe that, if you believe it, you are going to find yourself
spiralling because we do not have all the answers.
I have seen enough of going back over legislation, some
of the best legislation that I thought in the world.
A piece of legislation is always, I guess, a project in motion.
It is never, never static.
Look at the changes that we have seen in this the twenty-first century.
Someone mentioned, and I agree – this is a bill.
We were back in the twentieth century post -modern, but we are
post-post-modern right now, and guess what?
We have a piece of legislation that has caught up, and I hope kicked us a
little bit ahead of the pack.
I might not be around, but this bill will be amended
come another couple of years.
Someone will get up or someone will put forward changes that will enhance the
ability of this piece of legislation to do what it intended to do.
The principles have remained pretty constant.
It is the hope of everyone in this Chamber that we do have it right this
time. Again, having said that, we
have to be vigilant in the fact of following up and making sure that we continue
to do it.
I say, Mr. Speaker, I am more than delighted to stand
today; I am more than delighted with the debate.
It is easy to get up and point fingers and talk about this, that, and the
other thing, and not allowed to go back over things.
To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we did our job.
We did not do it as good as was expected and we have made good on our
promise to go back over it. That is
why we are here today.
The Opposition want to take ownership of this.
God love them, they need something perhaps, but nobody takes ownership of
good legislation. When we pass this
bill, we will all take ownership of what we did here today.
I will be very pleased and proud if indeed it does go forward.
I have not heard from any of the members opposite that there is any
resistance to it.
We will wait for the Committee stage.
Perhaps there are some amendments that will come forward that may
enhance. I am sure we are all open
to it. We have already seen some
bills where amendments were accepted, enhanced, and brought out.
So I think that as a government we are as responsive as any government,
that we do make mistakes, that we do own up to those mistakes, and that we do
move on.
I thank the minister for piloting this.
Not only are we talking about that but we have also, as a government, had
to be a little bit inward in looking at where we are.
A lot of this ATIPPA information should never have to be 'ATIPPed'.
We have made provisions now –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
HEDDERSON:
Yes, we have made provisions to make sure that it is.
You can laugh about it. You
can make a joke about it, I do not care.
I am not talking to you anyway.
I am not talking to you; I am talking to the people of this Province.
That is who I am talking to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
You
can jabber all you like, but I am telling the people of this Province that this
government has responded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
HEDDERSON:
People say maybe you can see through me, but I would be so glad to hear that
because that means I am transparent.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted
that I can stand in support of this bill, and that we can move forward with a
bill that is going to stand the test of time and that will do exactly what all
of us in this Chamber wanted it to do.
I will certainly leave it at that.
Perhaps the debate will continue.
I am settling in for the night anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Trinity – Bay de Verde.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to stand here this evening in the
House of Assembly and represent the constituents of the District of Trinity –
Bay de Verde and speak to Bill 1, an act to repeal Bill 29, which was likely the
most anti-democratic bill in the history of our Province.
In June 2012, the government introduced Bill 29.
The government, members opposite, cheered and championed this bill.
Just three years later and a million dollars of taxpayers' money, we now
have the do over. Today in the House
of Assembly we are debating Bill 1 that is simply an act to repeal Bill 29.
I remember, almost three years ago, sitting at home and
watching the debate on Bill 29 and watching the members of the Official
Opposition lead a filibuster that lasted for days on a bill that gained so much
traction over that period of time of people who had serious concerns.
I will go into some of the concerns as I go forward in my speech.
Three years, a million dollars later, and here we are.
Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing how many times over the last twelve months
that this government has seen the light.
They saw the light on full-day Kindergarten.
They saw the light on MHA pension reform after our leader called for it
last June. Now they see the light on
reform of the House of Assembly, something that our leader has long been on the
record for. They have also now seen
the light on long-term budget planning.
Mr. Speaker, these are all things that our leader –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
CROCKER:
It
is a lot of light, absolutely. I say
to the members opposite, it is a lot of light, but it is a light that our leader
was first off the mark with. All of
these initiatives that this government has proposed over the last twelve months
are –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
CROCKER:
I say to the hon. Member for Terra Nova, yes, these are some good ideas, but it
was our leader who first came out with these ideas.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
It
is good to see some light after DarkNL.
MR.
CROCKER:
Yes. Again, I say to members
opposite, after last January and DarkNL, it does not hurt to see some light.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROCKER:
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, if we go back to DarkNL, it seems to me –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind the member we are debating the principle of
Bill 1, and I would ask him to make his comments relevant to Bill 1.
The hon. the Member for Trinity – Bay de Verde.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 1, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that is shining a lot of
light on some of the issues of this government.
I believe Bill 1 and the repeal of Bill 29 started in January of 2014,
shortly after DarkNL.
If I could take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, and look
back at Bill 29 and how it affected Bill 1, the members opposite have been
saying for the last few days about openness and transparency, and that is what
led to Bill 29, which brings us back here today debating Bill 1.
Just last week, in reference to Bill 1, our government
is developing Newfoundland and Labrador's first open government action plan.
Bill 1 is the government's first open government action plan.
So after twelve years, Mr. Speaker, this government has finally developed
an open government action plan. It
took twelve years to get to Bill 1.
We go back to the 1999 Blue Book where the Opposition
of the day promised freedom of information.
That was in 1999 and here we are debating Bill 1 today.
The 2003 Blue Book again states: A Progressive Conservative government
will proclaim new freedom of information legislation.
Here we are, back to Bill 1.
In the 2011 election campaign: We will continue to
demonstrate that our commitment to accountability is unwavering.
Shortly after the 2011 election campaign, Mr. Speaker, we saw Bill 29
which leads here today in our conversation this week with Bill 1.
The government members back in June of 2012, as they
talked about Bill 29, the former Justice Minister, on June 9 said: The
cornerstone of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is
openness, transparency, and accountability.
Mr. Speaker, that is again what we are talking this evening with regard
to Bill 1. Three years ago and we
are still talking about it.
The minister of the day and the Government Services
Minister of the day, today's Premier: You know, they are making countless and
countless requests for information.
Mr. Speaker, the people pay for us as elected officials to be here, it is their
dollar, and they have a right to know how their money is spent.
Minister Davis said at the time it is a good piece of
legislation, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Today's Minister of Health said: This bill actually results in government's
boards, agencies and other public bodies having the ability to release even more
personal information than ever before.
It comes back to a comment that the Member for The Straits – White Bay
North made in his opening remarks to Bill 1 when he talked about the fact that
the minutes of a public library meeting that he requested were redacted.
Public library minutes were redacted.
It was the era of black ink.
Three years of black ink leaves us here tonight debating Bill 1.
When we went through the filibuster others said,
Democracy Watch: It is a dangerous, undemocratic move that reduces access to
public information. The Canadian
Association of Journalists: “Government work – including information – paid for
by the public belongs to the public.”
What we do as members, what we do as ministers, what we do as elected
officials, the business of this House, the people's House, should always be open
and transparent to the people of our Province, I say, Mr. Speaker.
There is a great importance to an ATIPP request because
in a lot of cases it shines a light on the activities of government and the
action government is taking for the citizens of our Province.
There is a very important issue in my district and an important issue in
a lot of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have stood in this House on several occasions and entered petitions on
behalf of the people of my district with regard to cellphone coverage.
I will tie that to Bill 1 by talking about an ATIPP
request that was filed on February 12, 2015 to the Department of Business,
Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
The requester of this information was using the access to information
laws to find out what the government of this Province had been doing with regard
to cellphone coverage. It is very
interesting.
The requester asks: “I am requesting, under the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, any briefing notes regarding
cellular coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador, since January 1, 2014.”
A simple request for information about what our government was doing with
the concerns of our residents in rural Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes
to cellphone coverage.
The government stands in their place day after day
saying cellphone coverage is a federal responsibility.
I never, ever heard anybody on this side of the House argue cellphone
coverage being a federal responsibility.
A bill like Bill 1 gives the people an opportunity to see what the
conversation has been between the federal and provincial government when it
comes to cellphone coverage.
The conclusion from the department from the ATIPP
request: Be advised, that the subject of your request, cellular coverage in
Newfoundland and Labrador, resides within the purview of the federal government
and not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Well, we knew that.
The very important piece of this ATIPP request, Mr.
Speaker, goes back to this: “Through our search we have found no responsive
records that directly address your request … .”
So this ATIPP request, Mr. Speaker, which comes back to
what Bill 1 does, giving us access to information of government, paints a bit of
a picture. It paints a picture of a
government who stands and says cellphone service and cellphone coverage is the
responsibility of the federal government.
So it is, but it is the responsibility of the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to represent the citizens of
Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to dealing with the Government of
Canada, Mr. Speaker, and they failed to do so.
They have not been having conversations with the federal government with
regard to cellphone coverage in our Province.
So, Mr. Speaker, that is the value of ATIPP requests
when it comes to finding out what it is a government is doing with regard to
representing its people.
Mr. Speaker, thirty-four days ago I stood in my place
in the House of Assembly and asked a question about $40 million in business
loans that this government have written off in the last ten years.
The Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services stood that day to a
question from the Member for Virginia Waters and said: I will ask the officials
in the department to gather the information and I will table the list in this
House. Mr. Speaker, that was
thirty-four days ago. We still have
not seen the list.
The minister stood that day and told us that 71 per
cent of those loans were from way back when – 71 per cent.
So obviously, if the minister knew where 71 per cent of those loans
originated –
MR.
S. COLLINS:
No,
91 per cent.
MR.
CROCKER:
Okay, the minister is correcting me.
He said he knew where 91 per cent of those loans came from.
Well, if he knew where 91 per cent of those loans came from, can he show
us the information he had that day, thirty-four days ago?
MR.
S. COLLINS:
(Inaudible).
MR.
CROCKER:
I
say to the minister –
MR.
KING:
A
point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of
order.
MR.
KING:
Thank you.
Just to offer some clarity to the member.
The list in fact does exist.
It is sitting with the Privacy Commissioner who is making a ruling on what
information can be released and cannot be.
As soon as that advice is provided, you will certainly be provided with
what information we can.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Trinity – Bay de Verde.
MR.
CROCKER:
Sorry, Mr. Speaker; I thank the minister for that piece of information.
I am just going to take it one step further, Mr.
Speaker. Maybe what we should be
looking at, as a Province, as we debate Bill 1 tonight of access to information,
is if we look at the model used by the Nova Scotia Department of Business.
Mr. Speaker, if a company receives a loan in the Province of Nova Scotia
from the department of business and rural development, that loan is
automatically posted online for everybody in the Province of Nova Scotia to
access and see where their money is being invested.
If the government has the confidence enough in a
business to invest in it, they should have the confidence in that business to
put it online so everybody can know where their money is being spent.
So, Mr. Speaker, back about a year ago when the former
Premier Marshall talked about the establishment of a committee headed by Justice
Wells and two others, it was quite interesting that our leader took the
initiative to go and sit with that Committee and present recommendations to what
he felt would be strong improvements that could be related to access to
information in our Province.
I also would encourage people this evening who are
watching to – there is a great library of information requests.
You go to the government's website, you go down and you find access –
Office of Public Engagement – and you go in and can see the questions that are
being asked. Lots of times these
questions are likely coming from the Opposition parties, journalists, and others
in the general public. So, anybody
at home who wants to see the type of questions and get an insight into what is
happening inside of government, it is a great place to have a look.
I will come back to our leader's presentation to the
review panel on July 22, 2014. We
addressed the issues of Cabinet confidentiality.
We suggested that section 18 should be replaced with a version similar to
section 18 prior to Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.
We talked about – and the Member for St. John's West
earlier this afternoon in the debate referenced one of the valuable pieces of
Bill 29 was to protect the privacy of people in our Province.
I guess the Minister for Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development
just issued a similar statement.
It is interesting to the fact that I was elected on the
twenty-fifth of November, Mr. Speaker, and for my first month or six weeks as a
member of this House, my staff had to go through a minister's EA in order to
deal with an issue for a with an issue for a constituent.
So my constituent would call my office, make a request to do something
with a government department. We
would first have to get that person to fill out an authorization form, get it
back to us, we would send it in, and then we would deal with a minister's
executive assistance. So, the
executive assistant did not require authorization to talk to somebody's records.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to know that hindsight is 20/20
and many members of the government over the last couple of days have said they
realized that Bill 29 was a mistake. We
told them that three years ago, or our six members three years ago certainly
told them that that day would come.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Member for Cape
St. Francis stood in the House and said: My daughter went to Florida and she
bought ten pairs of flip- flops, so I used to call her Ms Flip-Flop; and he
suggested, for some reason, that members on this side of the House, or our,
leader was flip-flopping. Well, I
suggest to the minister if he bought ten pairs of flip-flops two years ago, see
how many pairs he can go back and find.
If he finds all ten, he only has to buy eighteen more and everybody in
the government side can have a pair of flip-flops.
Because, Mr. Speaker, from Bill 29 to Bill 1 has been a flip-flop by this
government.
I congratulate them for the flip-flop because it was a
flip-flop that needed to happen so that we could get a good piece of legislation
that was written, I would say, by the Committee.
I am glad the government is going to adopt the piece of legislation as it
was written. I am glad to stand in
my place either it be tonight or sometime next week or the wee hours of tomorrow
morning and support the bill, because I do support the bill.
I support the people of the Province having the ability to see how their
tax dollars are being spent.
