June

1, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 30

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome thirty-six individuals from the Mary's

Moving for Health Group from Norman's Cove-Long Cove and areas located in the

District of Bellevue.

The individuals are accompanied by their president, Mary Smith; by their

founder, Daphne Smith; and by Allison Temple, councillor for Norman's Cove-Long

Cove; also their bus driver, Dot Penney.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber

Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a very special group from my

district - the District of Bellevue.

The Mary's Moving for Health Group was formed about eight years ago in

partnership with Eastern Health. Former Public Health Nurse, Ms Daphne Smith,

along with a well-known community leader, Ms Mary Smith, were the organizers and

founders of this group of seniors from the Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove and

area.

These ladies get together every Tuesday and Thursday to engage in an exercise

routine specially designed for their age group in the basement of the United

Church. They walk for a set time, they use resistance bands, steppers and they

even lift weights, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, the group has a registered membership of fifty people, each having

their doctor's approval prior to joining the group. The oldest member is

eighty-five years of age and the youngest is thirty-six years of age.

The Mary's Moving for Health Group is actively promoting the Province's

Active and Healthy Living initiative in the Norman's Cove-Long Cove area.

I would like to ask this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mary's

Moving for Health Group in their great efforts in promoting healthy living

within our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize Great Big Sea on

their induction into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame. On May 27,

Great Big Sea, comprised of front man, Alan Doyle, along Bob Hallett and Sean

McCann, were recognized at the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame gala at

the St. John's Convention Centre.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame was established by Junior

Achievement of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1990 to honour the individuals who

have significantly contributed to the growth and development of enterprise in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

By honouring the accomplishments of the men and women inducted each year into

the Business Hall of Fame, the best in business are presented to our youth as

worthy role models.

Mr. Speaker, this induction recognizes an important contribution often

overlooked when we think of musicians and artists in the Province; their

contribution to the business community.

Mr. Speaker, when we think of musicians, like Great Big Sea, we do not often

consider that besides contributing to our musical and cultural landscape, they

are in fact also running a business and must view their occupation in that way

if they wish to be successful. Great Big Sea's success certainly illustrates the

value of this business-oriented mindset. Their induction into the Business Hall

of Fame sends a message to our Province's young people that one can be

successful in the music business with the right amount of hard work, dedication

and business planning. Not to mention the talent that these musicians and others

have.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Great Big Sea for their

induction into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame and proving that

artists enrich more than our Province's cultural community; they also contribute

significantly to our business community and economy as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and proud to stand in this hon.

House today and pay a special tribute to Elwood Regional High School's No Stage

Theatre drama troupe. I had the awesome pleasure of viewing their performance

recently at the sixtieth anniversary celebrations of the Town of Deer Lake.

Mr. Speaker, Elwood participated in the regional drama festival in March and

took the award for best performance and earned the right to represent the

Central Region at the provincials in Corner Brook on May 6 to May 8. At this

provincial event, the drama troupe won four awards including two outstanding

acting awards that went to Mark Murdoch and Devon Janes. The troupe also

received an outstanding ensemble acting award and an outstanding lighting award.

The school's drama instructor, Jordan Stringer, and the cast which included:

Tim Reid, Devon Janes, Robyn Langdon, Hillary Morris, Colten Normore, Robert

Wells, and Mark Murdoch are to be congratulated on such outstanding successes.

Mr. Speaker, Elwood performed Line by American playwright Israel

Horovitz. Line is a drama about five characters waiting in line, each for

something completely different. As stated in their brochure, the play allows us

to see just how silly, even ridiculous, our daily routines, our interests and

passions, our desires and dreams and most importantly our relationships are when

such meaning has been removed from our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for all members of this hon. House to join me in

extending special recognition to Elwood Regional High School's drama students

and director, Jordan Stringer, on their remarkable theatrical achievements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to acknowledge another major

milestone in our Province's petroleum industry the achievement of first oil

from North Amethyst, the first White Rose satellite development, at 3:00 p.m.

yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this marks the first oil production from one

of our fields in which this Province has an equity stake in every barrel that is

produced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Our government, through Nalcor Energy - Oil and Gas, holds

a 5 per cent working interest in North Amethyst. Husky Energy is the project

operator and primary interest holder.

Mr. Speaker, this development will ultimately return to the Province super

royalties of 36.5 per cent when oil prices are above $50 U.S. per barrel. When

oil prices are below $50 U.S., the 30 per cent generic royalty regime applies.

Mr. Speaker, the return to this Province as a result of our equity stake,

demonstrates our foresight in getting involved as partners in this development.

Husky's discovery last November of additional oil in this field allows the

Province to benefit, through Nalcor Energy, by such a large amount, that it is

the same as recouping the purchase price for our equity in the White Rose

expansion and in the Hibernia South extension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: And, Mr. Speaker, depending on recovery rates and the

price of oil during production, this one discovery will cover all, or

substantially all, the purchase price of our equity share in the Hebron

development as well.

Through our policy of acquiring equity stakes, our government is ensuring

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador finally play a meaningful role in

the development of our natural resources. Combined with improved royalty regimes

and greater local benefits, this approach ensures that we are receiving the best

possible value for the development of our non-renewable resources.

The announcement of first oil, as a partner in this project, is a tangible

result of the visionary approach of our Premier and this government. This is a

proud day for the Province, and once again reflects our determination as a

people, that the days of giveaways are a thing of the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the White Rose oil field has grown

substantially since first production in 2005. Its satellite fields will provide

approximately $5 billion to the Province, depending on oil prices at the time.

Production from North Amethyst clearly demonstrates the opportunities that

lie before us for growth and development in established fields. Mr. Speaker,

North Amethyst was brought into production less than four years after its

discovery.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with industry to find ways to economically extend

the lifespan of mature, producing oil fields through subsea tiebacks to existing

infrastructure. This is the first subsea tieback in Canada. The North Amethyst

development will enable us to offset the natural declines at the main White Rose

field with an additional 68 million barrels of recoverable oil.

Husky Energy will continue to ramp up production and conduct well testing in

the field during the coming weeks and eleven wells are planned for this

development over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate our industry partners on this

achievement, and in particular I would like to thank Dr. John Lau for his

contributions to this Province during his tenure as President and CEO of Husky

Energy. It is quite fitting that during this his last week at the helm he is

witnessing the fruits of his labour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

We too would like to congratulate the industry partners in this achievement

and to recognize Mr. John Lau, President and CEO of Husky Energy, for the

contributions that he has made to the oil and gas industry in this Province, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister likes to talk about no more giveaways, but we have already

witnessed that one of the largest giveaways in our history as a Province

occurred under the watch of the government members opposite, Mr. Speaker, and

that included the giveaways to AbitibiBowater.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we want to say today that it is definitely wonderful to

see that we have more oil and, Mr. Speaker, we hope to see oil continue to pump

in this Province for many, many generations to come because it not only means a

good, solid industry but it means good, solid, stable revenues, hopefully, Mr.

Speaker, for the Province for a long time to come as well.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes chuckle when I see the government opposite talk

about the oil industry because if they could convince people that they actually

put the oil in the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador, they would attempt to do

so. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. That is not the case at all. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, North Amethyst is not a brand new field but just an extension of the

White Rose field project that was negotiated, Mr. Speaker, and developed by the

former Liberal government in this Province. That is the piece that they tend to

always forget.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I was to make a comparison today, I would say to the

minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, if I was to make a comparison today, I would

say to the minister: Let's not forget it was a Liberal government who built the

house, who paved the driveway, who put in the gardens. All they did as a

government is build the barn out back, I say to the minister. That is about the

extension of what we are talking about in North Amethyst in this particular

deal, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we have today is a government that is projecting -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, is a government that is projecting

revenues in the oil industry based on $82.50 a barrel. Even with that figure,

they are looking at running a deficit in Newfoundland and Labrador this year,

Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that needs to be

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just conclude

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired and there has been no leave granted.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. This news that

she brings to the House today is obviously good news for all the people of the

Province. The NDP has always supported having an equity stake in the offshore

industry and continue to do so. Every time that something we have an equity

stake in comes to fruition, it is bringing more revenues to the Province.

I do have to remind all of us, and the government knows this, that having an

equity stake it behoves us to make sure that all safeguards are constantly in

place so that we do not have accidents like the one that is happening in the

Gulf of Mexico right now. Having an equity stake makes us have more interest in

making sure that is the case.

I caution the government with regard to the drilling that is going on in the

Orphan Basin right now, Mr. Speaker. It is reminding us of something very

important; we cannot deal with oil spills at that depth into the ocean. We have

a company like BP right now whose losses are beyond our imagination. We do not

want to end up like BP down the road.

So I ask this government to reconsider the fact that we have drilling going

on out in the ocean at 2.6 kilometres below the ocean. It just should not be

happening, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize June as

Seniors Month, a time to recognize the significant role that seniors make in our

community and to celebrate their accomplishments.

It is our government's vision to have a supportive, age-friendly Province

where seniors contribute to their communities, and in turn, our communities

support senior residents in living as independently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we just recently announced the recipients of our Age-Friendly

Newfoundland and Labrador Grants Program, which is designed to provide funding

to incorporated municipalities, Inuit community governments and reserves, and

seniors' organizations throughout the entire Province to support them in

planning for an aging population. Overall, Mr. Speaker, our government invested

$200,000 in the Age-Friendly Grants Program which benefited ten communities and

thirteen seniors' organizations throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first steps we took upon forming government was to

create three separate entities to ensure that the Province was proactive in how

it responds to the needs of our aging population. We established a Ministerial

Council on Aging and Seniors to ensure that the needs of our seniors are met. We

established a Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors, comprised of

seniors and experts on aging, to advise government on matters related to the

quality of life for seniors, and to facilitate public discussion on aging. We

established an Office for Aging and Seniors in the Department of Health and

Community Services to ensure that programs and services meet the needs of

seniors, and to address aging and seniors issues.