Mr. Speaker, on that note, I will take my seat and
hopefully get an opportunity later this evening to ask some more questions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the minister responsible, I will simply
thank all members for their contribution to the debate and close second reading.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1 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 The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of
Privacy. (Bill 1).
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR.
KING:
Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill “An Act To Provide The Public With
Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 1)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources,
that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider
Bill 1.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
We are now considering Bill 1, An Act To Provide The
Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy.
A bill, “An Act To Provide The Public With Access To
Information And Protection Of Privacy.”
(Bill 1)
CHAIR:
I
just want to remind all members as they begin in the Committee of the Whole
tonight, we have in second reading been debating the principles of the bill; we
are now debating the specifics of Bill 1, so I am trying to guide hon. members
in their conversations.
Clause 1.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had the opportunity to start off in debate and I
spoke quite extensively on Bill 1 the first time that I had the opportunity.
I believe I had spoken for about an hour in the initial debate where I
gave a broad overview and talked about the history, but I have to – in looking
at Bill 1 and clause 1, which is comprehensive of the entire bill – look at the
review that it was called five years before the requirement because of the
widely expressed concern to the amendments to the legislation with Bill 29 in
2012. This was done two years ahead
of schedule as well as by the statutory provision to review the ATIPP
legislation.
The terms of reference that were given in the act were
more user-friendly. The terms of
reference stated, as to this bill which we are debating here, clause by clause
at this point, would be simpler, cheaper, and faster and would provide a
convenient, speedy, and less costly review and appeal process.
Looking at what is in this particular bill we see there
are mechanisms in place that are made to make it more convenient for people to
apply for access to information. We
have seen there has been a removal of a fee.
We have seen the days that have been applied have been twenty business
day. We have also seen a reduction
in some of the costs. When we get to
the clause on cost, I will go in and ask some more specific questions and ask
the minister for some clarification.
When we look at Bill 1, to ensure the independence and
to prevent any influence or interference from government, what happened is the
committee obtained an email and obtained network data through a private service
provider. So we actually have
confidence from a committee perspective with Clyde Wells, Jennifer Stoddart, and
Doug Letto that when they compiled the information, when they did their
statutory review, that it was free of government interference and influence to
provide the draft bill that we have here.
This is not the government's bill, even though the
government has tabled it in the House of Assembly.
This was something that was drafted by the independent committee.
These extra measures were taken by the Statutory Review Committee to
produce Bill 1 to ensure openness and transparency and to make sure that during
this process any oral presentations that were put forward in the public
hearings, and all written presentations, were to be made public.
This is the way these things should be done, as we are debating this bill
in the Legislature right now. It is
all public. People can watch.
People can read after the fact.
Every piece of information we say is available to the public.
During that time there were sixty-nine Expressions of
Interest from persons and organizations interested in making that
representation. Eight of those were
withdrawn, so there were sixty-one in total.
Twelve Expressions of Interest from people living outside St. John's
region, the Metro area, three of those were also withdrawn.
There were three provided written responses, five wanted to make comments
set out in the EOI, and two from outside St. John's actually spoke at the
hearings.
None of the contributors were from Labrador, and the
committee did not receive an Expression of Interest from any municipality, and
nothing from the organization that represents municipalities.
Although in the bill, municipalities will play a greater role in terms of
what is going to be included in terms of access to information.
From the briefing we were told that section of the act would be delayed
because there would need to be further time for training for municipalities in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There were three sets of hearings held during the
summer months, June, July, and August; 343 ATIPP coordinators in departmental
offices, municipalities, and other public bodies in the Province.
Only 122 of the 343 responded to the questionnaire sent by the committee.
That is a response rate of 36 per cent.
The committee also reviewed other pieces of legislation
across the country in terms of province, in terms of Westminister style, looking
at New Zealand, looking at counterparts like the United Kingdom, looking at
Australia, looking at Ireland, the Republic.
When we look at the amount of work that was done in reviewing other
pieces of jurisdictions, we see it has produced this document, this piece that
has repealed much of the initial Bill 29 documentation that was implemented in
2012.
When the committee actually had open hearings, the
Leader of the Official Opposition was the only leader to put forward
recommendations that were accepted by the Statutory Review Committee.
That is actually here in the bill that I will point out when we go
through clauses, once we get off clause 1.
Statutory changes; the committee realized very early
that it would be necessary to really undertake and overhaul the existing ATIPPA.
They had to do that because it was so bad.
Bill 29 was so regressive, it was not open, it was not transparent, and
it was not accountable to the people of the Province.
When you look at the ATIPP requests, when you look at
information that is in the Office of Public Engagement, a government that is
saying it is championing open government and open government initiative but you
are not going to get it until 2020, just batting things down the road rather
than – when we look at, it is going to be future generations that will get this
access to information.
When you look at open government and open information,
you have to look at other jurisdictions and what they are doing and how
information is made available, accessible, and how it is useable by people who
really need it. Because information
is only good if it is usable by people.
You can throw out all kinds of numbers, sheets of
information and Excel spreadsheets, but if it takes more time to decipher and
put together for any group, or any individual, business, or municipality to
actually use that information to the benefit of the people of the Province, to
either attract business, grow the economy, help non-profits, social enterprises,
or make good decisions, if that information is not in a useable form like it is
in places like British Columbia – British Columbia is a real leader in this with
DataBC, and how you can deal with the different layers of information and how
you can access and make good decisions.
What you see here with this government, more than a
year ago when the Minister for the Office of Public Engagement got up in the
lobby of Confederation Building with the Premier at the time acting like Steve
Jobs and basically trying to sell a product that you are an open government, and
a year later where you have very little new information, you are not releasing
more proactive data, very little that is usable, it kind of gives people an
understanding that you are not really serious.
You are more talk and not so much action.
There was a news release put out that there is more and
more information, more proactive disclosure.
I believe seven pieces of information.
One of them was around the non-profit and volunteer secretariat.
When you look at the census and you look at that information – and I
encourage people to go to that portal, download the document, and you will find
that it is the most useless piece of information when it comes to trying to find
out or decipher anything about the non-profit secretariat.
The detailed information that would be given in
questionnaires that government would have access to with the names of the
organizations and things like that, that they would have access to, may be of
some value. What the volunteer and
non-profit secretariat would have, it would likely be of value to them, but what
is put there publicly and what is made publicly available, it is no value to
anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador.
You can look at that information and try and decipher it.
This is what we are talking about when we are talking about providing
information. You can provide
information, but if it is not in useable form, it is no good to absolutely
anyone.
This is where the committee really suggested that there
needs to be a number of changes to overhaul the existing ATIPPA, to address the
issues that were raised by citizens, by organizations, as well as the
commission. As a result, the
Committee drafted this revised statute, Bill 1, that we are debating here
tonight in the House of Assembly.
The benefits the Committee saw in drafting its own
legislation that would repeal Bill 29, it would allow the Committee to express
its recommendations and recommendations put forward by the Leader of the
Official Opposition in user-friendly language that would ensure that Bill 29
would be repealed, and that it would enable the Committee to recommend specific
recommendations.
I will get into that as we go through the clauses, some
of the specific recommendations for statutory change.
Whether it is looking at the powers of the Commissioner and the
Commissioner's office that was stripped under Bill 29; whether it is talking
about Cabinet confidences that were withheld; and what the Clerk of the
Executive Council would have had when it came to stamping documents with that
stamp. Anything could have been a
Cabinet document. This piece of
paper here, if they put down any note, it could have been a Cabinet document.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Anything could have been looked at as a Cabinet document, or policy advice, or
pieces of policy advice leading to Cabinet.
Now we are seeing in this bill where they have been changing the
legislation to make sure that things that are factual information and
deciphering what it policy advice and what is not, that would be harmful – I
will go into talking about things like the means test and how it was changed.
If you had a three-part means test, if only one part was met, then the
information was all withheld. That
is now changed in Bill 1.
So I will get a chance to talk about these types of
things as we go forward and debate in the clauses Bill 1.
There are several; there are 137 clauses.
They are significant because we are making significant changes.
So, we should all have our say, we should all talk about the changes, the
impacts, so people are clear and understand the legislation and how it can
benefit the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Sometimes we do not spend enough time in matters like
reviewing the public accounts, looking at the fiscal situation of the Province,
and sometimes we do not spend enough debating bills.
Even good pieces of legislation like Bill 1, people need to have clarity.
People need to have understanding of what the changes are and how they
impact their lives, and how we can have better governance in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is about being
participatory, and that is what it is all about.
It is about being involved in this debate.
I hope that other members will talk about the specific bill, the clauses,
and contribute because that is how this Legislature works –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
–
and works most effectively. It works
most effectively when the legislation and Legislatures are participatory and
that we have open dialogue, conversation, and that information is shared,
discussed, and debated very thoroughly.
What happened in this case, in this legislation, it took a full year from
the time that the review was announced and the Committee put in place, to the
bill that we got and the report when it was submitted – a full year.
That was a long time when you look at the information and the process and
the significant change, even though it was called two years ahead of schedule.
So with that information that was put forward and the
bill itself, I made my points when I spoke for an hour about how regressive Bill
29 was, how it was not about being an open and accountable government.
I am going to take some time to go through the clauses and talk about
some of the changes that will happen.
Maybe the minister, as well, who introduced the bill, will explain some
of the changes.
I look forward to the dialogue this evening as we
debate Bill 1 and continue the conversation and look forward to its passage in
the Legislature in due course.
I will take my seat here and allow others to contribute
to Bill 1.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am happy to get up and speak once again to this
legislation, Bill 1. As I called it
the other day the one million-dollar bill because that is what it took.
I know there are probably people watching at home because we are sitting
at night. It is not like the
daytime, people have more of an opportunity to tune in.
So for people who are watching at home, what we are doing tonight is we
are debating Bill 1 which, as I said previously, effectively repeals the effects
of Bill 29, which was the piece of legislation that was rammed through the House
of Assembly in June 2012 that changed public access to information in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Of course people will remember there was an ensuing
public outcry. The Opposition
delayed the bill insofar as we were able.
Then eventually government came to its senses.
The former Premier, Acting Premier Marshall, called a review.
That review cost $1.1 million to carry out.
Now, I was listening the other day when the Member for
Terra Nova, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, was speaking.
MR.
LANE:
Workers' comp.
MR.
KIRBY:
He
is responsible for a number of other agencies as well, but I missed the first
part of his talk so I just read it in Hansard, but I did come in towards the
end. I was out doing some other
work. He said if we were going to
focus on this bill, that we should focus on the improvements, focus on what is
being improved in the legislation.
I went out then, after we sat, and got a newspaper
story that minister was quoted in because like the hon. Member for Humber
Valley, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party,
like the Leader of the Liberal Party the minister also presented to the
commission that reviewed Bill 29, the legislation, and made recommendations for
the legislation that we are discussing tonight.
I wanted to go back and get that because it was really
interesting. The title of the
article was: Government engaged in clear 'abuse' of ATIPPA – that is the acronym
for the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Government engaged in clear abuse of that piece of legislation.
Abuse, that is the word that was used, not by me, but by the Chair of the
commission that reviewed the legislation, the former Premier of the Province and
the former Justice, Mr. Clyde Wells.
This says the minister's name – and I will not say his
name but he knows what his name is in any case; he is the Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services. So, you
are named in there, Minister. Some
of the stuff it says here is very interesting.
It says, Mr. Wells pointed out “… in the past, bureaucrats have claimed
attorney-client privilege over documents that had nothing to do with legal
advice.”
People went in looking for information, whether it is
journalists, members of the Opposition Parties, members of the public, just
business people and people who have inquiries about land and other issues, and
sort of rigmarole that they are snarled up in but they are trying to untangle
because government bureaucracy and red tape is causing them some difficulty or
another.
Basically, when they say bureaucrats in here I do not
really think they are talking about public servants.
They are really talking about the people who are at behest of the
Cabinet, of the Premier's office, of ministers' offices, people who are doing
their bidding. People who are doing
the political job, whether it is ministers and their political assistants are
basically claiming attorney-client privilege when there is no legal angle at all
when it comes to what the person is asking for.
It was clear that this was being abused because, as Mr.
Wells said, in the past – now this is before Bill 29 – the Information and
Privacy Commissioner was able to review the documents.
Of course, one of the things Bill 26 achieved was putting that beyond the
view of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Before Bill 29, members of the general public would be
able to ask for information from the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services. The Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services, you would get a letter from that minister or from
government saying: No, you cannot access the information because of
solicitor-client privilege, attorney-client privilege because of some legal
matter. Then, if the person was
dissatisfied with that could appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner
and they would have a look at it.
Well, what Bill 29 did was it took that out.
So you could no longer go to the Information and Privacy Commissioner,
you had to go to the court. You had
to go to the court yourself. Just
think about the irony in that. These
things, a lot of them had nothing to do with a legal proceeding, with justice,
the law, solicitor-client privilege.
Then they are making you go to the court now, making you actually get involved
in a legal proceeding, a judicial proceeding for something that has nothing to
do with solicitor-client privilege.
As Mr. Wells said, having to get a document reviewed
then you would have to go to court, which is an expensive process.
A lot of people do not have the means to go get a lawyer or get somebody
to do a pro bono or to get somebody else with a quasi-judicial qualification or
what have you. On top of that, that
process could take months. It could
take years to just have a document reviewed to confirm whether or not
solicitor-client privilege was something that would prohibit that person from
getting access to information.
I will never forget this quote from Mr. Wells, and that
is why I went and dug this up. He
said: that sending people to the courts, an expensive and lengthy process just
to have a document reviewed, it is like telling me that I can get a really good
meal if I am prepared to go to South Africa to get it and incur all the costs to
get there – more or less.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Who
said that?
MR.
KIRBY:
Clyde Wells, former Premier of the Province.
To go to court is just a massive climb for the average
person looking for information.
We talked about that throughout the debate, the
filibuster. We talked about how that
was foolish. You were basically
putting a roadblock between information that people are entitled to and the
person. It is an absolutely
ridiculous roadblock. Like I said,
he likened it to you saying to me, I know a great meal you can have, all you
have to do is fly down to South Africa and get it – 99.9 per cent of the
population of the Province could not afford to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
KIRBY:
That is basically that.
This article is quite a good one by James McLeod.
It has an amazing amount of information in it.
It quotes the minister. The
minister sort of seems like he is a bit taken aback by some of the questions
that he is asked. He said he does
not know, or he will check into it, or best case is wrong and so on.
Now this is the review process that reviewed Bill 29,
the subsequent legislation, and all the brouhaha that ensued afterwards, the
public outcry, the Leader of the Liberal Party saying right off the bat that the
first thing he would do is see that a Liberal government would repeal Bill 29.
This says: overwhelmingly, the people who showed up to present to the
committee hearings – and they were held all around – have argued the current
law, the law that basically came out of Bill 29, is restrictive.
It allows the government to keep far too much information secret from the
public. That goes back to what the
Member for St. Barbe had said about the official secrets act.
Another thing we had said was about, more or less, the
Clerk of Executive Council being able to certify documents as something that was
confidential, a confidential Cabinet document, and any document.
I am not necessarily calling into question that individual's integrity or
even the integrity of the ministers of the Crown.
What it really boils down to is that you cannot have that much
discretion. You cannot have that
much discretion to just take any document that you choose and say oh, no, that
is confidential. Those are sort of
state secrets and we have to keep that from public view.
That is too much power for politicians to have, whether it is these
politicians, or those politicians, or all the politicians across the other way –
too much power.
Those are some of the things that were said.
I have a lot more stuff to read.
I have a page from the minister's briefing binder here that I am going to
share later. I will read from that
if I can.
I just thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will get up again and speak to some clauses a little later.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am happy to stand here and speak to Bill 1 here in
the Committee phase. I have had my
opportunity in second reading to speak.
I spoke fairly early on, so I have had the opportunity to listen to
members on both sides of the House and their views and perspectives on this very
important piece of legislation. I
have no choice but to put my opinion on the record what I think about that.
I think I need to do that because some people out there may watch at
different times and they hear someone and they say that sounds good.
Again, given that I was one of the people who was here
for the whole thing – you were here as well, Mr. Chair – and given that I was
one of the eleven who filibustered this and ensured in some ways that this
happened – because if we never filibustered it, I do not know if we would be
where we are. What we have here in
Bill 1, contrary to what the members on the other side delusionally seem to
think – they did not do this out of the goodness of their heart or because they
suddenly realized that Bill 29 was bad of their own accord.
This was brought on by other factors.
We have to get that clear.
Again, if I am wrong or somebody disagrees, I would
invite the members on the other side to motion to me to sit down.
I will sit down and they can stand up and tell me how I am wrong.
The good thing about the Committee stage is that we can go back and
forth, back and forth. It is really
good during the questioning phase.
Sometimes the members do not answer but at least we can put our questions out
there.
I think we have to put it out there that this was not a
case of oh, we realized that Bill 29 did not work out the way we thought it did
and we realize that we have to do the right thing.
This was forced on them. This
was a matter of political survival, an expediency to make sure that they righted
the wrong. I would like to take
credit as one of the people, along with the public, along with the media, that
brought the attention to this that was necessary.
Once they invoked closure on us and shut down this debate, we continued
that over the months and years that followed to let people know about the
draconian changes that Bill 29 brought.
One member on the other side – I believe it was the
Member for Harbour Main, who I have a great deal of respect for – stood up
tonight and said we thought it was the right thing to do.
I am glad to hear that. I
honestly do not think members would do something if they did not think it was
the right thing to do, but my question is – and I am hoping somebody will answer
– why happened to make you realize it was not the right thing?
When did that light flash on?
What happened? What specifically
happened to tell you this was wrong?
Because a lot of the things that have come up since you knew that week – you
knew it that week. So, I would like
to know.
The other part that the member referenced was we
received advice. Again, I would like
to know, and I ask this specific question – it is more of a Question Period type
question – who gave you the advice?
Did the former Premier give you the advice?
Did the deputy ministers give you the advice?
Did the bureaucrats give you the advice?
Did the PC Party give you the advice?
Who gave you the advice?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Don
Mills.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
No,
I am not talking about the advice to change it.
We know where that came from.
Who gave you the advice back in June 2012 that you should do this?
Because you are now saying – by evidence of the fact that we are tearing
the guts out of what you did and changing it back to what we told you, you
should do, was that bad advice?
I put that question on the record and members will have
ample opportunity if they would stand up and tell me and tell the people who
gave you the bad advice. Are you
blaming someone for Bill 29 other than youselves?
I would like to know that. I
think that is important because the member said we did it on advice.
I would like to know – and maybe we should do this under ATIPP; can we
get a copy of the documents that went back and forth with the advice?
The good news is that we will not have to pay for it now.
So those are serious questions.
I put that out there.
Everybody is standing up tonight saying we thought it was the right thing to do
there because they do not want the impression out there that they knew it was
bad and we are doing the people in.
That is fair enough; but if that is the case, why did you do it?
You had briefings – what was the explanation given to you to tell you to
do it? Because the explanations that
were given to us – and I can remember that meeting when we got our first
briefing on Bill 29; in fact, I can remember one conversation with a member
talking about the bill before it came in and saying you are going to take a few
smacks at us but overall there it is.
There was some impression that they knew this was
unpopular. That was already there,
so I would like to get back to how this started.
Tell us how this started. If
you were given bad advice, do you know what I would say?
I will forgive you for Bill 29.
I will forgive you because if you got bad advice from the people in your
department or the Premier's office, hey, there it is.
If you got bad advice tell us, tell us who it is and maybe we can have
chat with those individuals.
The other case is, Mr. Chair, is it that bad that you
are going to throw somebody under the bus?
Or are you going to take responsibility?
Somebody told me once, they said it is not an apology if you use the word
“but” in it. I am sorry but – that
is not an apology. You are trying to
explain what you did. In this case,
I think there is an apology owed to the people of the Province for putting them
through that.
In a lot of the cases – not every member, some members
have not talked to this. Some
members have gotten up – and I saw some members stand up and actually speak to
the changes between Bill 29 and Bill 1.
They referred to their notes and they spoke to the changes.
Some members got up and tried to justify all this and tried to say well,
we thought we had to do it. They are
not quite there in taking responsibility.
In fact, I have to go back to the member opposite.
Do you know what? He is the
second – I believe, I may be wrong – longest tenured member.
He said nobody owns legislation.
Nobody owns it. It belongs to
us all. I can tell you I own no part
of Bill 29. The people own no part
of Bill 29. The media owns no part
of Bill 29. Bill 29 rests with you.
You may as well take credit because you brought it in, you forced it down
our throats, you invoked closure, and you lived by it.
All you have to do is say we were wrong.
I guess I am saying there are some members over there
who are not quite ready to make that admission.
Some are. Some are speaking
to the changes and that is fine.
Some are getting up and trying to justify it and then saying the arrogance of
the members on the other side to talk about that.
Well, do you know what? You
cannot have it both ways.
The other thing is that if there was an ownership of
Bill 1, one part of the ownership I would tell you now belongs to Clyde Wells
and his Committee because they drafted it word for word.
Clyde and his Committee, and I am sure they had drafts people and
everybody else. That is good.
That is why I trust this piece of legislation.
I have to speak to this now because they keep talking
about how we bring up the money. You
are going to have to spend the money.
I guess what I am saying is you did not have to put us through this.
One thing I will remind people – because they talk about well, you might
bring up changes tonight and amendments in the Committee stage.
I say, I do not know if there is going to be a need.
I am sure there are going to be questions.
Our leader presented to Mr. Wells in committee and put
forward our suggestions, and do you know what?
A lot of them are in it. The
interesting thing is tonight they are talking about bringing changes forward.
We brought forward, in 2012, a number of amendments, a bunch of them, and
you on the other side know that you turned down every single one of them.
So please do not stand here tonight and say bring amendments and talk
about how open and willing you are, when the fact is you had them suggested to
you three years ago and you tossed them out.
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. member his speaking time has expired.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
will save it for my next shot.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to take an opportunity to thank members
for their participation in the second reading debate.
A large number of members in the House, I think the majority of members
in the House participated in the debate, which is always healthy, Mr. Chair.
I thank members for joining the debate in committee, which does, as
members point out, give us a chance to ask questions, debate back and forth,
clarify positions, and address whatever issues have arisen during debate.
It is an important part of the process.
I look forward to doing my best to answer whatever questions I can as
they arise.
The Member for Burgeo – La Poile posed a number of
questions or raised a number of issues.
I will not attempt to try and respond to all of them in the nine minutes
that I have left but I will touch on a couple of points because he did ask for a
response. As I said, I will do my
best to provide responses as the debate unfolds.
There was a question raised around: What advice did
government get in formulating the bill that led to amendments of our Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy legislation back in 2012?
Well, from what I recall at the time – I was actually sitting in your
chair at the time, Mr. Chair. I
remember the debate very well for that very reason.
I am sure some of the Table Officers would remember as well.
There was a review conducted by a gentleman named Cummings.
Commissioner Cummings conducted a review of the ATIPP
legislation which is required by our legislation to happen every five years.
That review was done. There
were a number of recommendations.
They were reviewed by the Department of Justice, which was responsible for the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation at the time, prior
to the existence of the Office of Public Engagement.
So it was reviewed by the department.
That would have then resulted in a Cabinet paper, a Cabinet submission
that would have been discussed and debated by the Cabinet of the day.
There were briefings for caucus members, for members of the Opposition
parties, and then the bill was ultimately debated in the House.
The advice came as a result of the review that is a statutory
requirement.
The member also asked: When did all these concerns
arise? Well, lots of concerns arose
during the debate. There is no doubt
about that. Members of the
Opposition passionately debated the bill and raised multiple concerns.
We did listen to those concerns, Mr. Chair.
We disagreed at the time. We
had a very different view on approach at that point in time, but we did actively
participate in that debate.
Following the passing of that legislation even more
concerns arose. We have heard lots
from members of the Opposition, no doubt.
We have heard from members of the media and we have heard from a number
of other groups and individuals as well.
Former Premier Marshall decided that we needed to act
on all of that. He decided that
instead of waiting for the five years to be up – which it would be now.
Mr. Chair, 2015 would have been the five-year anniversary and it would
have been the time for another review.
He said let's do it a year early.
Instead of just appointing a Commissioner, which is
what was done five years ago, let's go out and find the best possible expertise
we can. People with a legal
background; people with an ATIPP background, Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy background; people with a background in journalism; people
who understand how government works and why this legislation is so important,
and what it practically means in terms of the day-to-day operations of
government.
So we put together a panel of three experts who are
well known and well respected. I
think all members agree, from what I hear from the debate so far, that they did
a pretty good job. They came up with
legislation that is perhaps better than what we could have come up with on our
own. It is legislation that is best
in class. When it is in place it
will be the best in Canada and among the best in the world.
That review was done early because we heard the
concerns and we wanted to address the concerns that were out there.
We do want the public to have confidence in our ATIPP legislation.
We recognize that there were members of the media and there were members
of the Opposition who had very significant concerns.
As I said in second reading, I am pleased with the results of the review.
The financial issue has come up time and time again.
It has already come up during committee tonight, and I respect that.
The only thing I would remind hon. members, Mr. Chair, is that review is
a statutory obligation. The review
had to be done anyway. So we chose to do
it a year early for very good reason.
I think that was a wise decision and I think we are better off for it.
We are going to have better ATIPP legislation as a result.
That review and that process that cost in excess of a
million dollars had to be done anyway.
Now, could it have been smaller?
Could we have appointed a commissioner instead of the panel?
Perhaps, but we wanted to do it right.
Our goal was to have the best legislation anywhere in the country, and I
think we are achieving that.
I wanted to rise and respond to those few particular
points. Again, as we go through the
various clauses of the bill, I will do my best to answer whatever questions the
members have.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity again to speak to Bill 1.
I listened to the Minister of the Office of Public
Engagement. He brought up the
Cummings report and the statutory review that was done on Bill 29.
I had not really planned on going on the Cummings report and the review
and the amendments, but since the Minister of the Office of Public Engagement
brought that forward maybe he will answer the question as to what the financial
cost was to have Mr. Cummings do his statutory review that was done previously.
One of the points I wanted to make is that when the
minister just talked he said: we listened.
We had this statutory review that was brought forward.
We went around the Province.
We debated this in the House of Assembly.
Well, if we go back to the Cummings report and the recommendations that
were put forward, many of them were ones that were not listened to in the
government or amended, or rejected completely.