Our government launched a Healthy Aging Policy Framework, outlining six

priority directions together with a series of goals and actions to create an

age-friendly Province. The intent of this initiative is to further support and

recognize seniors for their diversity and valuable contributions.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made significant investments to help enhance

and improve the lives of seniors throughout our Province, including enhancements

to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, increases to the

Home Heating Rebate, and enhanced Low Income Seniors' Benefit and significant

tax reductions.

Last June, we presented the first annual Seniors of Distinction Awards which

recognize the lifelong contributions, achievements and diversity of Newfoundland

and Labrador's seniors. It will be my pleasure to award five more deserving

seniors with awards later this month.

We have made healthy aging a priority. We believe in supporting seniors

efforts to live full, active and independent lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and we certainly

want to recognize June as seniors' month as well, Mr. Speaker. We certainly feel

that all seniors hold a position of distinction in our society for the

contributions that they have made to building this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. More so than that, Mr. Speaker, we feel that society is often measured

by how we look after our seniors and our elderly people.

Today, in this Province, we have 80,000 people who are seniors. By 2025, just

fifteen years from now, we will have 130,000 seniors in this Province, an

increase of 50,000 people. Our population is aging faster than anywhere else in

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors, 50 per cent of them in this Province earn less than

$15,000 a year. I do not need to tell any member in this House of Assembly what

it is like in Newfoundland and Labrador to live on $15,000 a year. It means that

seniors every day are making difficult choices: choices between looking after

their homes, providing for heating in their homes, looking after their medical

expenses, choosing between home care services and home support services, at

times, Mr. Speaker, when they have lost certain levels of independence.

We have to ensure that these services are always readily available for

seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that over the next fifteen years

there will be more demand put on, not only your government today but successive

governments as well, to be able to meet the call to provide for the standards of

living that seniors will need in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity

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

MS JONES: to recognize the seniors in this Province today and to

congratulate them on the contributions they have made.

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

Vidi.

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

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

I am delighted to recognize June as seniors' month, along with all of us here

in the House today, and in doing that recognize the group of seniors who are

here with us in the House. Programs such as the one that the minister has

outlined are certainly important programs because many seniors do experience

barriers when it comes to isolation, recreation and social activities.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more to working with our seniors than offering

these programs. The minister did make reference to things that the government

has done, such as enhancing the Prescription Drug Program. I would like to point

out to the minister that it is more than enhancing that needs to happen here. We

should have a complete prescription drug program for all seniors in this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

Other areas where our seniors need support, that are very important to them,

are access to transportation. It is very difficult for many of our seniors,

especially in rural areas, to get around; chronic disease management, and of

course I could not sit down without talking about the need for home care. I

heard one of the members across the House, when the minister was speaking,

reminding me, but I did not need a reminder, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker,

because home care is one of the most essential needs for our senior citizens

today.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that the Lower Churchill project is

obviously years away from being developed. In government's Energy Plan it stated

that the Holyrood generating facility would be replaced by 2015 by Lower

Churchill power. If that did not happen, then scrubbers and precipitators would

be installed at the Holyrood facility by 2013, which would reduce pollution.

I ask the Premier today: Now that the 2015 time frame for the Lower Churchill

is not possible, will government live up to its commitments under the Energy

Plan and immediately install the scrubbers and precipitators at Holyrood to

address these environmental concerns?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill is progressing along very nicely, thank you

very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We are currently undergoing EAs on the generation project,

on the Newfoundland and Labrador link. We are talking with customers in Atlantic

Canada, Mr. Speaker, and in the Northeastern United States, as well as New York

and Ontario, Mr. Speaker. There is a very healthy interest in this project

which, as the Premier said yesterday, is the cheapest hydroelectric project in

North America.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of our relationship in acquiring transmission, either

through Quebec or through Labrador or through New Brunswick, our issue has only

been give us a level playing field. We are prepared to compete, and, Mr.

Speaker, we will bring green energy solutions to the rest of the country and the

Eastern United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is that there has been no sign off on the Lower Churchill by

the 2009 deadline that government implemented. We know that there will be no

project by 2015. We know that they have no capability to transmit power. We know

that all the time frames that were in place are off the table and we know, Mr.

Speaker, that there will no deal under the government members opposite.

So I ask you today, minister: What is the plan for Holyrood? Are you going to

live up to the commitments you made in the Energy Plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we know on this side of the House is that under their

Administration they tried to give it away twice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: That will not happen, Mr. Speaker. That will not happen

with this Administration. She knows very little about this project and she

demonstrates it, Mr. Speaker, every time she gets on her feet.

Mr. Speaker, we will know the run of this river. We understand the whole

project, Mr. Speaker. So we are in the strongest possible position to negotiate

the best benefits on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr.

Speaker, everybody in this country and everybody in the Eastern United States

knows that we hold the answer to many climate change issues in the Lower

Churchill, Mr. Speaker. This project is online, it is on time, and it will get

developed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister that in her mind she might think she holds the

solution, but she obviously does not hold any deal in her hands, Mr. Speaker, on

the Lower Churchill and nowhere near it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier confirmed yesterday that all the timelines are off

the table. We know that their government will not do a deal on the Lower

Churchill, and we know that any deal is at least ten to fifteen years out, if at

all.

There were no giveaways on the Lower Churchill, I say to the members

opposite. The only giveaway in this Province was AbitibiBowater, Mr. Speaker,

given a free tab on the backs of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister again: What is the plan for Holyrood? We know Lower

Churchill is off the table, are you going to put in the scrubbers on the

Holyrood site or are you not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she hopes it is off the table. I have never seen anybody in my

life, who professes to have the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador at heart get up here day after day after day in this House of Assembly

and almost pray for failure for failure, for cheap political gain for the

people across the House. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker, absolutely shameful.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Abitibi

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - Mr. Speaker, we did not expropriate Botwood, we did not

expropriate Stephenville, but we are going to be left with the cleanup costs.

Thank goodness we had the foresight to expropriate the assets so we can clean up

the mess that has been left behind by companies such as Abitibi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I may as well scrub that question, I would say,

because I do not think the minister is going to answer it today, so obviously

another commitment they are probably not going to meet.

Mr. Speaker, what I will tell the minister is that every time they get caught

in this House of Assembly under questioning, they question the patronage of the

Opposition members which is absolutely shameful.

Mr. Speaker, they have been caught in mistakes. They have been caught in

hiding information. They have been caught now in blowing the Lower Churchill

deal and they just cannot handle it.

I ask the minister this question: In light of the fact that Lower Churchill

is off the table, in light of the fact that your government will not do this

deal, will you commit to upgrading the transmission capacity on the Avalon

Peninsula so that existing hydro resources can be used to full potential?

Instead of spilling water in Bay d'Espoir, we could be using it to generate

power on the Avalon Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it means to question your

patronage, but I will say that I have not questioned her patriotism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: She is operating from a place of misinformation, Mr.

Speaker, and she is putting out false propaganda

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: that does not serve the interest of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill will be developed and it will be developed

in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it will be done in a timely and comprehensive

fashion.

In terms of commitments that we have made to the people of the Province,

including the people who live in the area of the Holyrood generating facility,

Mr. Speaker, we will live up to our commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you what the facts are. The facts are the minister opposite hid

the information on AbitibiBowater for ten months in this Province before she

disclosed it to the people of the Province. Another fact, Mr. Speaker, they had

to admit yesterday that their timelines on the Lower Churchill are all off. So,

Minister, there are facts for you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday an environmental studies professor at York University

raised concerns about the lack of openness and transparency surrounding the

spill of 74,000 litres of drilling mud in the Orphan Basin in 2007. She says

there are no details available to indicate what happened with the spill.

I ask the minister: If this process is truly open and transparent, why is it

so difficult to get information once a spill occurs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there was a spill on January 28 of 74,000 litres of drilling

mud. Drilling mud is the fluid that is used when drilling a well to compress

anything that is in the well and keep it from coming to the surface. Mr.

Speaker, there was a terrible storm on that day. The drill rig had to disconnect

because it was at very high risk and there was a spill.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to environment and safety, these issues is posted

immediately on the Web page of the C-NLOPB. There was quite a bit of media

coverage around this event at the time. Anybody who was paying attention could

have gotten all of the information off the Web, which I have here, and as well

as in the media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is that the minister opposite, or the Minister of

Environment, certainly made no disclosure or no statements around it, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We also know that this spill, the comments from the C-NLOPB

said that this spill was mud and not as bad as oil so they were not as

concerned, Mr. Speaker. However, according to the story, drilling mud can harm

fish and marine life as well.

I ask the minister: What detailed analysis was completed regarding this spill

and the impacts that it had on the ocean environment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I going to try to simplify this as much as I can in hopes that

the Leader of the Opposition is going to understand. Drilling mud is the fluid

that is put down in a well to compress any oil or gas from escaping. By its very

nature, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very heavy, heavier than water. It is made up

mainly of vegetable oil.

When the marine riser was disconnected and the location of the spill, Mr.

Speaker, the area was tens of metres within the vicinity of the hole. Mr.