I will take some time now this evening to talk about those.
Recommendation 8 of the Cummings report was on fees.
He recommended that the current fee structure in ATIPPA remain unchanged.
So he recommended, back in 2012, that the fee structure remain unchanged.
What did government do at that time?
The recommendation has not been accepted.
Processing fees will be raised from $15 to $25 an hour to be more
consistent with other jurisdictions.
That is what they said. They are
going to be more consistent with other jurisdictions so we are jacking up the
fees. Despite this current panel and
committee saying, that is not the case.
We should not be raising fees.
Revert to the old structure and eliminate fees in many situations and
circumstances.
So who was right at that time?
Was it the review commissioner, Mr. Cummings, and the current panel, or
was it the government saying: no, we are going to raise the fees because it fits
with the other jurisdictions in Canada?
At the time they stated that four hours of processing
would be free of change to the applicant and that the other activities for
processing would be charged based on the contemplation time for getting the
information. Then fees exceeding $50
will be paid in two installments prior to receiving the requested records.
Then 50 per cent of the fee must be paid prior to the first half of the
work being completed and the balance must be paid prior to the completion of the
remainder of the work. The $5
administration fee will remain the same.
So this seems very bureaucratic.
It seems inefficient. This
whole process of saying you file your request, then we will do four hours free
but we will compile and see how much it is going to cost, give you an estimate;
then you have to pay this $50 fee in two installments; then you have to come
back and pay 50 per cent of the cost; and once we do half the work, then we need
to collect the other 50 per cent from you.
This is very bureaucratic. It
is inefficient. What was actually
not accepted by government in Bill 29 really proved to be wrong.
Mr. Cummings did not recommend that, but government modified it to suit
their own interest, not the people of the Province.
That was Recommendation 8.
We go into Recommendation 9; Mr. Cummings recommended
replacing the current section 16 with a new provision allowing for the extension
of time for up to thirty days for a public body to respond to an access request,
or with the Commissioner's permission for a longer period in specific
circumstances. In this situation,
that time has been lowered in the current Bill 1.
Recommendation 10, there was a lot of time spent in the
House of Assembly debating this particular clause of Bill 29.
Mr. Cummings, in his stat review, recommended that ATIPPA be amended to
permit a public body to refuse to respond to an access request that had the
prior approval of the OIPC, the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner, if the request is frivolous and vexatious.
There was a lot of discussion on that.
It came up over and over and over again if a request was frivolous or
vexatious or made in bad faith, trivial, repetitive, systematic, or amounts to
abuse of a particular process; but, rather than amend it to this particular
clause, government further made an amendment to the initial Cummings report that
the exception requiring the prior approval of the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner – because such documents as Commissioner reports, case law,
policy manuals, provide guidance on what constitutes a request that is frivolous
or vexatious, made in bad faith, is trivial and those situations, an abusive
process, they said: No, we are not going to allow the Office of the Information
and Privacy Commissioner, who would be the expert in looking at this information
to determine if a request is frivolous or vexatious or systematic in nature.
They said: No, we will decide that.
We have the people's best interest at heart.
Not the independent statutory office that has the expertise, the
knowledge, and deals with these matters on a daily basis.
That would be able to provide the confidence and trust for the people in
the Province when they are making a request, that they are not denied.
Because what one person in an office may view as systematic or repetitive
may not be termed or deemed that way in another case or situation.
This is why you need that consistency, you need that
level of training, but you need that role of the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner. That was taken
away by the government back in 2012 when they amended the Cummings report, when
they accepted Recommendation 10, but amended it even further.
This is why the people of the Province say this was draconian legislation
because not only did it look at the statutory review but government said: No, we
are going to amend this and take away powers from people.
Actually, Recommendation 11, the Auditor General Act
was amended to provide that the Auditor General shall not be permitted to access
section 18 records where the Clerk of the Executive Council or his or her
delegate certifies that they contain deliberations of Cabinet –
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. member to connect the dots a little bit, please, to the present
bill.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, when we talk about the restrictions of the
Auditor General's report and his office is listed in Bill 1 and it talks about
the role of what is a Cabinet document, what will be looked at as a committee of
Cabinet, or a matter that is confidential in nature, which I will speak to in
the individual clause if I have to; but I understand that in Bill 1 this
amendment is consistent with other pieces of legislation like the Child and
Youth Advocate Act, the Citizens' Representative Act, which is later in, I
believe, clause 120 or 125 of this particular act.
So what happened with the Cummings report is that it was restricted and
the Auditor General Act lost power under that piece of information.
When we look at Cabinet confidence, because that was
section 18 of the original Bill 29, I believe, Cummings recommended that it be
amended to include a complete listing of Cabinet records found in the Province
Management of Information Act; but that act, under the current Administration,
when they looked at it, what gave you Bill 29 well, it was amended even further
so that almost all Cabinet records would be, but the deliberations test would be
removed.
The deliberations test is back in Bill 1.
It is there where there is a three-part test.
Whereas I said that if you had one piece of information that was
requested well, because it did not meet the harms test, this means test, that it
would be rejected. It would be
deemed that Cabinet document is secret.
It actually got extended to official Cabinet records,
discontinued Cabinet records, supporting Cabinet records, official Cabinet
records certified by the Clerk, his delegate, are reviewed by the courts in the
event of a dispute. It actually had
to go to the courts rather than be reviewed by the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
When we look at Bill 1, many of those powers have been
restored and confidence can be restored in government when we look at what
actually happened in that situation.
I see that my time is winding down and I have number of
other situations so maybe the minister will answer the cost of the Cummings
report and see if government did get value because it amended a number of pieces
of the legislation to make a very draconian piece of legislation and that is why
we are here tonight debating Bill 1, all the changes and clauses that have been
made.
I will talk about them more in detail as we go forward.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The member opposite indicated that he had a number of
other points to raise, so I will be very brief and allow him an opportunity to
get up and continue with his questions and comments.
I do not know the precise cost of the Cummings review.
We are talking about a review that was done well over five years ago.
From recollection though, because it was a question I did ask in the
past, it was close to $200,000 – I think a bit less than that, but that is the
magnitude of what we are talking about.
I would respectfully say that we are not here to debate
the Cummings review. I did provide
the context in my previous response to the questions raised by the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile in terms of how we got to the changes that were made in 2012.
We are here tonight to debate Bill 1, I respectfully suggest.
The context is important and I will grant that.
The member provided some commentary around fees.
I am pleased to say that we moved quickly to implement a new fee schedule
and eliminate the application fee.
We did not wait to be here debating Bill 1 to make those changes because those
changes are the right things to do, they are important, and I think they
demonstrate our commitment to moving forward on this new legislation.
Anyway, I will take my seat and allow the member to
continue with his questions.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
I remind the member that we are discussing Bill 1.
I ask him if he is referring to something to connect it to Bill 1,
please.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the
opportunity.
I am speaking to clause 1 of the bill, which is
comprehensive of the 137 clauses in the bill.
One piece I want to talk about is the protection piece of actual
information. One thing that we
talked about in this debate, and we talked about it quite extensively, is what
was actually protected in terms of information.
Right now, the current bill that is in the House of
Assembly to repeal Bill 29 allows for greater extension of information to be
shared. Things such as records
created solely for the purpose of briefing a minister assuming a new portfolio,
briefing books and that information should be made available.
These are things that were restricted under the current legislation that
we have, that was created under Bill 29.
When we look at records that were created solely for
preparing a minister for sittings in the House of Assembly, that information,
formal research, audit reports, that information based on Bill 29 was not
available. Mr. Cummings recommended
that ATIPPA be amended to include protection for analysis, policy options,
consultations or deliberations but the government took it a step further.
They took it too far.
When we look at the bill that we currently have
protecting access to information and privacy protection it includes proposals,
analysis, policy options, consultations, deliberations between ministers, staff,
officials. Anybody who basically has
a conversation or whatnot, all of that information can be deemed protected.
All the records, the briefing books, when it comes to things for a period
of five years, any audit information or analysis, all of this information based
under the current Bill 29 is to be protected.
It is nice to see in Bill 1 that we see amendments put
forward that brings access to information, information that is factual, that
should be revealed to the people of the Province to help with better outcomes,
when we look at making decisions that impact public spending and infrastructure
and advice to people of the Province.
These types of things should not be withheld for the benefit of – if it
is a case of political purposes, but it seems that would be the case as to why
this information would be withheld.
It would be much more in partisan nature.
It would be the nature of the secret government, one that is not open and
transparent, to put forward those types of suggestions, I say, Mr. Chair.
That is why I wanted to bring up and point out those
suggestions that – when we look at the original statutory review of Cummings, it
was basically amended and taken way too far to bring you to Bill 29.
That ended up with another statutory review much earlier than what was
required and costing $1.1 million to repeal Bill 29 and make the changes.
I will give you another piece that is here in Bill 1,
and that was around looking at the salary range.
That information now has been amended and you will get the remunerated
amount when it includes the benefits and all that information rather than just a
range of salary. That information
should be made available to the people of the Province when that information is
being requested, rather than the particular range of salaries that would leave
somebody guessing. So it is nice to
see that information put forward.
Those are some extra things that I wanted to say on
clause 1, but I will allow any of my colleagues to speak further to that.
I appreciate the minister making the commentary that this was a $200,000
statutory review. If he can get
further clarification from his officials on that information and provide it here
in the House of Assembly, it would be much appreciated during the debate.
It does help in the context.
We have gone from 1981 right up here to tonight looking
at from the first access to information piece right up to the freedom of
information to where we have a more modernized act when it came to 2000 that
looked at technology, and looked at the evolution of information.
Now when we are in 2015, we are in the real information age where
information is being shared by electronic means.
It is being shared in social media.
It is being shared in many ways, shapes, and forms.
If we look at clause 2, which I will ask some questions
on when we get to clause 2, I will ask specifically about data and information
and its definition. So I give the
minister the opportunity to be prepared for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the Minister of Health and Community Services
spoke he really drew my attention to something that has been said by government
members here throughout this debate which is really not factually based.
I will tell you what it is and I will tell you why.
Members have said, well, do not talk about that it cost
$1.1 million. Do not talk about the
fact that it cost $1.1 million, because we were going to have to spend that
money next year anyway. We were
going to have to do that anyway. There
is, yes, a statutory review process that is mandated, that government cannot get
away from. That is why the statutory
review is in there. There is no
question about that.
By launching this in January, 2014, you are doing the
statutory review, or what you are claiming is the same as a statutory review.
Now, those comments there that were clarified, the difference between
$1.1 million and $200,000, obviously, that is not the same as the last statutory
review which was done by Cummings, because there is a big difference in the
cost. So that is not the same, and
it is also not exactly the same thing because it is two full years ahead of
schedule. If you have to review the
legislation every five years, why are we doing it every three?
That does not make any sense.
It is unnecessarily bureaucratic. So
that is foolish to suggest that.
The Cummings review had a lot of good information in
it. For example, they said that –
and it is relevant to this bill, as it was relevant in the last one.
He could find no other jurisdiction in Canada, no provincial jurisdiction
that removed the substantive test for including information under Cabinet
confidences. Nowhere in the country
did he find – there was no call during all that review to have this sort of
blanket exemption of documents. He
could find no legislation in Canada that excluded all Cabinet information from
disclosure, and on and on and on.
There was so much good stuff in that, and yes, those
hearings were sparsely attended.
That is not infrequently, unfortunately, the case.
So what? Cummings came back
with the report of the statutory review and government went way beyond what he
had recommended, completely contrary in some cases.
Yes, they adopted a handful of things that the Cummings review had asked
for, but this was completely way beyond the pale; blanket exemptions that
existed nowhere.
If you go in and search Hansard for the filibuster in
June, 2012, I do not know how many times the member's name –
CHAIR:
I
am going to ask the hon. member to speak to the bill.
MR.
KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
– how many times the commissioner's name is mentioned.
It is an enormous number, a large number.
One of the things that has been alluded to and has not
really been discussed in any detail is the whole role that journalism has played
in all of this, what I think is exceptionally important.
One of the things that was said by government members – because there are
some over there who actually did not speak at all to the legislation; for
whatever reason, I do not know why.
Maybe some of them were not feeling well or something, but some of the members
did not speak at all to the legislation.
Oftentimes, those who did really sort of bashed the media and suggested
they were way off base and that they were amongst the frivolous and the
vexatious out there who were requesting information that they did not really
need.
The Canadian Association of Journalists came out and
had a lot to say about Bill 29, the changes to the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act. They
talked about all the things that is now more or less being repealed by Bill 1
here, the broadening of the definition of Cabinet secrecy, the government
research reports and audits being withheld for up to three years if a Cabinet
minister decided they were not complete – imagine that; just saying oh, that
report was not complete. Sure, maybe
they never put the cover on it.
Maybe never put the cover on the document so they said oh, it is not complete.
So that means you can put it out of public view for three years.
You could say well, it is draft form, in your opinion, so you put it out
of public view for three years.
I mean, imagine if it was a matter of significant
public importance, like something around an environmentally sensitive area or an
endangered species, or a health matter or a person's personal health matter,
putting that out of view for three years.
That was a significant problem.
I think the one thing that the Wells commission did
quite nicely, too, was really pointed out that it was foolhardy to have members
of the public paying these sort of exorbitant amounts for accessing public
information that by virtue of every time you go to the grocery or convenience
store, the mall, Stavanger Drive, what have you, you pay taxes to the
government, you have already paid for all of the operations of this place, and
now you are having to pay again just to request information, let alone of all
this business of having to access the courts in order to get information.
I have to hand it to the minister responsible.
He went on social media – an interesting way of doing it, but whatever.
He went on and said yes, as of now, we are going to cut that out.
We are going to stop charging people to access information, and that was
nicely done. I have to compliment
government on that because every now and then they do a good thing, and we point
it out. I am one of the first people
to point it out, like the Member for Bay of Islands.
He is always there. When the
government does something that we agree with, we always point it out.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR.
KIRBY:
Yes, it is true. Oftentimes there
are things that the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Liberal Leader, there
is often stuff that he has said already, like repeal Bill 29 and so on.
CHAIR:
I
am going to ask the hon. member to speak to the bill, for the second time.
MR.
KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.
We do not care; take the whole platform and implement
it. That is good for all of us.
I do not want to go on a whole lot longer.
I will just summarize because really, in the end, we all know that we are
all voting for this bill because, over here, we all agreed with this bill, the
one that is currently on the table in June 2012.
We have been waiting a long time to see this bill.
I am glad now that all the government members agree with the Leader of
the Liberal Party that we should repeal Bill 29 and bring in this Bill 1 which
is a model now.
Isn't it better being a model for Access to Information
and Protection of Privacy in Canada, in North America, amongst the OECD
countries? Now we can be a leader
rather than a laggard. For the
amount of time that had ensued after the proclamation of Bill 29, we were a
laggard amongst countries, of jurisdictions of our kind, and now we can be a
leader and that is something that we can all celebrate.
I have to remind members opposite that when this
government came to power, initially, in the 2011 election, they promised
openness and transparency. What they
provided in the end, in June 2012 in this House of Assembly, was secrecy and
closure. Shutting down debate, not
just amongst Members of the House of Assembly but the public as well saying we
are no longer allowed to discuss it.
CHAIR:
I
am going to ask the member to speak to Bill 1.
MR.
KIRBY:
Mr.
Chair, they promised transparency and they buried information where people could
not find it. You could not find
information. They promised
accountability but they made sure it was impossible to achieve accountability
because you cannot have accountability if you do not have openness and you do
not have transparency. That is a
fact.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to point out that with Bill 1, one individual in
the past that has had problems with access to information would be the Auditor
General. The past Auditor General
filed a formal complaint with the House of Assembly citing denial of access to
information. This was in 2012.
The government told the Auditor General that the documents he wanted were
exempt from audit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Exempt from audit because it would disclose Cabinet deliberations.
The Auditor General disputed it saying that government is “… applying a
much broader definition of cabinet secrecy 'than has been seen in recent
memory.'” This was in a CBC article
of January 2012. This was before
Bill 29 when that information was being denied.
So the Auditor General had to –
CHAIR:
I
am going to ask the hon. member to relate it to Bill 1.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Sure.
CHAIR:
The
Chair has been very lenient.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
So
I am going to ask that members speak to Bill 1, please.
Thank you.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Chair, clause 120 – and I can wait until clause 120 specifically, but that is
the Auditor General's report and the Auditor General Act.
It talks about the specific clause which restores power to the Auditor
General's report which was not there in Bill 29 which is yet to be repealed.
This is why I am bringing up the information of the Auditor General's
report and tying it specifically to the bill.
I could read clause 120 of Bill 1.
Bill 1 is the enacting clause which is comprehensive of all pieces of
legislation. Section 120, “Section
19 of the Auditor General Act is repealed and the following substituted: 19.
Notwithstanding sections 17 and 18, the auditor general shall not be permitted
access to information the disclosure of which may be refused under section 31 of
the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 or the disclosure
of which shall be refused under section 27 of that Act.”
Maybe we need to go to section 27 and 31 of the act to
get further clarity, or the minister can explain the role of the Auditor General
and the powers that have been restored.
Maybe I will give the minister the opportunity to respond to that
question, or I can get up and read out the clauses specifically and go into more
information. Else, I am willing to
move on to the specific clauses and move off clause 1.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Chair, I will respond briefly and once again allow the member to continue.
He is asking a question about clause 120 I believe.
I recognize that during clause 1 there is a fair bit of
latitude. You have certainly allowed
a lot of latitude so far, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for that.
If you want to debate specific clauses of the bill, which is what the
Committee phase is really for, we are happy to do that.
Let's get to those clauses and I will be happy to provide whatever
answers I can, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 137 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 137 inclusive carry?
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question about clause 2.
CHAIR:
Yes.
Thank you.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Clause 2, which is definition (g) dataset.
It says, “'dataset' means information comprising a collection of
information held in electronic form where all or most of the information in the
collection.”
Then it goes on further, I will not read out all
sections of it but it talks about the specific collection.
When we go to section, under record (y).
So I am tying in dataset to record because record says, “… means a record
of information in any form, and includes a dataset, information that is machine
readable, written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner, but does not
include a computer program or a mechanism that produced records on any storage
medium.”
I ask the minister for clarification on the meaning of
a dataset around the terms of when a collection is not available, and around why
records that would be produced on a storage medium would not be available to –
why it would be excluded.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, on clause 2.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, certainly, Mr. Chair. I am
happy to stand up here.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from The
Straits – White Bay North for asking a very good question on clause 2.
I know we are going clause by clause now.
What I think I would like to do at this point – I
appreciate the minister, and again, I will give him credit.
He is listening to what we had to say and answering those.
I think there is a question on clause 2 that he is going to answer.
He has been very forthcoming, certainly more forthcoming than the
minister who handled Bill 29.
I will sit down at this point and let the Member for
The Straits – White Bay North ask it again.
I know the minister is trying his best to answer these, so I will give
him that opportunity.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Sure. I may have put two things
together that would not have created the greatest clarity.
So I will ask in (g) the dataset and the definition.
When it talks about “… information comprising a collection of information
held in electronic form …” and then it goes on to a number of definitions.
Subsection (iii) “remains presented in a way that,
except for the purpose of forming part of the collection, has not been
organized, adapted or otherwise materially altered since it was obtained or
recorded.”
I am wondering why the necessity for a section for
exclusion for things that would be part of a collection and things that would
have been material altered, why that would not be made available or considered
part of an actual dataset? Why that
particular information would be restricted?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the member for clarifying.
I did not quite understand what he was asking when he first raised the
issue. I think I understand and I
will give you my best interpretation.
We have folks in the Office of Public Engagement who are following this
debate closely, and if there is additional information that they relay to me at
whatever point we are in the Committee debate, I will certainly bring that
information to the floor of the House.
I think the intention is that information datasets will
be provided as they are. So they
could not be organized, adapted or otherwise materially altered prior to being
released. The intention is that they
are what they are. They would not be
manipulated or interpreted or changed or modified.
It would be presented in a form and released in a form as is, Mr. Chair.
I believe that is the intention, and if I determine otherwise this
evening, I will certainly let the member know at the earliest opportunity.
He raised another issue related to this a little
earlier, Mr. Chair, and if you would allow me to address that as well.
He talked about the importance of making information and data available
in useable formats. I fully support
that. I can assure him that as part
of our commitment to open information and open data, two key pillars that are
part of our Open Government Initiative that I know he is very familiar with, we
are working very closely with the Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency,
we are working with OCIO, we are working with other agencies in government to
figure out how we can achieve that.
We know that lots of the information and data that is
available today is not in the best possible format that makes it easy for people
to use, and it is our intention to continue to work on that, Mr. Chair.
I hope that clarifies.
If I get additional information, I will rise again shortly and clarify.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the minister for the answer.
It certainly clarifies the definition to me.
I just want to get a clarification though on the
record, definition. It says, “… does
not include a computer program or a mechanism that produced records on any
storage …” device.
Is it the mechanism that is the issue or is it the
information that is contained on a storage device may or may not be available,
or is the information that would be on a storage device considered excluded from
access to information in terms of what accounts for a government record?
Just that clarification would be helpful.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
KENT:
That is another reasonable question, Mr. Chair.
I think the point is that the computer program itself,
or the device itself, is not a record.
The information is the record, not the medium by which it is shared or
provided or transmitted or communicated.
The program or the device, or whatever the case may be, is not a record.
It is the information that is the record.
I hope that clarifies the member's question.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
MR.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Chair.
CHAIR:
I
am sorry.
The hon. the Member for St. George's – Stephenville
East.
MR.
REID:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I just realized there was some controversy about the
definition of public body, I think, in this clause.
Also, the words adopted and dataset.
I think there were some issues related to that.
Maybe the minister can shed some light on the issues that arose in
relation to those definitions and the conversations that were had with the
commission to clarify that. I think
it is important to put that on the record as well.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Chair, I am not quite sure what the member is referring to.
We have spoken about the definition of dataset and what is intended with
the sub-clauses that are provided there.
The review Committee, in doing its work, sought out the
best examples of every piece of this legislation and put together something that
truly is a made in Newfoundland and Labrador solution.
It is unique legislation. We
did not copy and paste from another jurisdiction.
My assumption, Mr. Chair, is that if it is a different
definition it is because the folks who wrote this legislation for us went out
and selected the best and clearest definition they could from their perspective.
I do not know if that addresses the member's concern,
but, again, I will do my best.
Thank you.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to follow up on the question asked by the
Member for St. George's – Stephenville East with respect to the definition of a
public body. In the briefing it was
explained that section 2(x) – I do not know if it is subsection (iv) or (vi) was
going to be delayed coming into force until August 1, because there needed to be
some discussions with municipalities.
I am just wondering if those discussions with municipalities are
currently underway. Or is that
something government is planning to do at a later date?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
KENT:
I
thank the Member for St. John's North for his question, another good one.
There is a working group that has been established between my department,
the Office of Public Engagement, the Department of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and with
representation from real live municipal administrators, people who work in
municipalities large and small. That
work is ongoing. There is training
that has been initiated across the Province.
There is more work to do.
In light of this provision and the clarification that
was provided by Mr. Wells on behalf of the review committee only recently, just
in the last week or so, as a result of that it has been determined and it was
recommended by the Privacy Commissioner that we take basically most of the
summer, that we take another couple of months to allow for much more extensive
consultation with municipalities on this particular issue, which is about what
constitutes a public body from the perspective of municipalities.
Which municipal entities, other than municipalities, are now going to be
subject to ATIPP legislation for the very first time?
We did not feel it would be reasonable or fair to
spring that upon them on June 1.
Municipalities themselves, municipal bodies themselves, need time to determine
whether or not they are subject to this legislation and we want to support them
in that effort.
The working group we have assembled will provide
support. We will be doing extensive
consultation with those affected over the next couple of months to make sure
that they have ample time to prepare, and really understand who is in and who is
not, in keeping with the spirit and intent of what Mr. Wells and the Committee
have proposed.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville – Cape St. St. George.
Stephenville East – Cape St. George, I am sorry.
MR.
REID:
St.
George's – Stephenville East.
CHAIR:
St.
George's – Stephenville East, thank you.
MR.
REID:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, the point that I was making earlier was that
people are assuming that the legislation we have here today was the legislation
that the Committee proposed. It is
my understanding there was some typographical errors within the legislation.
That was brought forward by the Committee, clarification was sought by
the department, and some changes were made.
Would the minister maybe tell us a little bit about those changes that
were made based on these typographical errors – just for the record, Mr. Chair?
MR.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That is another good question.
So I just spoke to the definition of public body, so that was one of the
two changes. There were only two
that – and I have a letter here which I am happy to table, Mr. Chair.
I believe members opposite do have a copy of it as well.
Mr. Clyde Wells wrote us on April 21, not that long ago, about a week
ago, to provide clarification on two points.
One related to the definition of public body, which I just spoke about.
So I will not repeat myself, but that was one of the issues.
The second issue was really what I constitute as a
typo, and Mr. Wells does as well. It
was with respect to the word “adopted” used in item (iii) of the definition of
dataset. So now I understand what
your earlier question was about. It
is in paragraph (g) of section 2. It
was a typographical error.
Members of the Committee intended the word to be
“adapted” instead of “adopted”. So,
while that may on the surface not see like a big deal, there are certainly
lawyers that would tell you it is a big deal.
Mr. Wells and the Committee were kind enough to clarify exactly what was
intended. We have that in writing
from Mr. Wells. We committed to
adopting the legislation as the Committee intended.
This is what the Committee intended, so that is why the legislation has
been adjusted accordingly.
It is an important point.
We touched on it in second reading, but it is good in Committee to have a
chance to make sure everybody is clear on what those couple of changes are.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 2 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 3.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to clause 3.
Clause 3 is the purpose of the act.
The purpose of an act for access to information and privacy protection is
really to facilitate democracy. That
is something that did not occur under Bill 29.
It brought a lot of public discourse, public concern, about the right
level of access to information and the right balance of privacy protection.
This is why we are here tonight debating.
The Committee looked at all levels of information.
They looked at Canadian access to information and provide a balanced
access to government information. So
things, I would think, like public library board minutes would be made
available. You would not get all of
this blacked out toner. It would
protect the other interests that would adversely affect if that information was
disclosed. There are certain pieces
of information, private information that is personal in nature that certainly
should not be disclosed publicly, so this bill is two-fold and that is the
purpose of this particular act.