Speaker, it did not rise to the surface, it had no effect on fish, and it had no

effect on birds and the only organisms that it would have impacted are those

that were crawling on the sea floor and not able to get away (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: I understand very well, it is you people over there

that do not have your act together. That was evident, Mr. Speaker, on the

Abitibi mill. We had one minister out saying we had a German company coming, we

had another minister out saying we do know if they are coming, and we had the

other minister out saying we are ready to sell it, offload it and dismantle it,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: That is the kind of inconsistency that you get on the other

side.

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have raised the issue of placing

independent monitors on oil rigs off our coast. In response to questioning, the

Minister of Natural Resources has indicated the aerial surveillance works fine.

For the sake of transparency and accountability I ask the minister: Will she

release all of the data collected on aerial performance surveillance and the

detection of oil slicks at offshore platforms from 1997 when Hibernia started

drilling to present, and whether the number of surveillance flights have

decreased or increased over that time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be under the impression

that I am the regulator for the offshore. I am not. I am the Minister of Natural

Resources charged with responsibility for here in the Province. I share that

responsibility with Minister Paradis, the federal Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is an independent agency arm's-length from both

levels of government. Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to ask them to release

the information and provide it to the Leader of the Opposition in the same way,

Mr. Speaker, that I ask the C-NLOPB to come tomorrow and give the Opposition a

briefing on what we are doing in terms of safety around drilling in the

offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that you may not be the regulator but you certainly

should have enough interest in what is happening to have that kind of

information when you stand here everyday and defend the industry by saying that

aerial surveillance is significant. Well, minister, you should know if our

flights are going up or going down and how much surveillance is occurring

offshore.

Mr. Speaker, we will meet with the C-NLOPB in the morning and we have called

them, I say to the minister, and set up the meeting. The oil platforms off our

coast operate in pretty severe weather conditions. We know that the only level

of independent monitoring is done from 20,000 feet and that there are instances

where weather conditions would prevent this surveillance from happening.

In light of this, I ask the minister: What backup plans are in place to

detect oil spills in the absence of aerial surveillance? We do have fog out

there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, most of the fog we are experiencing in this

part of St. John's is on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. They are

constantly in a fog bank.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not at any time in this House say that the only means

of inspection was aerial surveillance. What I have stated time and time again to

the Leader of the Opposition is that we do have independent monitors who visit

those rigs on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker. While she has been asking for

permanent people to be placed on those platforms my response to her has been, in

terms of determining whether or not there has been a spill of oil at sea, the

best way to determine that is through aerial surveillance and not having

permanent inspectors on the platforms. That is a matter of science, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a matter of opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister makes that defence, and she could not even tell us today how

much aerial surveillance is occurring even offshore in the oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated that environmental officers do regular

checks from the platforms but these people work for the oil company. So they are

clearly not independent monitors. We were contacted by a health, safety and

environmental technician who quit his job because the rig manager wanted him to

sign off on environmental forms for tests that were not being completed.

I ask the minister: Why is this government so dead set against independent

monitors who can demand proper industry regulations are being followed and

potentially protect our Province from an environmental catastrophe?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the chief conservation officer works with the C-NLOPB. He has at

least three other officers who work with him to do independent inspections on

the rig. They do not work for the oil companies, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to point out with regard to

safety on our oil rigs. Mr. Speaker, from the cook to the steward, to the person

who is navigating the ship, to the oil push, to an oiler, any person on that

platform who has any concerns about safety, Mr. Speaker, has the authority to

stop drilling, to stop all activity until that issue is dealt with. That is a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As of this morning the residents of Bell Island are without a ferry service

at all. The Flanders is receiving repairs and this morning the Nonia

is out of service. The residents of Bell Island are stranded and frustrated.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: What is the nature of the problem with the

Nonia and when will it be back in service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will start off by saying, I do not

know if they built houses and mansions and that sort of thing, but one thing

they did not build when they were in government was ferries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: That sir - my hon. colleague across the way. That is why

we are in the shape we are in right now with no service to Bell Island, because

of the nature of the fleet that we have and our inability, I guess, to deal with

what was left to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible) the people of Bell Island are frustrated, with a

response like that from a minister who is looking after their services.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Bell Island are no strangers to complications

and disruptions with the ferry services. These disruptions leave many people

late for work, and the most important thing, I guess, is late for appointments

for medical concerns. The fact that there is no ferry service at all today

leaves many wondering what will be done in the meantime.

So I ask the minister: What course of action does your department have in

place to immediately address this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to

manage the fleet, the legacy that was left to us from the previous

Administration.

Again, to get up and talk about me not caring about the people on Bell

Island, there is nothing further from the truth. We have been working

diligently, Mr. Speaker, since we have had the difficulties first the

Flanders went down, now the Nonia is down. We have divers out in Long

Pond right now trying to get a piece of rope or something out of the thruster so

we can get that vessel back and get the people of Bell Island - the ferry that

they need right now to get back and forth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this government has been in power for seven

years. It is time to stop laying the blame on someone else when they had Budgets

that increased as high as $6 billion and $7 billion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Bell Island have many questions and concerns

about their ferry service. An open line of communication would no doubt be

valued and appreciated by the people.

I ask the minister: Will you meet with the community of Bell Island to listen

and to discuss their concerns as soon as possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am getting tired of people on that side

telling this side what jobs we have and how we can do them. I can tell you right

now that there is a meeting set up for the committee, the ferry committee on

Bell Island, and as soon as possible we will be sitting down and dealing with

this. Again, Mr. Speaker, this government inherited a fleet that is an

embarrassment to any jurisdiction in North America, let alone in Canada, and I

say to them, that this government has responded. This year alone, $55 million to

try

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: to try to make good on fifteen years of neglect on that

side of the House. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am standing here today and

saying to the people of Bell Island, to any of the people on the Island, that

this government is acting and acting appropriately and it is going to take some

time, but guess what? We will get the job done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Jackson's Arm were informed this

past Friday that their shrimp plant will be closed, likely on a permanent basis.

Naturally, the community is devastated by this news. There are 120 people who

are now without work and are fearful for their livelihood and the long-term

future of their community.

I ask the minister: When were you aware of this closure, and have you had a

meeting with this community and our plant processor to see if this closure could

have been prevented?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite said likely

permanently closed. Mr. Speaker, that is misleading the people. I met with the

company this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I met with the company this morning. They have

cited that due to a cut in the quotas by DFO of 28 per cent, by the market

exchange of the Canadian dollar, these factors are impacting upon their

business, so they have to make a business decision. Mr. Speaker, in no way has

the company come out and said that this is a permanent closure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, under this government's watch we have seen other

communities lose their fish plants, like Englee and Fortune, and we have watched

as the industry has gone. While the MOU process takes its dead time to unfold -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member that has been

recognized by the Chair to ask a question.

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

MR. DEAN: Under this government's watch we have seen communities like

Englee, for sure, that has been shut down with no industry to follow. While the

MOU process takes its dead time to unfold we are fearful that this is the

beginning of more plant closures across the Province.

So, I ask the minister: What is being done to create a long-term transitional

plan for plant workers and communities that increasingly will find themselves at

the mercy of this fishing restructuring?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a good chance he got to recover, because

in his original statement he mentioned that Fortune was closed. I do not know

who is doing the research, Mr. Speaker, but Fortune is up and doing quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, no one will be able to accuse this government

of not stepping up for the plant workers of this Province. If there is one thing

that we have done consistently - and it came under the Fishing Industry Renewal

Strategy, that there was a program called the Plant Workers Adjustment Program,

and at any point we have done that. We have done that in Marystown, we have done

it in Harbour Breton, we have done it in other plants across the Province and we

will continue to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with being wrong if that is the

case - not like this government - and admitting it.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about what you are doing for these communities and I

can tell you that what you have done for Englee has not been much comfort to

them. What is happening today, the workers are losing their income, they are

losing their employment stability and we appreciate the make-work programs and

other things as short-term answers, but we need more than a beefing up of job

creations, we need longer term prospects for these people and for the

communities. Even though three years has passed since Englee has been closed, I

want to tell you today that these people see no new industry growth from your

government.

So I ask the minister: Are you prepared to put investments in these

communities to recruit new industry when the plants close like you did in towns

such as Grand Falls-Windsor and other places where other industries have closed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House during Question

Period on a number of occasions: The industry players that are involved in the

MOU, those being the FFAW, the ASP and government, are instrumental in bringing

about reform in this fishery. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition may not have full

faith in that process, but I can tell you one thing that I, as minister, do and

we, as a government, do. We hope that will bring about some long-term stability

and a better livelihood for the people who are involved in this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in conclusion to the Budget Debate, government spoke

of their plan for the Province and said that the Energy Plan is their vision for

the future of Newfoundland and Labrador beyond the time of oil and gas revenues.

Mr. Speaker, this government has based its Energy Plan on what it considers as

its way forward around the Lower Churchill development for which the Premier has

admitted there is no longer a firm timeline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can he ask the people of the Province to

hang their hope for their future on a development plan for which the Premier

cannot even give us a solid timeline?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of planning that needs to go into a

project the size of the Lower Churchill to ensure that it is being done

properly. There are applications for transmission through the Province of

Quebec. There are applications for transmission through New Brunswick, Mr.

Speaker. There is engineering that needs to be done. We need to understand the

full run of the river and challenges that we need to deal with there. Mr.

Speaker, we are talking to customers in this country and in the United States.

All of these things are progressing around timelines in a very well, strategic

plan.

While we cannot give a firm timeline to say that at such-and-such date in

2015 it will happen

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, that project is ongoing and will be

finished in a reasonable and sensible time frame.

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 would like to ask the minister: Are they building into their plan meeting

all of the roadblocks that are coming their way that is putting them off their

timeline? Let's admit it. The Premier has admitted it; let her admit it as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday that there is a

plan in the Province, the plan that she is talking about for the future. This

Energy Plan seems to have become the one and only focus, and it seems to be the

reason why she is totally focusing on Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, this government must look to alternative ways of investing money

in the future of this Province, at the same time as they try to resolve the

Lower Churchill development. Mr. Speaker, sitting and waiting totally on Lower

Churchill is not securing our future.

I ask the minister: Will she explain why this government is putting all its

eggs in the Lower Churchill basket?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are not putting our eggs in one basket.

There is much more on the go here than the Lower Churchill. I point out to the

Leader of the NDP that we have negotiated equity and royalties in three offshore

projects that will see a return of $36 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the NDP from

time to time wax poetically on energy development here in the Province, and what

we should be doing in tidal, and what we should be doing in wind. Mr. Speaker,

we have the best wind regime in North America. We have 5,000 megawatts of wind

just in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, wind needs to be backed up by something. You cannot store wind

energy. So, the development of the Lower Churchill and other hydro resources is

very important in a complete and comprehensive (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood in the House in December of 2009 and released

an update on the progress of the Energy Plan. She is making reference to things

that sounds like there is stuff going on that I do not know about. She said at

that time that there was going to be an Energy Plan progress report in March

I am asking the minister: Give us the details, give us the progress report

that was promised for 2010 in which we have not gotten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I provide updates on the Energy Plan on a regular basis,

particularly here in the House of Assembly. We are an energy warehouse. We have

a comprehensive Strategic Plan that we are progressing, Mr. Speaker, to the

benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members on both sides of the House for their co-operation.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will go to the Motions, to do first reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services,

for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill

23, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the

Government House Leader shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Securities Act, Bill 23, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23 shall now be introduced and read

a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend the Securities Act", carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 23 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting Court Security, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill be now

read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister

of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 24, and that Bill 24 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 24 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security", carried. (Bill 24)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 24 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 24 be read a second time? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 24 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, before we continue with the Order Paper, I would

ask for leave so that we could return to Tabling of Documents, just so the

Minister of Finance could table a document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to subsection (4) of

section 26 of the Financial Administration Act,

I am pleased to table pre-authorization authority with respect to the Office of

the Chief Information Officer.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and we will return to Orders of the

Day.

From the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 7, second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. (Bill 11)

Mr. Speaker, we had started that debate earlier and it had been adjourned, as

indicated on the Order Paper.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with regard to this

particular piece of legislation. Again, it is amending an already existing act,

the Small Claims Act, of course, which came into being quite some years ago, a

rather important piece of legislation. A lot of people, for example

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think they are concerned about my time, Mr.

Speaker, registering on the clock. I do not intend to take an hour; I rarely do.

I rarely take an hour, but in any case you can deduct whatever time I did use in

those twenty-seven seconds.

This particular piece of legislation is quite important, of course, to those

in the Province who cannot afford always to engage their own lawyer. Usually it

is administered, and it is administered through the Provincial Court system. I

thought, actually, the Minister of Justice might have elaborated a bit more,

when he spoke, as to not only what this amendment is about, but a bit more as to

how the system works; because there are still people who do not understand fully

how the small claims system does work.

This is a great opportunity, of course, to let people know something about

what is small claims. Well, as the word obviously implies, it is for somebody

who has a claim, and I guess the operative word here is: what is small? In our

courts in this Province, for example, if someone owed you for a light bill, for

example, or they owed you some money, up to $5,000, and they had not paid you,

you could take them to court, and you did not have to get a lawyer. It is quite

expensive in this Province, as in most jurisdictions, to engage a lawyer. The

cost can sometimes outweigh the amount of the claim.

I understand for anyone in this city today who goes through a divorce, for

example, a contested divorce, facing a bill of $25,000-plus is run-of-the-mill.

God knows, when you get into corporate litigation it could be far greater than

that. It can get into the thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars if you

have a protracted litigation in a corporate setting.

We, of course, here in the House of Assembly know what it costs to engage

lawyers. We have had several legal counsel engaged as a part of different issues

that came up here in this House, involving this House, and it has cost thousands

of dollars. It is all a public record now.

We know, for example, in the case involving Ms Neville, who was the Child and

Youth Advocate, there were literally thousands of dollars spent trying to deal

with that situation. We know, for example, that governments spend thousands of

dollars on lawyers. We need only look at the recent case of Abitibi. We know,

for example, that we lost two cases in this Province recently. We lost what we

call the data room case, back in the fall. We do not have the bill on that. I

asked the Minister of Justice about that some time ago, and that, of course, is

going to be in the thousands again for the cost, not only for our lawyers, by

the way, but when you lose a case, if the court awards cost against you, you

also have to pay for the cost of the other lawyer. I guess the minister should

know by now what it cost to get our lawyers, the Province's lawyers, in that

case, but I understand he is still waiting, or at least he has not been

forthcoming with the information as to what it cost us, as a Province, to pay

for the lawyers for AbitibiBowater in that data room case that we lost in Quebec

back last fall.

Of course, we lost the second case as well. We took the case of - our

Minister of Environment and Conservation, of course, issued some orders under

the Environmental Protection Act, according to the judge, anyway, in that case,

all under the guise of trying to set up a claim. Of course, the bankruptcy

proceedings, or the corporate restructuring group that were looking after it in

the Province, said: No, no, you cannot get through the back door what you are

not legally supposed to have through the front door.

So, they slammed the door. Of course, not only did they say that we lost the

case, which left us on the hook for a lot of money, no doubt, for legal fees; we

ended up again having cost awarded against us at that level. Then, of course, we

went a step further. We said, we are going to seek leave to appeal that decision

to the Court of Appeal in Quebec. We lost that case and there were court costs

again against us.

So just to give you an example, of course, we are here dealing with a small

claims thing and that as a comparison gives you some idea as to the type of

costs and legal fees you could have if you have to engage a counsel to fight a

case for you. It is not much sense if someone owes you $200 - it hardly makes

sense to go engage a lawyer who is going to probably cost you $200 an hour if

you are going to be seeking $200 in recovery. That is why we have a Small Claims

Court in the first place.

Now, I have not been personally involved in the system in some years. I would

be remiss if I did not say that. It has been ten years or so now since I

practiced in the Small Claims Courts. I have practiced up to even a couple of

years ago in other courts, the Supreme Court and so on in this Province and the

Family Courts. I have not done any small claims work for quite some time. What I

do remember about it was that it was not as simple as the minister alluded to. I

guess it might have been simple in the sense that you were not into Supreme

Court documentation to the same level. As I recall back when I practiced, we

used to see it quite often. For example, say 200 people in the municipality had

not paid their bills for some time, they might bring them all into the law

office and say: Look, would you collect these outstanding debts for us? So you

had say 200 small claims, but there was a whole process which could be fairly

complex in the sense of time consuming.

You started off with a statement of claim; an originating summons; you had to

get it all mailed out to somebody; served; brought back; you had to get court

dates. So it was not as simple. So I do not think we should mislead people to

think that just because it says small claims, it does not mean that the claim is

not important, number one. It does not mean that there is less paperwork. It

does not mean necessarily that you get through the court system any faster. That

has been my experience. Now, unless that has changed, that was my experience in

the Small Claims Court. Yes, it was cheaper, because an individual could do it

without a lawyer, but it was not necessarily faster, it was not necessarily any

more efficient. There were still some problems in terms of accessing justice,

but of course it was access to justice at a cheaper rate if you did manage to

get there.

Now the problem we had back then when the Small Claims Act was first created

- $5,000 might have seemed like a reasonable amount to let the judge deal with,

up to and including $5,000. Of course, times change, and $5,000 now in terms of

the maximum limit you could have on a claim is considered pretty small. Most

people who have a credit card, for example, have at least $5,000 on your credit

card.

So they realized that it was not practical any more. If you are going to let

people access the system without having the need for a lawyer, you are going to

have to increase the thresholds from $5,000 to another figure. That of course is

what the minister is alluding to, as I understand it. It does not say that, by

the way, in the document that we are looking at. It does not say what the new

figure is going to be. That is going to be set by regulation by the minister.

Now, the minister did say, I do believe, that it was $25,000 that was going to

be the new regulated limit.

In fact, somebody obviously listens to the House of Assembly because I can

report to the minister that someone in my district who is involved in a

municipality actually, two people came forward after hearing the minister's

comments a few days ago, a few weeks ago now I guess, a couple of weeks ago

and said: When is this going to happen? Because they are sitting on a bunch of

files and a bunch of claims, they want to know: How quick is this going to

happen?

Maybe the minister in the course of when he concludes his discussions on this

piece of legislation, of course there are people out there, minister, who

would like to know that. We know that we are here today to pass the amendment;

we know that there is going to be a regulation after. Normally, most regulations

have to be gazetted, and I explained that to the persons who called, but I did

tell them as well, I will check with the minister and see. I cannot think of a

better forum to do it in than right here on the floor of the House of Assembly

to the minister who has that answer. I am sure he has that answer available and

can give it to us. So that is number one. Apparently we are going to see an

increase up to $25,000 in the limit. Now, it does not say that in this act. That

is why I would like the confirmation that that will indeed be happening and some

idea as to the timelines of when it might happen.