The Committee stated what the Supreme Court decision
was when it comes to informational privacy and that the understanding
overlapping is privacy as secrecy, privacy as control, and privacy as anonymity.
If we look at what the original act was and what was put forward in 2012,
it stated a number of clauses about giving the public a right to access records;
right of an individual to access or the right to request the correction of
personal information about themselves; specifying the limited exceptions to the
right to access; preventing the unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of
personal information on public bodies; and the act did not replace other
procedures to access or limit access to personal information that is available
in the public.
The Committee really recast – and that is what we have
here in Bill 1. They recast the
purpose of the ATIPPA legislation so that ATIPPA could – what is in the existing
version of the bill, it states that it is going to facilitate democracy through
ensuring that the citizens have the right to information required and
participate meaningfully in a democratic process.
Because that is something that under Bill 29, under the previous
legislation, the Committee acknowledges, the statutory panel, looks at that the
process was not democratic in terms of getting information, the way things were
being withheld.
It looked at the current purpose of the bill is looking
at increasing transparency in government and public bodies so that the elected
officials, the officers, people who work on behalf of the public, on behalf of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and these public bodies that are all defined
under clause 2, which we just passed, are accountable, that they have to remain
accountable, and that is really important, and that protecting the privacy of
individuals with respect to personal information themselves is held and used by
public bodies. That is certainly
providing the right balance when it comes to democracy, when it comes to the
right level of access. I think it is
the right drafting when we look at the purpose of the bill.
Then, if we look at subsection (2) in clause 3 it goes
into further detail about each clause, about the right to access records, and
about the discretionary exceptions that could exist.
If the public interest in disclosure outweighs the reason to exception
there would be reason why information would not be disclosed, and why that would
prevent unauthorized collection, use or disclosure of personal information by
public bodies. There would be that
ability to protect and take further action.
As we go through the bill we will be able to debate and
discuss some of these particular matters.
I just wanted to point out in clause 3 how dramatically different it was
from the previous Bill 29 that is inclusive of an open, democratic process in
terms of access to information and how it has significantly changed to give an
improved bill repealing the regressive Bill 29.
I do not know if the minister wants to comment on the purpose of the
bill, how it expands some of the greater roles, protects privacy, provides the
right balance, and how it really is repealing the regressive Bill 29.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
I
will rise again, Mr. Chair, because I know the member wants to raise other
points. I will respond very briefly
to say that –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Thank you.
MR.
KENT:
Thank
you for your protection, Mr. Chair.
I will respond to the –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
KENT:
It
is just continuous whether you provide the protection or not, Mr. Chair.
It is tough, but it is part of the business.
Mr. Wells and the Committee, when they presented the
report, expressed a great deal of passion around the redefined purpose of the
legislation. The very first line in
clause 3 is very telling, “The purpose of this Act is to facilitate democracy …
.” I know that Mr. Wells, Ms
Stoddart, and Mr. Letto felt strongly that it was important right upfront in the
new legislation to make it clear why this legislation is so important and what,
in fact, it was intended to do.
I support the redefined purpose.
I think it is progressive.
While I will not debate the Bill 29 argument that the member is making, I think
improving upon the purpose is a real positive step forward.
I will acknowledge that.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 3 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 3 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 4 through 6 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 4 through 6 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 7.
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Chair.
So we are on clause 7?
CHAIR:
Clause 7
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Okay. I just wanted to congratulate
the government for letting us get further in this debate than we got in the Bill
29 debate where we only got 6 clauses.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I
just wanted to congratulate you on that if you want to invoke closure.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 7 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 7 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 8 through 12 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 8 through 12 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 13.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 13 is about the duty to assist.
The current legislation, the ATIPPA legislation, spells out the duty of
public bodies to really assist the applicant who made the information request.
The Leader of the Official Opposition, in the
presentation to the panel which drafted Bill1 stated, “If you are going to say
no to somebody, at least give the courtesy of saying why you're saying no to
it.” “He said a refusal should be
accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for the refusal, not just the
decision and a quotation from the relevant section of the Act.”
There were others who pointed out that there are far
too many ATTIP coordinators and other coordinators within public bodies who need
to be reminded of this legislative provision and the fact that they are
custodians, not owners of public records.
That is basically a quote from Wallace McLean who made that statement.
The importance of the duty to assist and to practice
good relations, good customer service, and providing access to information to
the people of the Province is where there needs to be training for ATTIPA
coordinators to emphasise this approach.
I believe in the briefing we had there was training that was discussed
which would be provided to make sure that with this new legislation and all
these changes there is a level of standardization, there is an understanding
that people get the right level of access.
The onus to refuse would be on the public body and not on the individual
to prove why that information should be made particularly available.
If we look at the federal government and their Office
of the Information Commissioner of Canada, they state that the duty to assist is
beyond helping a requester through the process.
So it really implies the commitment, the culture, and shows the
importance of information to serving Canadians.
I really hope that what we see in Bill 1is going to see a similar
culture. Maybe the minister can
highlight for this House and put on the record the training and the change when
it comes to the duty to assist, and how this is going to improve service for
people.
I pointed out one thing in my statement as to what the
Leader of the Official Opposition suggested about courtesy of just not saying
why you are saying no. It should be
accompanied by an explanation and not just the decision in the quotation with
the relevant section. So being more
customer friendly, more of that culture of providing the reasons so that if
somebody wanted to appeal that decision, or go and look at the legislation and
have a better understanding, there is a clear definition put forward when it
comes to assisting and getting access to information.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The member is raising another important point around
duty to assist the applicant. This
bill, the proposed legislation, does clearly set out the duty to assist an
applicant in making a request and respond without delay.
It is perhaps worded better, but it is very similar to the current
legislation.
Bill 1 also specifies that the coordinator will
communicate directly with the applicant.
The training that the member is referring to is actually scheduled for
the second week of May, but it is not just a one-time occurrence.
The main training for our coordinators and others involved in the
legislation is taking place early in May.
There are ongoing training opportunities scheduled throughout the next
number of weeks and months.
As we discussed a little earlier, there is even more
work required with municipalities and public bodies that are connected to them.
The training that the member refers to is well underway, plans are set,
and training has been developed. We
have a Centre for Learning and Development within government that has been
providing us with some support as well, and it is scheduled for the second week
in May.
As we make some of these changes we are also working
closely with the Human Resource Secretariat.
It is important that we have the right people in the right roles to meet
the demands that will be created by this new legislation, which we intend to
bring into force rather quickly, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 13 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 13 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 14 and 15 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 14 and 15 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 16.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Chair, I wanted the opportunity to speak to clause 16, primarily because it is
the time limit for final response.
There has been information requests that have been filed, filed by the Official
Opposition, and I am sure other members of the media and public at large,
requesting information where information was delayed, sometimes unnecessarily,
and beyond thirty days, and an extension granted.
We have had cases when the presentations were made
where information was delayed, basically, up for six months getting information.
Clause 16 clearly states that the head of the public body shall respond
to a request in accordance to sections 17 and 18 without delay and, in any
event, not more than twenty business days after receiving it, unless the time
limit for responding is extended under section 23, which requires basically
correspondence on that matter.
So, I would just like to give the minister the
opportunity to talk about some of the time limits, some of the response, and
information outlining in the clause, as he has been doing on previous questions
put forward, to clarify for the House and put on record the time limits for
final response by the current government on these matters and some of the
changes that will improve getting information in a more efficient means, as have
been requested by the Official Opposition.
Otherwise, I will continue through the clauses.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will respond very quickly to that point.
The member acknowledges that during debate in second reading we talked
extensively about the new timelines.
I think they are an improvement. In
terms of the not more than twenty business days that is referred to in clause
16, that is not a lot different than what we have today.
Right now we talk about, I believe it is thirty days.
The review committee felt that it was more appropriate to deal with it in
terms of business days. So twenty
business days is four weeks, which is about a month.
So it is much the same.
However, if a public body wishes to have an extension,
they now need to apply to the Privacy Commissioner.
There is now a new process in place for granting extensions so that there
are not just automatic extensions granted by public bodies without real serious
consideration.
So I think what these new timelines will do is ensure
that there is much more adherence to timelines, that inquiries are dealt with a
lot faster. Even in terms of the
Privacy Commissioner's response, which we will probably deal with later, there
are now more stringent timelines in place in that regard as well, so it will
ensure greater accountability to the public.
It will ensure that requests are dealt with as quickly as possible and,
in fact, there will be fewer delays, which I think is a good thing.
There will be legitimate reasons for meeting extensions
to process certain requests, so the new legislation obviously provides for that
but departments just cannot unilaterally decide to defer a request and grant
extensions without giving it real consideration and without consultation with
the Commissioner.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
I
just want to thank the minister for his response and highlighting the points
around the role of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner
because this process should create more efficiencies and provide greater access
to information to the people who are requesting it in a more efficient manner,
and ensure greater accountability from the public bodies and departments as
defined in the legislation.
I thank the minister for his response to section 16.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a quick response around the entire –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
MURPHY:
Just a quick question around the time limit for the final response and I guess
the question is to the minister on this particular section.
We know that obviously there has been some hold up in some cases when it
comes to ATIPPs that have been put into government before, and indeed, probably
some refusals for information and things are going to open up a little bit.
When the bill comes into effect, obviously there is
probably going to be a pile of applications that are going to be coming into
government on this for ATIPP information, I am just wondering if government is
going to be ready for the onslaught of the information or are we going to end up
having the delays, the twenty business day delays that we are talking about.
You are not expecting to have any overages in the
amount of days, extensions and that sort of thing – I am just wondering if you
can address that.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That is a realistic concern; it is one that we have
contemplated. We expect when we
bring in the new legislation there will be some testing, so to speak.
There may be individuals who choose to file a request that they filed
previously just to see if they will get a different response under the new
legislation, just as an example.
That is why we have been so focused on the change
management plan, on the training plan, on the communications plan, on the human
resources plan, to make sure that departments and public bodies are well
equipped.
As I have said previously in introducing this
legislation, this is not going to be perfect.
It is impossible for it to be perfect.
Implementation is not going to be flawless, because we are talking about
major cultural and systemic change.
To answer the member's particular question, departments
and agencies will be geared up, as best they can, to be ready to deal with
whatever volume of requests comes, whether it is June 1 or weeks or months
later. It will take time.
There may be cases, because of the volume of requests
that are being dealt with, where a department or an agency may need to seek
guidance from the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner.
Frankly, I do not anticipate that.
I think we will be equipped enough to handle it.
Because of our new approach to managing ATIPP coordinators within
government – and that is still being worked on – there will be an opportunity to
deploy resources within departments as needed.
For instance, if within Health and Community Services
we are bombarded with requests, then we may be able to get some assistance from
other trained ATIPP coordinators in other departments to support us in that
work.
I think we will be able to manage it, and I thank the
member for the question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East.
MR.
REID:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am just wondering, in terms of public bodies and
things like that, usually there are policy manuals in relation to these
procedures and things like that, and sometimes organizational reviews.
I wonder could the minister give us some understanding of what is being
done in that regard and what challenges the departments face in terms of
complying with that cause.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
REID:
Has
the work begun, or when will it begin, those sorts of things?
I wonder could you give some insight into that.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We do have an existing manual.
The existing manual, obviously, interprets and supports the existing
legislation. So given that this is
dramatically different – this is brand new legislation, it is not minor tweaks.
It is not repealing of certain provisions.
It is a brand new piece of legislation.
It does require a fairly extensive rewrite of the manual.
The staff of the ATIPP office, within the Office of
Public Engagement, commenced that work right away when we received the report
from the committee. I am pleased
with the progress to date.
We have an implementation team in place that has
representation from Human Resource Secretariat, from Cabinet Secretariat, from
the Office of Public Engagement, and the Department of Justice.
We are receiving support from the communications branch within Executive
Council. So, this is sort of an
all-hands-on-deck approach. As a
result of that kind of concerted effort being supported by the Clerk of the
Executive Council, we are making great progress in a very short amount of time.
That is a long-winded answer to a simple question.
There will be a new policy manual that supports the new legislation, and
it will be ready for June.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East.
MR.
REID:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The minister also mentioned the change management plan,
I believe. Could you tell us a
little bit about the change management plan that will be developed or has been
developed to implement this legislation?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would be happy to provide the member with further
detail beyond tonight's debate. As
part of that implementation team, one of the key individuals from Executive
Council, from Cabinet Secretariat who is supporting the work of the transition
team, quarterbacking it so to speak, one of his key priorities is developing and
executing and leading the execution, managing the execution of the change
management plan.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chair, we are talking about some
pretty major change that needs to occur within government bodies, both within
the government departments, public bodies, and agencies beyond that, because we
are talking about a new way of doing business.
We truly do want information to be available by default, so to speak.
We want to be open by default and we are trying to spark a cultural
change that will not happen overnight.
One of the key people on the transition team is
spending time focusing on working with leadership throughout government on how
we are going to manage this change.
How are we going to make sure ATIPP coordinators understand their new role?
How are we going to ensure executives within government departments and
agencies understand their new role, which is far less in the sense that the
ATIPP coordinator is now the key person processing and responding to an ATIPP
request from beginning to end?
In terms of the new privacy provisions, how are we
going to make sure staff throughout government and government bodies truly
understand their responsibility? It
is going to take time and it is going to require resources.
It is going to require training and support within each government
department and agency. So the change
management plan addresses those elements.
It is a work in progress. I
will not suggest that it is finished, but I can assure you I get weekly updates
from the transition team on the progress with that, and it was one of the things
we flagged very early.
It is fine to bring in a new piece of legislation that
everybody loves and looks great on paper, but what is more important is what it
is going to be like in practice.
That is why managing change within government is going to be so critical to our
success, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 16 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 16 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 17 to 20 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 17 through 20 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 21.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 21 is an important section because it is about
disregarding a request. It gives
reasons why a public body may, not later than five business days after receiving
a request, apply to the Commissioner to disregard the request where the head of
the public body has a certain opinion.
This is a very important change to the particular
legislation because even before Bill 29, the former ATIPP legislation, public
bodies could refuse to disclose a record or part of a record if it was
repetitive, if somebody could not read it, if it was non-legible, or if they had
already provided the information, so I guess the repetitive nature.
Under Bill 29, when the legislation was passed, the
present legislation that everybody has been following under ATIPPA, there were
two sections where public bodies could disregard, those made in bad faith and
those that were frivolous and vexatious.
Frivolous and vexatious were two words that were used in the Bill 29
debate in 2012 many, many times, part of the discussion and dialogue in Hansard.
What I see here now in Bill 1 is very positive in terms
of how to disregard a request because it puts the onus on the public body to
really do the due diligence and understand the comprehensive nature of the
current legislation and definition, and it states that they have a timeline
where they can deny the request but it has to be applied for through the
Commissioner's office and it has to be based on the following reasons.
The Commissioner has onus of just a very limited time
of three days to decide to approve or disapprove so that it is not slowing down
or impeding the passage of information that should get to somebody within those
twenty business days. The five and
three allows for information to continue to get there, but it also provides a
good process where there is due diligence and the Commissioner is reviewing that
information to determine if it was made in bad faith, if it was excessively
broad or incomprehensible, if it was repetitive or systematic, trivial,
frivolous, vexatious. That
definition is clear. I think it is a
good process, and I want to put that on the record that I think that how you
would disregard the request has greatly improved under the past legislation.
I do not know if the minister wanted to make a comment
on that, but I think this is a very good in process and how information is being
relayed, and making sure that those that need to be disregarded are disregarded,
but there is that second layer where the Commissioner's office is doing that
review – because there are cases I am sure that happened in the past two or
three years where information would have been granted or approved where
information may have been deemed as frivolous, vexatious, or repetitive, or that
nature.
So I think this is a real improvement.
I think it is a positive clause in the legislation.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Ah,
frivolous and vexatious, those famous words, Mr. Chair.
They bring back a lot of memories.
Interestingly enough, on a more serious note, those words are quite
common in a judicial setting, from a legal perspective they are quite common,
they appear in a number of pieces of legislation.
I agree with the member opposite that this language around disregarding a
request, which is what clause 21 is all about, is a significant improvement.
So, I will just provide some brief context in response
to the member's comments, and then we will move along, perhaps.
In the 2012 legislation, a public body can disregard a request if a meets
certain criteria and the only circumstance under which they must seek approval
from the Information and Privacy Commissioner is if they intend to disregard a
request for being excessively broad.
Under this new legislation, Mr. Chair, public bodies must apply to the
Commissioner in order to disregard a request.
The application must be made within five days of receiving the request,
and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner must reply within
three days.
So those are pretty tight time frames.
That is going to pose perhaps some challenges for the departments and
agencies. It is probably going to
pose some challenges for the Commissioner as well, but it is the right thing to
do, as the member points out.
When a request is not approved, the public body must
respond based on the original request date.
So just because they have made this request within five days, if it is
denied, they do not get an initial five days to respond.
If they need an extension and they can justify the need for an extension
to the Commissioner, they can choose to pursue that.
So this is ambitious, it is certainly more stringent than what we had
before, but I agree with the member opposite that it is the right approach, and
it is one that we are certainly preparing for.
I know that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is preparing for
that eventuality as well.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to go back and make further commentary on
this because I think it is significant where the Commissioner approves the
decision of the public body to disregard a request, well then the only right of
appeal, on the part of the requester, would be to the Supreme Court Trial
Division. From what I am reading
through, the subsequent subclauses, the person who made the request may appeal
the decision of the head of the public body to the Trial Division under
subsection 52, if not given the information.
So I just ask if the minister could clarify 21(5),
subsection (c), because there was some interpretation of the past bill where the
only option was to go to court to access information.
So it seems like if the information is being denied by the requester that
there is still the option of going to the Trial Division under subsection 52(1).
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Public Engagement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Chair, I am just wondering if the member can summarize his question or restate
it. I am not quite catching his
logic at this point. If he could
restate it, we will give it another go.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know it is getting late in the evening so I may not
be making as much sense as I would in the daytime, but I will certainly try to
rephrase my question.
The question states: “Where the commissioner approves
the application, the head of the public body who refuses to give access to a
record –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
–
or correct personal information under this section shall notify the person who
made the request.” Then (6) states
the options, it says, “(c) that the person who made the request may appeal the
decision of the head of the public body to the Trial Division under subsection
52(1).”
So in that situation, if the Commissioner is approving
the application the head of the body is refusing, then it seems like the option
is to go to the Trial Division under that situation.
I would just like the minister to clarify that, and if
it would be the requester who would have to pay for the cost of the trail
division if the Commissioner is approving the decision but the public body is
still refusing. Just some
clarification there for the House.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you.
I thank you for the clarification, and I do understand
your question now.
This legislation requires us, requires public bodies,
requires government – if a government department or agency does not agree with a
recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner in this regard, we have to go to the
trial division. We have to go to
court. That is at our cost.
That is at government's cost or the public body's cost.
It is at no cost to the applicant.
I think that addresses the member's concern.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 21 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 21 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 22 through 26 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
I
had a question about clause 25.
CHAIR:
Okay. Can I go back just for a
second?
Shall clauses 22 to 24 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 22 through 24 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 25.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Clause 25 is about cost, Mr. Chair.
It states clearly, “The head of a public body shall not charge an applicant for
making an application for access to a record or for the services of identifying,
retrieving, reviewing, severing or redacting a record.”
This is important to see that government has eliminated
fees because in the debate, I know myself, as a Member of the House of Assembly,
had talked about the $5 fee and in cases where it can be restrictive and out of
reach for some people, or the fact they would need to have a personal cheque, or
that type of documentation in some cases, and just delaying how one could apply.
I think that the change here and what the committee
stated is that we have to go with less cost prohibited and more accessible.
That was the approach I think of the current committee, that we need to
see where the cost can be reduced and information can be more accessible.
A lot of this information should be made available publicly anyway on
websites, in reports and in forms, and available at government offices and
public bodies, but they are not. So
we need to see a culture of change and practice.
There also needs to be a standardized system rather
than the fees being arbitrary. I
have to mention that is some cases and circumstances we have seen ATIPP requests
going on and on and on, being upwards of over $10,000 in terms of cost for fees
for reports and documentation. We
see the differing cost is that there is a reduction in fees, which is important
when it comes to Bill 29.
The act was amended and it eliminated the application
fee. Processing fees for the first
ten hours of search time would be included.
That is a greater amount, and should encompass a lot of the requests.
For municipalities, that was the ten hours.
For public bodies it would be fifteen hours.
They would only include search time in a cost estimate.
There are a number of other recommendations that were
put forward for eliminating direct costs for electronic copies, such as pdf or
data set. I am happy the minister
clarified the definition of data set, as well as waiver charges for those in
financial hardship; enable a dispute respecting charges to waiver to be reviewed
by the Commissioner whose determination would be final.
So these types of changes and guidelines are very
similar to what you would see in the United Kingdom that really guides public
bodies and gives a greater free time allowed, and allow for the provision made
for, particularly, an online application.
Those are things I wanted to point out in the cost, and that the Leader
of the Official Opposition had pointed out in a presentation to the panel, to
revert the fee structure that existed prior to the 2012 amendments.
So it was good to see that change introduced.
I will take my seat, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will respond briefly.
I hear members opposite calling for relevance.
I would argue that the Member for The Straits – White Bay North is
speaking to the clause we are debating and it is very relevant, I say to the
members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KENT:
In
terms of the fee schedule. Under the
2012 fee schedule, public bodies were required to collect a $5 application fee.
We have already eliminated that application fee.
They could also charge for the time to search, collect, review, and
redact responsive records.
The 2015 fee schedule, which is already in place, Mr.
Chair, reflects Bill 1, which removes the application fees and specifies that
applicants may only be charged for time spent locating the responsive records;
only for the time they spend locating the actual records.
Fees can only be charged after ten hours of work for local governments,
and fifteen hours for other public bodies.
So a dramatic improvement, which I think will be well received by any
ATIPP applicants.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 25 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 25 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 26 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 26 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 27 carry?
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Now we are moving into the section of the bill,
Division 2, Exceptions to Access. I
would be remiss if I did not talk about section 27 because it is the one that
clearly highlights Cabinet confidences.
When you look at the amendments that were put forward
by Bill 21, it barred the Commissioner from various types of records.
Even the Commissioner of Canada told the committee in its review, the
expanded exceptions brought about by Bill 29 tipped the balance of ATIPPA
excessively in favour of non-disclosure.
It moved in favour of non–disclosure and protected information.
There were greater exceptions to access than typically should have been
given.
The committee looked at the changes that were needed to
be brought forth and they concluded very clearly that nearly all of them work
against the spirit and purpose of ATIPPA.
That information was necessary to ensure that public bodies are
accountable to the public. This is
why we are seeing Cabinet confidence as one of the issues that were broadened in
terms of being able to create greater exclusions.
When you see this happening and those types of amendments, you see
significant problems.
Information that is a risk of significant harm to
environment or health, of safety or public health, or a group of people, any
disclosure that is clearly in the public interest, then certain things needs to
be, but the approach that this government has taken to override ATIPPA was
certainly in need of change. It was
in need of change because the public interest was not being looked at in that
way.
There are a couple of things that I wanted to raise.
Section 20 should revert to a version of section 20 that existed prior to
Bill 29. That would under the
Cabinet confidence. This was
something put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition to the panel
looking at making those changes. It
is nice to see the changes on the Cabinet record, what it actually means and
what qualifies as Cabinet advice for the document.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Suggestions that were brought forward by the Official Opposition to the panel –
if we had the opportunity to debate this in Bill 29 and if government did not
shut down and stunt debate in the clause-by-clause section –
CHAIR:
I
remind the hon. member to speak to the clause.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
This would have given us the opportunity to see where change could have happened
to produce legislation like this, but I am pleased to see what Cabinet
confidences are put forward, so I will take my seat.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 27 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 27 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 28 to 38 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 28 and 29 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 28 through 29 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 30.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would the opportunity here in clause 30(2) – this is
about legal advice and it says, “The head of a public body shall refuse to
disclose to the applicant information that is subject to solicitor and client
privilege or litigation privilege of a person other than a public body.”
That is something that has been discussed and is
further in the section, but we want to find out the importance of
solicitor-client privilege; and I wanted to point out that this is something
that in the past bill, the definition and how it was, it was kind of broadened
in terms of what constitutes a document, if a barrister or solicitor would be in
the room or would be privy to information, and what actually constitutes
legitimate information that could be shared.
This is talking about when a public body can refuse to
disclose that information around clients' list of privilege.
I am pleased to see the definition of client-solicitor privilege have
further clarity in this particular bill, which brings further improvement to it
from the regressive Bill 29.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 30 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 30 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 31 through 38 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 31 through 38 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 39.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I feel we are making lots of progress on this bill,
Bill 1. We are on page 42 of a
ninety-nine page bill and clause 39 – only ninety-eight more clauses to go in
the Committee stage.
Clause 39 is an important piece because it talks about
disclosure harmful to business interests of a third party.
That is quite significant when we talk about the business interest.
I remember the Minister of Justice got up talking about how information
from the Business Investment Corp is currently being reviewed by the Office of
the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure that something may be harmful
there in business interest and that it could disclosed.
I would think they probably signed off on disclosure forms to reveal such
information, but we will wait on that information and continue to ask for it.
Clause 39 states, “The head of a public body shall
refuse to disclose to an applicant information (a) that would reveal (i) trade
secrets to a third party, or (ii) commercial, financial, labour relations,
scientific or technical information of a third party; (b) that is supplied,
implicitly or explicitly, in confidence … .”
It highlights some other examples there around the particular disclosure.
The Committee that brought forward this bill is
satisfied that the legitimate interest of business are protected through the
application of a three-part test that existed in ATIPPA prior to Bill 29
amendments.
The Committee made the recommendation that for the
interest of third parties, for this particular section, the previous
legislation, which, if you repealed Bill 29, you would have an acceptable level
of protection of what could be disclosed.
When we look at what was put forward by the Leader of the Official
Opposition in terms of the Information and Privacy Commissioner around the
information of a deliberations test and having the three-part test to ensure
appropriate access to information, we see that has been brought forward and put
in this current piece of legislation, Bill 1.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 39 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 39 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 40.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Well, speaking about the disclosure of harmful information for business
interests to a third party, I felt I had to speak to clause 40, because it is
about the disclosure of harmful to personal privacy.
Personal privacy is something that is very important on how information
is collected and that there would be an unreasonable invasion of third party's
personal privacy.