The other piece of course, besides the act being a do-it-yourself sort of

thing that allows you to do-it-yourself, now we are going to have a more

reasonable limit, I would suggest, in today's economy; $25,000 in terms of a

claim is a far more reasonable limit than the former $5,000 was. So the

minister, I am sure, can provide us with some of that information. The cost of

litigation, as I alluded to, is quite, quite expensive, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that this amendment is going to do, which people ought to

know, is that it is going to broaden the jurisdiction of the judge in what

people can sue for. For example, if I had a claim before against someone and it

was a monetary amount I did something for you, you did not pay me, I sued you

for $200 that you were supposed to pay me, I could go to court, go through the

process, and file the appropriate forms. If you did not pay me, the judge would

hear the case. He would listen to our evidence and he or she would make a

decision as to what the decision would be and order you to pay.

There is a thing called specific performance, and that was not covered off by

the act before. I will give you an example. For example, someone says: I am

going to lend you my lawnmower. I lent my neighbour my lawnmower and he went off

and he cut his grass and that was fine. We were good neighbours up to that

point. Then I said bring back my lawnmower, and he said no. Now the lawnmower

that he took from me might be worth $1,000. Actually, it was a ride on, and it

was worth $1,000 or more. He did not bring back the lawnmower. I had no way to

get it back under the Small Claims Act because it did not allow for specific

performance. The judge was not authorized to say: I order you, Joe, to give Mr.

Parsons back his lawnmower. He could not do that. All he could order was a

monetary amount for Joe to give me in compensation for my lawnmower.

That was a fallacy here. That was a weakness in the act that existed. People

appreciated that after a while and said: yeah, we have to be able to cover off

for things like that, because that happens quite often. People take things from

people, they do not deserve it, they are not supposed to have it, and you had to

have a way to get it back. So the court under that example can order specific

performance. I specifically order you Joe to perform the following act, for

example, give the gentleman back his lawnmower. So, that is a case where it was

not a monetary remedy that was required. It was some specific performance that

was required and now we are going to be able to do that under this act. A lot of

people did not know that before.

Also, of course, that would apply to personal property. There could be cases

were somebody takes your personal property or has personal property belong to

you that you want back, the same as my lawnmower, for example. That is a

personal - that is a chattel, as we call it in law, and the judge would order

you to give Joe back his shovel or give John back his water bottle or whatever

it was that the person had belong to you that you could not do before. It was

all based on money.

So, it is pretty straightforward. It is nice to see that we are catching up.

I do believe the Small Claims Act is probably twenty years old. I am surprised

that it took us this long to get there, to make these amendments. They have been

floating around for a long time, but it takes time. Sometimes they have to come

through the - well not through the Law Society in this case, because the Law

Society do not usually deal with a lot of these issues of the more minor

relevance. We will come to another one this afternoon and debate later on when

we talk about the Fatal Accidents Act which is far more monumental, shall we

say, and impacting on people in our Province than the Small Claims Act is. I

will be dealing with that at some length when we do get to it because it is a

very substantial and substantive issue, and I will have some more detailed

comments on it.

I will not belabour the point on this one. It is a good amendment. We will be

supporting it. It gives these judges more jurisdiction that they need when it

comes to personal properties. I think the new threshold, assuming it is $25,000,

is far more viable in today's society than the $5,000 cap that we had. Again, I

just look forward to the minister confirming that amount, and giving some idea

to the public as to when that new regulation might be passed and gazetted so

that municipalities and individuals in our Province will know when this thing

clicks in.

I would also suggest to the minister that putting it in the Gazette is

not necessarily, I would think, the best PR that you can give to this. This

impacts, and it will impact, a lot of people in this Province who have claims.

Now, we know this government is famous for putting out press releases. Like I

said, if you were to total it all up, we could keep Stephenville and Grand

Falls-Windsor both going on the paper they use.

So, I would encourage the minister, when he gets this done, that not just

leave it to somebody who happens to be watching TV to pick up on this, but he

should actually put it on the airwaves and let people know the amendment has

been made. Send out a letter to the municipalities in the Province, or tell the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities that this has happened so

they can pass it on to their people and their municipalities and their members.

So thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say on this, and we look

forward to the minister's comments in due course after he concludes the debate

on this bill.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to stand this afternoon and to speak for a few

minutes on Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, it changes the amount. Normally, when you

went to Small Claims Court, any amount that you were suing for that was over

$5,000, you actually could not go to Small Claims Court for. This act provides a

mechanism for which that amount can be increased. My understanding, from talking

to the minister, is that the plan is government will be supporting an amount to

the tune of $25,000, so that in the future if you have a claim you want to go to

Small Claims Court for, then anything up to and including $25,000. Beyond that,

you would have to go through another mechanism which is the Supreme Court.

It also allows courts to grant non-monetary remedies. Non-monetary remedies

provide the court with an opportunity to find a solution outside of money. For

example, Mr. Speaker, a person with some carpentry skills might be ordered to

build a fence for somebody who is aggrieved over a certain situation and that

person does not have the capacity to pay, then the court can order some

non-monetary remedies.

It also enables the court to order the recouping of something like maybe a

family heirloom. There could be something that a person is aggrieved over. Maybe

they are missing it could be a family ring or something that is of

significance that you cannot really put a price tag on. By being able to order a

non-monetary remedy, then the court can say this item is to be returned and that

may be of a lot more importance to the person who is aggrieved and a lot more

important than the actual monetary value.

There are some advantages to this piece of legislation once it passes, Mr.

Speaker. It is going to give greater access to the courts for the ordinary

person because when you go to the Small Claims Court you do not need a lawyer.

Of course, $5,000 is not a lot of money in today's society. It may have been a

lot more significant when it was first brought in. Now, lengthening this up to

somewhere around $25,000 will give greater access to the court for the ordinary

person because even if you are looking for a settlement in the $10,000 to

$15,000 range, if you have to go to Supreme Court to try to recoup that, as the

member opposite just said, legal costs can be very significant and prohibitive.

Sometimes, people make decisions not to proceed any further because of the

exorbitant legal costs that are associated with hiring a lawyer to do the work

for you.

Small Claims Court can hear common cases. Actions for damages arising from

car accidents, for example; failure to pay for services or goods; a failure to

repay loans; a failure to perform the services adequately such as roof repairs,

car repairs, plumbing, carpentry.

Small Claims Court also can hear less common cases. For example, you can sue

to get back property that has been wrongfully taken from you, or you indeed may

have to cancel a contract. Perhaps someone has not done something that they

agreed to do and you need to take them to court in order to get them to do it.

This piece of legislation again, once it is enacted, Mr. Speaker, will bring

the regulations around small court cases more in tune with what is happening in

the rest of Canada. We were the lowest in Canada prior to this. In fact, prior

to 2005, the limit was $3,000. It is now $5,000. If you look across Canada in

Small Claims Court in Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan,

these four provinces presently have limits of $25,000, and it varies from some

other provinces. So we are not inventing the wheel here; we are not out on a

limb. A $25,000 limit is within normal, acceptable limits, I guess, in today's

terms.

Going to Small Claims Court tends to be a less adversarial process. It tends

to be, through the nature of the way things are laid out, there is more

negotiation. It uses a process of mediation which can oftentimes, not always,

but it can oftentimes lead to a settlement more easily.

I am not a lawyer, but I have done some research in looking at this piece of

legislation and I am going to sort of lay out some of the process of the way

someone would proceed through small court for the interests of the House and of

people who maybe have not been a part of it and have not used this process.

The process starts out when someone has been aggrieved. You feel like a wrong

has been done and you want to try to right that wrong or you want some justice.

So, the first thing you do is you file a Statement of Claim and you go ahead and

pay the associated fee with filing that statement. In a Statement of Claim and

the statement is available from the department. It is available actually on the

Web site. It asks you to give personal demographic information of yourself and

the person replying to the claim. You have to give a brief description there in

this Statement of Claim of what has happened. It could be, for example, maybe

your car was struck by a cyclist and there is certain damage done. Maybe it is

not enough to hire a lawyer and to go after that damage. It could be a couple of

thousand dollars, it could be $8,000 or $10,000 after this piece of legislation

goes through. You do not want to hire a lawyer and pay half the money away for

legal fees. So you can file a claim in a Small Claims Court. An example, I know

of somebody who went through Small Claims Court, their dog was attacked by a

neighbour's dog and it ended up costing them a fair bit of money in veterinarian

bills and they were trying to find a way to recoup the cost.

When completed, the Statement of Claim then has to be filed with the court.

Once your claim has been checked and has been signed off by a Justice of the

Peace, the clerk will return the claim to you. In the process, if you are filing

the claim you are called the plaintiff and the person you are suing is called

the defendant. I apologize to people who have great legal knowledge for the

simplicity of this but for a lot of us who do not, these terms, sometimes we are

not sure what they mean.

Once your claim is filed, the defendant has ten days to file a reply. If the

defendant is outside of the Province, actually he or she has thirty days. It is

important to note that is straight days. It is straight calendar days, not just

work days. The only exception is if the last day falls on a holiday then you get

one extra day of grace. Following the ten days, if there is no reply filed then

the plaintiff - which is you, the person filing the claim - can file for a

default judgement. If a reply is filed by a defendant the court will set a date

for a settlement conference and both parties will be notified of that date by

certified mail.

Now, what is a settlement conference? Well, before the case is set for trial

our rules require that the plaintiff and the defendant both attend a settlement

conference to see at that point, is there any hope of settling the case before

it actually goes to trial. Even if the parties do not agree at the settlement

conference, the conference is useful and it allows the parties to kind of

isolate the issues in question and oftentimes shorten the length of the trial.

It is a good, intermediary process; to sit down, talk, and lay it all out

beforehand. Maybe that is far enough, maybe it gets settled there. Maybe

rational heads prevail and there is no need to go any further.