So it states what would need to happen – and I will not
go into each section of clause 40, because there is a lot of information in
clause 40, but I want to ask the minister around the particular training that
would taking place around the protection of personal information, personal
privacy. That is something that from
a public body, including municipalities, how that is going to be protected, or
if he can provide for this House maybe a policy book or review or information on
this.
There is a lot of information here on what qualifies as
personal information, what is identified.
We have seen a number of privacy breaches and data breaches by
government, so we want to have the confidence that our information is not going
to be breached, that the public's information is not going to be breached.
So what protocols are being put in place around the training and ensuring
that the systems and management that we have, the disclosure of harmful to
personal privacy is not being released?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The privacy provisions are quite elaborate, as the
member points out. When we were
talking about the kind of change that is needed within government and its
bodies, this is a very significant area.
We need to make sure that everybody who works in the public service – not
just those people who deal with ATIPP legislation, but all government employees,
all employees of public bodies, understand their responsibility to protect
individual privacy, and to protect personal information.
So, as I said earlier, there is a new manual being
developed, primarily for coordinators, but there is training being conducted
throughout government and throughout public bodies.
It has already commenced, and it will continue in the weeks and months
ahead.
It is not something that will stop when the legislation
comes into effect. We know public
employees need support, they need training, and they need feedback to ensure
they are meeting the provisions of this legislation and that they are protecting
individual privacy. So that is going
to be an ongoing effort.
The transition team that is engaged are talking to
various government departments. We
are working within our ATIPP office.
We are working with the Human Resource Secretariat.
We are working with the Centre for Learning and Development to figure out
the best ways to make sure that employees understand their responsibilities and
feel equipped to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Any privacy breach is too many.
The reality is they will happen from time to time.
The vast majority of privacy breaches that occur are very minor in
nature, but even the very minor ones, Mr. Chair, we take very seriously.
Everybody is now required to report privacy breaches, not only to the
Office of Public Engagement, but to the Information and Privacy Commissioner as
well.
We are not waiting for this legislation to be in place.
That is a practice that we have put in place, and from discussions with
the Privacy Commissioner, I can confirm that public bodies and government
department are, in fact, following that new practice, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The minister provided a significant amount of
information in answering questions around training and dialogue and things like
that, but I also asked in that particular matter around the protection of
personal information on how you take extra measures to prevent a security
breach, privacy breach, a breach of data.
We have seen it through Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have seen it through other bodies, like through the Motor Vehicle
Registration where information – health records have been accessed.
We have seen data breaches happen under the leadership of this
government, under the current legislation.
Is there a mechanism in place where government is
strengthening the legislation? What
systems are being put in place around the data breach, around security breaches,
so the public can have great confidence that their privacy and personal
information is being protected?
I understand the training piece that the minister
talked about, but is there anything else systematic that is taking place that
would improve and prevent security breaches and data from being released that
would be personal in nature?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
I
would simply say, Mr. Chair, there is a heightened level of awareness and I
think there is growing understanding around how serious privacy breaches are.
Again, it is going to take time to change a culture.
We are taking them very seriously within government
bodies. I think that has become very
evident to employees. That will
continue. I think as a result of
having better privacy legislation, there will be heightened awareness of that.
We are driving change within the system that will cause everybody to be
more aware of the importance of protecting individual privacy.
While I cannot name specific initiatives, I would say there is a general
change happening that I think will lead to hopefully fewer breaches, and a
greater awareness of how important and how serious they are.
The member mentions health authorities.
We have already seen in the past, in recent years, one of the health
authorities take a privacy breach extremely seriously, call it out publicly, and
ensure that disciplinary action occurs.
That is what we expect.
The seriousness of privacy breaches can vary quite a
bit, but in the case of health information, it is among the most sensitive.
For that reason, an even higher standard has to be applied.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East.
MR.
REID:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just a quick question, there is reference in the clause
to a three-part test in order for information to be withheld.
I wonder, could the minister explain this three-part test and what it
involves?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Speaker, we are – or Mr. Chair, sorry, sometimes, Mr. Speaker.
We are dealing with a clause that I do not believe has anything to do
with the three-part test. We have
covered that previously in the debate this evening.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Shall clause 40 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those opposed, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 40 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 41 and 42 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 41 and 42 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 43.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 43 is a significant change based on the current
legislation, Bill 29, and seeing Bill 1 where, “On an investigation of a
complaint from a decision to refuse access to a record or part of a record, the
burden is on the head of a public body to prove that the applicant has no right
of access to the record or part of the record.”
The significant piece of the burden of proof comes down
to basically looking at the means test, or the three-part test as my colleague
from St. George's – Stephenville East would talk about.
So, maybe the minister would now be in a position to look at the burden
of proof and talk about the three-part test, now that all three parts would have
to be accepted and not just one part to diminish all of the information that is
provided.
I like clause 43(1).
I like what is put forward here and that the onus, the burden would be on
a public body to prove that somebody does not have the right, and that the step
is in there for the commissioner's office for the review.
It does provide greater accountability and it should provide an efficient
way, based on the timelines that are in previous clauses as we have debated
here.
Putting this all out on the floor of the House of
Assembly creates greater clarity when we look back on this debate and we get the
response from the minister who is responsible for this bill.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The member is asking for me to just speak briefly to
the burden of proof, which is what clause 43 is all about.
This new legislation introduces new provisions related
to burden of proof. Where a
complainant seeks access to a record involving a third party's information, the
burden of proof is on the public body to show that the disclosure would not be
contrary to the act. So I hope that
is clear.
Where a complainant seeks access to a record that
relates to a third party but it is not personal information, the burden of proof
is on the third party to prove that the applicant has no right of access to the
records in question.
That is what burden of proof is all about.
It does represent a change from current legislation.
Again, I think it is an improvement and I hope that those comments
address the member's inquiry.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 43 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 43 carried.
MR.
REID:
I
would like some information about the three-part test, if the minister could
provide it.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
CHAIR:
No,
we did not.
Anyway moving forward, shall clauses 44 to 86 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 44 through 86 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 87.
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have made significant progress up to clause 87.
This is a section which deals with the Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner. Clause 87
specifically talks about the term of office.
I believe – and I do not have it here right now – the Cummings report, I
think, recommended a five-year term for the Privacy Commissioner.
That was amended; it was not accepted.
It stated a two-year term under Bill 29.
This clause in particular states, “Unless he or she
sooner resigns, dies or is removed from office, the commissioner shall hold
office for 6 years from the date of his or her appointment.”
I ask the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement: Does
this align with other jurisdictions?
Can he explain maybe the reasoning for six years versus five years, or for ten
years, as some of the other offices and statutory offices within government
would have? Some clarity on why six
was chosen versus five or ten. Is
there any reasoning behind that?
I would just like to know that for the record.
What was recommended in the original statutory review by Cummings was
five. Two was what was pushed for by
the current government, and now six is what is being recommended under Bill 1.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On some of the provisions in this legislation, it is
very difficult for me to speculate on why the Review Committee may have chosen
six years versus five years, or two years for instance.
I will try not to speculate too much on what the Committee may have
intended. I will try and provide
some explanation from my perspective on why the legislation is now as it is and
why it represents an improvement.
I know that the Review Committee felt that a two-year
term was extremely short. Cynical
people, or perhaps just skeptical people, could suggest that the term is short
for –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
KENT:
Mr.
Chair, it is really hard to answer questions when people are shouting across the
House. I am sure you –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of
Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
KENT:
Whenever they are ready, Mr. Chair.
No rush.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR.
KENT:
A
classroom becomes very disruptive when the class clown shows up, Mr. Chair.
The 2012 legislation contained the two-year term which
is really short. As I was saying
before I was interrupted someone who is cynical or perhaps just skeptical might
suggest that that would allow a government who does not like how a Commissioner
is performing to remove that Commissioner if they are appointed every two years.
I think that the Committee was trying to address that.
Now, there is going to be an initial six-year term with the possibility
of being extended for another six years.
Twelve years represents three terms of government, assuming a government
serves for four years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We have had a long evening and I ask all hon. members
to give co-operation. The minister
is trying to give an answer. I am
having difficulty hearing it. I am
assuming the hon. Member for The Straits – White Bay North is having trouble.
I ask all hon. members, please, we have had a long evening, the minister
is giving an answer, and I know the hon. member wants to hear the answer.
The hon. the Minister of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will try and confine my comments to the bill as well
so that I do not incite any hon. members.
Bill 1 also outlines a reappointment process.
It is rather unique because it requires the approval of the majority of
members of the Legislature on both sides of the House.
So, in order to reappoint a Commissioner – and this really takes out any
allusion or perception of political interference.
If the majority of members of the Opposition also have to approve the
reappointment of a Commissioner, then that ensures that everybody is really
happy with the Commissioner and is comfortable with the reappointment.
I think that is a substantial improvement as well.
I would say to the hon. member that is rather unique.
I cannot find any legislation anywhere that has that type of provision.
I think it addresses whatever concerns the Review Committee would have
had.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question on section 87 and it kind of applies
into 87 and then it kind of goes into 88, so it is kind of covered in both of
them to some degree. Clause 87(1)
says, “Unless he or she sooner resigns, dies or is removed from office, the
commissioner shall hold office for 6 years … .”
My question was around the removal from office but it
does go clause 88 to talk about how the Commissioner could be removed, if they
were incapacitated in any way, unable to act, neglect of duty or misconduct.
I am wondering about the neglect of duty and misconduct and so on.
I am just sort of questioning who determines whether it is misconduct or
neglect of duty? Is there any appeal
process or whatever?
You would not want a situation where because the
Privacy Commissioner actually does his job and makes some recommendations that
somebody does not like, that they say we are going to call that a neglect of
duty or misconduct and get rid of that person.
I do not see a mechanism beyond government or the minister or the Cabinet
being able to just simply say yes, get rid of him for misconduct.
I am wondering: Is there any other provision I am not
seeing, or have you contemplated some provision so that it is not just simply
the government removing somebody without having some mechanism for appeal and
public disclosure as to why the person was removed and so on?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Public Engagement.
MR.
JOYCE:
(Inaudible).
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will wait for the member to finish his barking from
across the House.
The Member for Mount Pearl South is raising a
legitimate question around who holds the Commissioner accountable if there are
acquisitions or allocations of wrong doing.
The answer is this very House.
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is an office of
this Legislature, just like the Child and Youth Advocate or the Citizens'
Representative. So it is this
Legislature that is responsible for holding those officers accountable.
It would be through a resolution of the House that an issue like that
would be addressed.
It has happened in the past where an office of the
House has been called into question and a resolution has been brought to the
floor of this House. That would be
very unusual, exceptional, and obviously a very serious matter, Mr. Chair, but
it would be this House that would be responsible for dealing with such a matter.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 87 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 87 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall 88 to 119 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 88 through 119 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 120 carry?
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a question on clause 120 which deals with
the Auditor General Act being repealed and to allow for access to information,
the disclosure which is refused under section 31.
This was something I talked about earlier when I read
out a CBC news article about the former Auditor General talking about having
difficulty accessing certain information, whether it be for the C-NLOPB or the
transportation strategy that does not really exist or getting that information.
In the act itself, in Bill 29, there were restrictive things taken away
from the Auditor General; less power in terms of being able to review Cabinet
documents and information like that.
I ask the minister who is responsible for the Office of
Public Engagement, would he explain – will this section restore the Auditor
General's authority under the Auditor General Act, because it is amended?
If so, does that bring it back to where it was as Cummings had
recommended pre Bill 29?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I may need a couple of minutes to consider the member's
question, but I will do my best to respond.
If he needs further clarification, I would be happy to provide it within
a few minutes.
What section 120 says, “Section 19 of the Auditor
General Act is repealed and the following substituted.”
The current language is being replaced with this language that is
proposed here in section 120 of the bill.
It reads, “Notwithstanding sections 17 and 18, the auditor general shall
not be permitted access to information the disclosure of which may be refused
under section 31 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
2015 or the disclosure of which shall be refused under section 27 of that Act.”
It is a change. I
do not believe it is simply reverting to previous language, to answer the
member's question, but I will dig a little further.
It is actually important to reference the Auditor General Act, so I will
take a moment to do that. I will be
happy to rise and address it a little later on with the Chair's indulgence.
Even if we are a little further in the process, I would be happy to
clarify a little further once I have the information.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
I
thank the minister for that.
Looking through the clauses, that really is my last
particular question in the Committee.
I do not know if other members would, but I will take the hon. minister
at the opportunity to maybe provide that information to me at a later time, or
else I will have the opportunity to maybe raise that in the House of Assembly or
request the information. I do have
the understanding that the minister will provide that information to me, as he
has been answering a number of pieces of information tonight.
So if he has that now, he certainly can answer it and
we will be able to move forward in the Committee stage, but I have my questions
answered that I have put forward so far.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 120 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clause 120 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 121 to 137 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, clauses 121 through 137 carried.
CLERK:
The
schedule.
CHAIR:
Shall the schedule carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, schedule carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I moved, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, that the Committee rise and report Bill 1.
CHAIR:
The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 1.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Verge):
The
hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR.
LITTLEJOHN:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report Bill 1 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 1 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
KING:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR.
KING:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted.
Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and
Works, that the House do now adjourn.
The motion is that this House do now adjourn.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
This House stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow,
Private Members' Day.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.