Many of the things that we are talking about, you see, involve oral

contracts, and oral contracts are enforceable in law but the difficulty is

trying to determine what the actual terms of the contract are. If I make a deal

with somebody and we do not have anything on paper and my remembrance of the

deal differs from his or her remembrance of the deal, then the first thing to do

is try and come to terms and get someone to agree as to what the actual terms of

the contract are.

There are certain forms and procedures associated with Small Claims Court.

They are designed to assist self-represented litigants to present the case on

their own. The cost of legal representation often exceeds the amount of a claim

if the case goes to trial that is if you are using a lawyer. So judges are

cognizant of that fact. Many self-represented litigants are not familiar with

the legal rules and procedures and judges will make allowances within the limits

of the law. So, these forms kind of help you out; however, neither the judge nor

the court staff are allowed to offer us legal advice if we are going to a Small

Claims Court. The forms will help us, but the judge or the court staff are not

going to be there to give us any type of legal advice about how to proceed.

Once the case concludes so you have gone through and now you are at the

Small Claims Court and you have presented your case and the defendant has

presented their arguments. So once it concludes, a lot of times a judge will

listen to both sides and he or she right there and then can render what is

called an oral decision. They can just say: yeah, here is my decision, here is

my judgment, and this is the way it will happen. However, the judge may reserve

the decision and file a written ruling at a later time. In such a case, the

judge usually sees the need to research a point of law and when the decision is

filed with the court clerk, they will notify the parties and each party will be

given a copy of the decision. So your decision might happen right away, but if

it is a bit complicated the judge may need some time to actually research and

give you a written decision. If any party is dissatisfied with the result there

is still the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador,

the Trial Division, and subsequently to the Court of Appeal, and if necessary

you can go right to the Supreme Court of Canada. So even though you start off in

Small Claims, you still have all the rights of appeal that you would normally

have.

There are a few things to keep in mind if you are going to Small Claims Court

for the first time and you are not familiar with the procedure. There are a few

points that I just want to bring out. One, as I said, you can go yourself or you

can have a lawyer or a paralegal represent you but the whole notion of taking a

lawyer to Small Claims Court I guess in some way can defeat it, because

depending on how much you are looking for. Anyone age eighteen years and over

can use the Small Claims Court but if you are under eighteen and you want to

make a small claim you have to find somebody who is over eighteen, who is

prepared to take responsibility for your claim and to accept responsibility for

all the small court claim fees. That person is referred to as the next friend.

They are responsible for filing the forms and seeing the claim through the

court. So, there is a process for somebody under eighteen to actually move

through. All they have to do is get what is called a next friend to do the

paperwork for them, to accept responsibility for them.

A few other points if you are going to Small Claims Court for the first time,

you want to make sure you file the claim against the correct person or business.

That might sound a bit humorous but in actual fact you need to make sure that

the spelling is correct, the name of the business is correct, and that you have

the right person or business name on the Statement of Claim. You do not have to

limit your claim to just one individual or company. There may be multiple people

who are involved there. You may have been aggrieved from different sources for

the same purpose and therefore you may indeed want to sue several people.

If the company you are suing is unincorporated, then you must sue the company

in the full name of the owner. You can put the company name next to the owner's

name in order to avoid confusion. So these are things to watch out for if you

are going to court for the first time. I know I have never been there to sue

anybody for a purpose, and these are some things that I have come across in the

research to watch out for, because any little technicality and misspelling or

something and you may end up, in actual fact, the defendant may have an argument

against you when you go to court, and it is something you need to avoid before

going.

Now, in answering the question, should a person go to Small Claims Court, my

advice, Mr. Speaker, after doing some of the reading on this, is that you should

always try to settle things first. If you are aggrieved and there is an

argument, maybe just involving a friend or a neighbour or something to sit down

and to bring some level of independence or impartiality to the whole situation,

maybe a little bit of rational thought, things can be settled before you ever go

to court.

These are some things to put in place; but, if these do not work, Small

Claims Court seems to be a reasonable way to do things. By raising the limit to

$25,000 it is now going to make the Small Claims Court more available. It is

making the justice system more available to ordinary people. I think there is a

number of people who have been asking for the limit to be raised for some time.

I applaud the Minister of Justice and the department for bringing in this

amendment at this time. I certainly think it is warranted. I think it is

profitable. I think it is a good time, and it is a good piece of legislation. I

will certainly be supporting the piece of legislation, and I look forward to its

passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am quite pleased to be able to stand and take

part in the discussion on

Bill 11. It is a small amendment, but an important amendment, to the act, the

Small Claims Act. We, of course, started this discussion on May 13, when the

minister made his presentation with regard to the bill. I did take time to go

over what the minister said back on May 13, in speaking to the bill and

preparing us for the discussion.

As has been pointed out, the minister mentioned in his remarks on May 13

that, as we know, the limit for claims in the Small Claims Court is $5,000. It

used to be $3,000 and it was put up to $5,000. That is where it stands at the

moment, but the minister said and pointed out that the amount is to go up. Now,

what he said was that the purpose of this amendment would be to increase the

amount to $25,000. I do not think that is quite correct, because the amendment

itself does not have to do with money; the amendment has to do with what is

covered in the Small Claims Court.

What I think is significant in the amendment is that people now will be able

to make claim for the recovery of personal property. That was not possible

before. I suspect what the minister was speaking to - because of the Small

Claims Court now going to be able to allow for the claim of recovery of personal

property, it is absolutely essential that the amount of money go up that one may

be able to claim. I presume, then, that the minister is going to be making

changes to the regulations that accompany the act, and the change to the

regulation, which does not have to happen here on the floor of the House, will

be to change the amount of money that may be claimed for in Small Claims Court

to $25,000.

While it is not the purpose of the amendment itself, the purpose of the

amendment is to allow for the personal property claims, that change is the one

that definitely is demanding that the amount in Small Claims Court go up. It was

a small enough amount anyway, even without the personal property in there, but,

with personal property now introduced, it is absolutely essential.

I think the minister did point out, when he spoke on May 13, that the $25,000

now is becoming more common in other jurisdictions in the country. There were

discussions between the Department of Justice and the Provincial Court

officials. It was through those consultations that the decision was made to

change the amount to $25,000. I suspect - and the minister, of course, will

confirm this for us - that once this bill is passed and enacted, that the

regulation will be changing.

Obviously, it is an important change because when people go to Small Claims

Court, very often there is damage to personal property. I think the fact that

this could not be covered before in Small Claims Court made life more difficult

for people who have had damage done to their property. The court currently has

jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon a claim for a debt, whether payable in

money or otherwise, and for damages. Now, to be able to claim for the actual

recovery of the cost of personal property is going to make things much better

for people who find themselves in Small Claims Court.

My colleagues have done a good job of going through what the Small Claims

Court is all about, and I do not think there is going to be much served by my

going through everything all over again, but probably a couple of points. If

somebody wants to go to Small Claims Court, and I think it has been referred to,

they must make an application. They must actually do that in writing. There is a

Statement of Claim, a form that one can get online actually - it would be under

the Department of Justice - and one can make their claim, their Statement of

Claim, in writing. Then a decision is made whether or not the claim will go

forward. That has been pointed out. A lot of attempts are made to try to keep

things out of court and to try to have things dealt with out of court if

possible. It certainly makes it more efficient for the court system, and uses

less time of court officials. So, one of the things that will happen when

somebody puts in a Statement of Claim is that there will be a meeting that has

already been referred to called the settlement conference. The person who is

putting in the claim must attend this conference, and so must the defendant. The

purpose of the conference is to make sure that disputes can be settled without a

costly trial; because, even though it is the Small Claims Court, a trial still

costs money, the money for all the officials taking part. So, it is very

effective if we can have small claims, and crimes actually, not just small

claims, dealt with outside of the trial system where possible.

To be able to get together, to hold a conference, to try to isolate the

issues, to make things clear, maybe even deal with them outside of court, is the

goal of the settlement conference. The thing that is important, though, whether

it happens in settlement conference or whether it goes to court, the burden of

proof lies with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to be able to prove their

Statement of Claim. It is incumbent upon them to do so, whether they do it

themselves or whether they have somebody else do it for them. That can be an

articled clerk or an agent, or even a solicitor, though a lot of people will

represent themselves.

I can remember somebody I know who once had to go into Small Claims Court and

put a tremendous amount of work into her presentation, and was complimented by

the judge on the tremendous job that she did, so it can be a really great

learning experience for somebody, actually. She became quite encouraged by the

job that she did in the Small Claims Court and actually though about: Maybe it

is law that I should be going into. So, being involved yourself in the Small

Claims Court can have a lot of spinoffs.

In the Small Claims Court, when the judge makes a decision when it has been

in the court and there has been a trial, the judge can choose either to provide

an oral decision, which will be a decision made there from the bench without

delay, or a judge may reserve decisions and file written rulings at a later

date. I suspect that whether it is an oral decision or a written decision is

dependent upon the circumstances and the details and the complications that may

be involved in the case. I would imagine that a complicated case would benefit

from a written ruling rather than an oral ruling so that the judge can totally

explain why he or she has made the ruling.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I want to say. I am happy to have been

able to speak to the bill. I obviously will be voting for it. It is going to be

for the good of the people of the Province. I look forward to hearing the

minister make his final comments in second reading when he does with regard to

the point about the regulatory change and when that will happen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great pleasure to stand in this hon. House and take my place as

the MHA to represent the constituents of the District of Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me also a great pleasure to speak on Bill 11,

An Act To

Amend The Small Claims Act. Again, I would also like to remind hon. members of

this House that I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal background, but what I

am about to say on this bill is from a layman's perspective.

I do have experience with Small Claims Court. I have experienced first-hand,

Mr. Speaker, and if I may, I would like to share a story with my colleagues in

this House about an experience that I had personally back a few years ago in the

early 1990s when I was partnered with another gentlemen. We were building lawn

furniture and we had sold lawn furniture on consignment in St. John's. At that

time, shortly after, we came to St. John's and we picked up the cheque for the

lawn furniture. We went back to our hometown and changed the money. My wife and

I went shopping. Three days later, we get a call from a nearby grocery store

saying that the cheque was not good, the cheque had bounced and we had to go

back to the person that wrote the cheque to find out what went wrong.

At the time, there were some arguments about what happened with regard to the

furniture. So, we had to proceed to the Small Claims Court to be reinstated for

the cheque. We filed a claim with the Small Claims Court. I had to travel from

Norman's Cove right into Placentia to be able to file a claim and then, Mr.

Speaker, we had to serve the papers on this company, had to travel to St. John's

to serve papers. So, we put in some extra claims for the claims that we had to

go through in order to be able to collect this money. Mr. Speaker, it did not

get to court. The company agreed to settle out of court. He replied back to the

court saying that he was going to settle out of court. I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, that we did get awarded the money, the cheque was reinstated but not

for the amount that it started out to be. He had to pay an extra $170 some-odd

because of the costs involved for us to be going to the Small Claims Court.

In my capacity as Mayor of Norman's Cove-Long Cove for the ten years that I

was the Mayor of Norman's Cove-Long Cove, Mr. Speaker, I also had several

experiences with Small Claims Court with regard to delinquent taxpayers. A lot

of our small towns, not only the small towns but large towns as well out there,

experience this every year with regard to the Small Claims Court. They file

claims - it costs a lot of time for the towns to file these claims. You have to

travel from Norman's Cove to Placentia to file a claim, get back to Norman's

Cove and then have to serve - you can either serve the papers on your own, you

can go knock on the person's door and serve the papers individually, or you can

file the papers into registered mail to the individual, or you can have a

sheriff deliver the papers for you. Either way, Mr. Speaker, there is some cost

involved.

In most cases, though, we found that when we did go to the Small Claims

Court, when we did file the papers, a lot of people just did not want to go

through the agony of going to the Small Claims Court. Some of them did not want

to go to Small Claims Court and then end up in the credit bureau. Most of them

ended up paying their bills before we went to the Small Claims Court and settled

out of court.

So, that was an experience that I had with the towns.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the harbour supervisor in Long Cove, we

had similar experiences where we were charging people for services to the

harbour. At the end of the year, people would not have paid up and some of them

went in arrears. When you go in arrears over two years, there was a collection

agency or Small Claims Court that you would go to. We ended up going to Small

Claims Court in several incidents of that as well.

I just want to touch on some of the procedures when filing a claim at the

Small Claims Court that is very important for people to know. When taking a case

to the Small Claims Court it is very important that the rules of the court be

followed. A copy of the small claims rules can be obtained from the Queen's

Printer.

To start a small claim in Small Claims Court, Form 1 - Statement of Claim

must first be completed. When completing a Statement of Claim, it must be filed

with the court. The cost of filing a claim in the amount of $500 to $5000 is

$100; for a claim less than $500, it is $50.

When your claim has been checked and signed by a Justice of the Peace, the

clerk will return the claim form to you, the plaintiff, to be served on the

party you are suing, the defendant. Service can also be affected by serving the

claim by personal service, registered mail, as I said earlier, or through the

process of a sheriff.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also, I think it was on May 27 that the Justice

Department announced that you can now file on-line. You can file your claim

on-line as of May 27.

Once the defendant has been served the defendant's copy of the Statement of

Claim, the copy marked service must be returned to the court, with proof of

service. It is important to note that the defendant has ten days thirty days

if a resident is outside the Province - to file a reply. This is straight days

but if the last day falls on a holiday or weekend it is the next working day.

You can file your reply on-line as well. With the new system that has been

announced, you can file your reply on-line, but I think that you still may have

to go back to the same items of serving the person for the claims through the

mail, or by the sheriff, or also delivering it yourself.

Mr. Speaker, another important note is that under certain circumstances, the

Small Claims Act and rules permit a defendant to make application on Form 14 to

cancel a default judgment. A defendant has twelve months from the date of

judgment to make such application and if a judge grants the application, a date

will be set for a settlement conference.

Some of the common cases in Small Claims Court are for damages arising from

car accidents, failure to pay for services or goods, failure to repay loans, and

failure to perform services adequately. A lot of the examples in that case, to

provide services adequately, roof repairs is one of the big ones that comes up

through carpentry, construction any construction work, really. Car repairs is

another one; car repairs is quite a in the Small Claims Court, under this

amendment now - before you could go in and you could be awarded for monetary

damages, but you can also now be awarded a new fender or take it to the garage

and get it done or what have you. The difficulty with these cases, Mr. Speaker,

has always been determining what the actual terms of the contract were.

Mr. Speaker, as one of my other colleagues mentioned, and I think the Leader

of the NDP mentioned, right now in the Small Claims Court, if you went to Small

Claims Court you could claim up to $5,000 damage, but there is going to be an

increase up to $25,000. The Provincial Court of Newfoundland has also come up

with a new it might not be relevant to this case but there is also another new

jurisdiction as well from the court that I just want to touch on briefly. Just a

second I get my thoughts together, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, also I wanted to touch on the fees that are also for a Statement

of Claim, and there are several other fees and costs that are associated with

the Small Claims Court. Some of which are for searches, photocopies, CD copies

or recording procedures, transcript procedures, and they are repayable to the

clerk but are not recoverable. Other fees, such as issuing Statements of Claim,

application to reopen a default judgement, fees to conduct search by and

registry maintained by the Province, these fees are also payable to the clerk of

the court which may be payable between parties but are not recoverable. I would

like to point out that these fees range anywhere from $10, some $40, up to $100.

Also, Mr. Speaker, announced just shortly was the Family Violence

Intervention Court dealing with family violence. This one is not quite the same

as the Small Claims Court, it is probably not relevant but I just want to

mention that this is also a great announcement that our Justice Department has

made as well. This is a new initiative of Justice. The ultimate goal of the

Family Violence Intervention Court is to break the cycle of family violence

which the families have experienced, and victim safety and offender

accountability are paramount, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think I pretty much went through the act, what I wanted to say

on this today. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that standing here I certainly am

going to support the amendment to the act for the Small Claims Court and I want

to thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now

he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues and the hon. members across

the way for their comments with respect to this bill. I made some notes as I

listened, to some of the questions that were asked but I concur, and at the

point of being redundant, to reiterate that this is in fact a good amendment, a

good bill. A bill long sought after by members of the legal fraternity. As a

matter of fact, I think I might have mentioned in my opening remarks, one of the

first calls I received from lawyer friends downtown was to do something with the

Small Claims Act. I think this will be an amendment that will be welcomed

throughout the legal fraternity.

Mr. Speaker, of course the highlights of this act, again, is not only are we

raising the - and the Leader of the NDP is quite right, in that the act does not

speak to the raising of the amount to $25,000 but under the current act the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council can make regulations with respect to setting

maximum amounts of the claims under this act, and that does not change. The only

thing is, the new regulation will be, instead of $5,000 it will be $25,000.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the non-monetary remedies, which are also an important

part of this bill, the recovery of personal property and the specific

performance of contracts, as long, of course, as the amounts, the value of the

property or the performance of the contract does not exceed the monetary

jurisdiction.

Also, I want to repeat something that my colleague from Bellevue just

mentioned, that the announcement was made only last week with regard to

electronic filing, with respect to the Small Claims Court. I made that

announcement in conjunction with Chief Judge Pike, that any person in the

Province now wishing to file a small claims application in Provincial Court now

has the option to file the claim and pay the related fees on-line. By the same

token, Mr. Speaker, if you are served with a claim electronically, then you can

register your defence on-line.

So this is all an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to improve access to the courts and

access to justice, and this is important. As a matter of fact, e-filing in the

Provincial Court is the Provincial Court's first experience with an alternative

method of service delivery. As a result of that, individuals can now file

applications from anywhere that they have access to the Internet.

It demonstrates, I think, the ingenuity of the Provincial Court and supports

the strategic direction that the court is giving and that the government

supports improving access to justice by alternative service models. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia are the

only provinces in Canada which provide on-line filing now for Small Claims

Court. I might point out as well, that the on-line service provides many help

boxes throughout the e-filing process. There is an e-mail address and a

toll-free helpline that is available also to users during normal business hours.

The public can access the e-filing process. So those people who might be

watching and might want to copy this down, the public can access the e-filing

process at www.court.nl.ca/provincial/smallclaims

Anyway, so much for that, Mr. Speaker. In response to before I get to that,

one of the other things, of course, the important things about this bill, is

that in improving access to the court services, anything over $5,000 in the past

or under the current act, Mr. Speaker, in order to satisfy a claim, has to go to

the Supreme Court Trial Division. The Supreme Court Trial Division, as was

pointed out before, is somewhat of an intimidating experience for most people.

It is an adversarial court, it is quite costly. Subsequently, people may not

pursue the claims, and as a result of that, may be denied access to justice.

That is the whole purpose of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, in that it improves

public access to the court services, which is something that this government

solidly supports is greater access to the justice system.

With respect to the question raised by the NDP Leader, I think I already

referenced that. The $25 will be made by regulation.

With respect to the question from the Opposition House Leader, the act will

come into effect upon Royal Assent. When it is signed by the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council the act comes into effect, and at that time the regulations are ready

to be gazetted as soon as the bill is given Royal Assent. So we plan to move on

this fairly quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think that concludes my comments. Again, I thank all the

members for their co-operation, for their response and their contribution and I

now move this bill to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11 be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. (Bill 11)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act", read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 11)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 15)

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board that Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act be now read

a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The

Fatal Accidents Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act".

(Bill 15)

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The

Fatal Accidents Act.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, proposes two amendments to the current act. It poses

to amend

section 6, which is the most significant amendment of the Fatal

Accidents Act, to allow for the award of damages for the loss of care, guidance

and companionship suffered by a loved one by the death of a family member. That

is the most significant amendment that we are going to be referring to in this

particular bill. The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is updating the language of

section 6 to replace the word "jury" with the more inclusive term "court", and

to revise the word "verdict".

Mr. Speaker, if I might refer the House briefly to the current act in

section

6, which will be the

section that we will be referring to today,

section 6 of

the act deals with damages. In the debate that we had on the Fatal Accidents Act

back in December, there was quite a lot of discussion around damages. As I

pointed out at that point in time, for the ordinary person damages means

something that happens to your car or something that is damaged which is caused

by some outside force, but damages in law, Mr. Speaker, are monies or

compensation for injuries that are done to an individual.

Section 6 of the current act deals with damages, and it states as follows,

(1) "In an action brought under this Act the jury may award the damages that

they think are proportional to the injury resulting from the death to the

parties for whose benefit the action was brought, and the amount so recovered

shall be divided among those parties, in the shares that the jury by their

verdict finds and directs."

That is the only reference, Mr. Speaker, in this to the type of damages that

can be awarded. That has been interpreted to mean pecuniary damages only and

does not include non-pecuniary damages.

Subsection (2), "Where the defendant is advised to pay money into court, the

defendant may pay in compensation a lump sump to all persons entitled under this

Act for his or her wrongful act, neglect or default, without specifying the

shares into which it is to be divided by the jury.

(3) Where the sum is not

accepted and an issue is taken by the plaintiff as to its sufficiency, and the

jury considers it sufficient, the defendant shall be entitled to the verdict

upon that issue." So you can see the language in there, Mr. Speaker, that we are

looking to change.

Subsection (4), "One action only may be taken for and in respect of the same

subject matter of complaint." Now most of these, Mr. Speaker, will not change

except for the language, but we will be adding a significant addition to that

section dealing with loss for non-pecuniary damages.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, during the last sitting of the House of Assembly

in December 2009, this House debated a private member's motion which dealt with

a review of two pieces of legislation actually, not only the Fatal Accidents

Act, which we are talking about today, but also the Survival of Actions Act. In

particular, the real issue, Mr. Speaker, involve damages which are recovered

under the Fatal Accidents Act. I will refer briefly to the Survival of Actions

Act later on.

Mr. Speaker, the object and the purpose of this legislation is to create a

right of action which is not possible under common law. Mr. Speaker, our laws

come from two sources, there are codified laws, written laws such as the ones we

are talking about here today, and laws that evolve from court decisions over the

years. That is what is called laws under the common law.

Our common law has not evolved, Mr. Speaker, to the point where we have a

right of action that we are looking for under this act. In our jurisdiction, as

a matter of fact, the opposite has occurred, in that the only seminal case

involving this issue, the case of McLean v. Carr, which we will reference later

on, does just the opposite. It allows us only, under our Fatal Accidents Act to

give pecuniary damages as opposed to non-pecuniary damages. The Fatal Accidents

Act allows eligible family members to bring an action for damages when the death

of their loved one is caused by the wrongful act, neglect or the fault of

another.

Mr. Speaker, the death of a loved one is an incredibly difficult event, as

was decided and discussed earlier on in this debate in December. It can

permanently alter a person's life. The purpose of the Fatal Accidents Act is

legislation that is intended to minimize the effect, especially economic effect

on the lives of people who were financially dependent on a family member that

has been wrongfully killed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize that. The member is wrongfully

killed. A lawsuit can only be brought under the Fatal Accidents Act if the

deceased, had he lived, could have sued the other side, the wrongdoer. He had

lived, if he had an action against the wrongdoer, then the lawsuit can be

brought under the Fatal Accidents Act, but only if there was a case in the first

place. I think that is important to remember.

Now, under the Fatal Accidents Act,

section 6, that I just read, the damages

may be awarded to address the financial loss, known as pecuniary losses.

Pecuniary damages, Mr. Speaker, again, for the purpose of those people who may

not be familiar. Pecuniary damages are damages that can be quantified. You can

put a dollar figure on them as opposed to non-pecuniary damages.

Section 6

addresses pecuniary damages suffered by loved ones, by the death of a family

member. It is compensatory, and those making a claim under this

section may be

awarded damages for such things as the loss of the deceased's income, loss of

care and loss of guidance.

Now, we can question: Why loss of care and loss of guidance? We can

understand that we can be compensated for the loss of the deceased's income,

because that can be quantified, but loss of care and loss of guidance, these are

two different issues. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the spouse or the deceased person

had to survive, and we can assume the other spouse can rely on the caring

support of that spouse or that family member for the rest or for a certain

period of his life. That is something that can be quantified, because we can get

the same kind of care, the same kind of guidance, perhaps, from a private nurse

or a counselor, so a figure can be put on it. We can equate a figure of that

nature. So, while they seem somewhat vague in assigning damages for loss of care

and loss of guidance, they can be quantified by comparison to services offered

in other areas.

In reviewing, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we did as a result of not

necessarily as a result of the debate that happened in December because a review

by our department was ongoing long before that, but on reviewing the fatal

accidents legislation and the practices and the case law of other provinces and

territories, it is sufficient to say that we in this Province are limited to

what we can recover for damages pursuant to

section 6 of this act because we can

only recover, to repeat, pecuniary expenses. There is no recovery under our act

for damages for the loss of companionship suffered by a loved one by the death

of a family member and our common law has not evolved to the point where we can

make a claim there either.

Mr. Speaker, for example, if a husband is wrongfully killed in a motor

vehicle accident, a surviving wife currently cannot claim for the lost of

companionship she would have received from her husband if he was not killed.

Previously, there was no ability for the wife to recover damages for emotional

loss. With the introduction of this bill, this government is amending the

legislation so that the wife is entitled to recover damages for loss of

companionship and it would up to the courts, Mr. Speaker, to assess the value of

this loss.

Now, we had a full debate on this in December 2009 and it was resolved that

the House of Assembly call on the government to move forward with the review of

the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act with respect to

limitations on those recoverable damages and to examine the practices and

legislation of other jurisdictions. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition at the time

wanted an all-party review for this but one of the duties of the Minister of

Justice includes the supervision, control and direction of all of the matters

relating to the administration of the acts for which the minister is

responsible. Mr. Speaker, in my department, the Department of Justice, we are

responsible for 100 pieces of legislation that falls under the responsibility of

our department. The Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act are two

of these.

In every session of the House, the minister brings forth amendments or

legislation to the House that might amend one or several of these acts, might

modify it or modernize legislation. That is the role of the Minister of Justice

and that is what we are doing today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we did a complete review of both of these acts and

recognized the deficiency in the Fatal Accidents Act. It was not rocket science

to recognize the deficiency in that act. It has been an ongoing concern of our

legal fraternity for many, many years. Government after government has neglected

to amend this act. For some reason that escapes me, because it has certainly

been a concern of the people in the legal fraternity, for a long time.

The act - I think I mentioned in the debate - goes back to the 1800s and very

little has been done with it. I think the Province passed the Fatal Accidents

Act in 1916 and that developed from the Fatal Accidents Act, United Kingdom,

which was developed in 1846. It remains substantially in the same form today. It

is difficult to understand why we have not moved on this before because there

have been so many transformations in our society, in our country. The Fatal

Accidents Act, obviously, has not kept up with it and has not reflected these

changes.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, a case law, the case of McLean v. Carr

Estate and that is a seminal case of this Province dealing with the Fatal

Accidents Act. Justice Barry at the time, the Supreme Court Trial Division, he

discovered or he identified that the Fatal Accidents Act did not address

emotional loss or non-pecuniary damage such as an award for the loss of

companionship. He recognized that back in 1994, but obviously, Mr. Speaker, we

never went with it until today.

The (inaudible) case, McLean v. Carr Estate - Mr. McLean in that case

suffered fatal injuries as a result of a fall from an all-terrain vehicle. He

left his wife surviving him, of fourteen years, and three children aged nine,

ten and eleven. In that case, Mr. Speaker, Justice Barry determined that a

child's loss of a parent's care and guidance is considered to a loss of a

pecuniary nature, so as to be recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act.

In other words, the good judge said at that time, a quote from paragraph 28

of his decision: I am satisfied McLean was a father who did spend and would have

continued to spend most of his free time with his wife and children. He helped

his children with their homework and generally was a good father. In these

circumstances I conclude that appropriate awards, as of the date of death,

including all contingencies, for the children's loss of their father's care,

guidance and companionship are: $9,000 in the case of the nine-year-old; $7,000

in the case of the eleven-year-old; and $6,000 in the case of the

twelve-year-old.

He also went on, Mr. Speaker, to state that the wife, Jeanette McLean, was

also entitled to compensation for her loss. He said: This was not awarded as

solace. Rather, her award should be to compensate her for the loss of care and

counsel she would have received over the years from her husband, which is not

included in the loss of household services that we had dealt with previously in

the case. For example, if the spouse becomes ill, he or she can expect the other

will provide care, or if a difficult personal decision must be taken, one can

expect one's spouse to