April

12, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 14

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome sixteen residents of the Karwood

Retirement Complex from the District of Topsail. The residents are accompanied

by their director, Ms Katrea Hilton and the bus driver, Randy Breen.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome, a special welcome, a

warm welcome, to one of the residents from the Karwood Retirement Complex, Mrs.

Clara Torraville, who was born and raised in Fogo Island, who just celebrated

her ninety-sixth birthday and this is her first visit to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to extend a welcome to Councillor

Vince Burton from the Town of Paradise.

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 Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo & La Poile;

the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; and the hon. the Member for

the District of Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Saturday, April 9, 2011, I had the pleasure, along with the hon. the

Member for the District of Harbour Main, to attend the First Annual Fireman's

Ball for the Bay de Grave Regional Fire Department, which was held in South

River.

The Bay de Grave Fire Department is a newly formed department which opened

its doors on March 29, 2010. They serve the towns of Cupids and South River in

the District of Harbour Main and the towns of Clarke's Beach, North River and

Makinsons in the District of Port de Grave.

The twenty-one firefighters, including Ms Cassandra Bishop, the only female

firefighter, are highly trained personnel, and they are there to respond to any

emergency.

Fire Chief Jeremy Hall paid tribute to Mr. Frank L. Bishop, a firefighter who

passed away in 2010. He was a devoted and dedicated firefighter who gave endless

and selfless hours of service. Fire Chief Hall ended his tribute by saying, "All

gave some, some gave all."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

and best wishes to the Regional Board of directors and the Bay de Grave Regional

Fire Department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are blessed

with residents who have a strong sense of community spirit and involvement.

Today, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the Town Council of Conception Bay

South and the Town Council of Paradise, both of whom recently held and

celebrated their very well-attended annual winter carnivals.

From February 5 to 13, the Town of Conception Bay South celebrated its sixth

annual "Winterfest in CBS," which featured events such as the popular annual

free pancake breakfast, scavenger hunt and sliding party. Snow and Ice in

Paradise took place from February 19 to 27 and was a week filled with fun

activities that included an enjoyable afternoon social at the Karwood Retirement

Complex.

Mr. Speaker, these successful events are made possible because of the hard

work and dedication of the numerous volunteers, town staff, members of council

and corporate sponsors.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating and wishing these towns

and their residents continued success in adding to the quality of life in their

communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Corporal Kirk Keeping of Port aux

Basques, on being awarded the Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation.

On May 16, 2008, Corporal Keeping, while on joint Canadian and Afghan patrol,

was attacked by a suicide bomber in Zhari District, Afghanistan. After helping

extract the casualties, he immediately took charge of their treatment by

supervising fellow soldiers as they provided first aid and helped establish

on-scene security with the aim of preventing a second attack. Corporal Keeping's

decisive actions and skilled treatment saved the life of a seriously wounded

Afghan soldier. This was Kirk's second tour of duty at Afghanistan.

Corporal Keeping received the Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation at

Gander in December of 2010.

Corporal Keeping is the son of Melvin and Faye Keeping of Port aux Basques.

Kirk is currently stationed at Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending

thanks to Corporal Keeping on his service to our country and congratulations on

being awarded the Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation. All the best to Kirk

Keeping and his family.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to a

musical group in my district entitled, Two Weeks Notice. This group is made up

of five high-school students; Daniel Carpenter and Zachary Steiner of

Lewisporte, as well as Lindsey Lewis, Tori Barrett and Chelsea Lewis of Baytona.

Two Weeks Notice has been playing together for a little over a year now. They

participated last year in the Battle of the Bands, which is an annual musical

competition that brings together the best of young talent throughout the

Province for an evening of friendly competition, and they won an award last year

for the best original song. In fact, Mr. Speaker, their name, Two Weeks Notice,

was a name they gave themselves when they had to meet a two-week deadline last

year prior to entering their first competition.

This year, Two Weeks Notice came away with first place honours at the

competition. The group and their families are very excited about this great

accomplishment. They plan to continue playing together during the summer at

different festivals and they also plan to continue writing original songs.

Members of the House please join with me in recognizing an up-and-coming

group: Two Weeks Notice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East

& Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an exceptional young man formerly of

Portugal Cove-St. Philips in my district.

I speak of Mr. Adam Morgan who, on April 2, 2011, at the age of twenty-nine,

was inducted as a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame,

which I had the privilege of presenting. At twenty-nine, Adam becomes the

youngest member ever inducted.

This in itself is an exceptional accomplishment, but when you learn of Adam's

accomplishments as a talented athlete in the sport of diving, it becomes clear

why he was chosen from among sixty nominees this year.

Adam is the only athlete from this Province to have won three medals in a

single Canada Games: a gold and two silver. Adam received a full athletic

scholarship to Texas A & M University, one of the most prestigious universities

in the United States. He was a three-time member of the Canadian National Diving

Team and competed at the 1994 Can-Am International Diving Competition, where he

won a silver medal in the three meter board. Adam received the athletic

distinction of all-American label three times in his career while diving in the

United States.

What is as inspiring as Adam's athletic accomplishments was his acceptance

speech, where he thanked his parents, Bill and Anna, his coaches, and his former

team mates. While he acknowledged he now lives in Texas, he emphasized how proud

he was to be from Newfoundland and Labrador, and how proud he was to have had

the opportunity to represent his Province proudly in his sporting career.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Adam on such

an honour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there was a time when navigating through the many programs and

services our government delivers was challenging for residents. However, through

numerous initiatives in recent years, our government has made this process

easier and more manageable.

Members may recall that in support of the Poverty Reduction Strategy, the

provincial government developed a Guide to Government Programs and Services.

This book is now in its third edition with wide distribution and was

complemented by a Web site last year. Now, through another initiative under the

Creating a Province of Choice: A Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for

Newfoundland and Labrador, we have once again delivered on this important

commitment by developing a new online youth Web portal.

Speaking the language that the youth speak is crucial to get them to listen

to what you have to say and offer, Mr. Speaker. Our government has always

believed in that concept. Since the launch of the Youth Retention and Attraction

Strategy in November 2009, we have been communicating with our young people via

Facebook, and other online tools such as YouTube. This, Mr. Speaker, has proven

to be a huge success.

Mr. Speaker, a further step in this well laid out plan has brought us to this

moment. We are proud to announce the launch of our online youth Web portal at

www.youth.gov.nl.ca. This is a resource for youth to find out what the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has to offer them and how to get

involved.

It is indeed a great time to be a young person in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

We have one of the lowest tuition rates in Canada. We have a strong and rapidly

growing economy. We have endless opportunities knocking on our door; and, Mr.

Speaker, our people have a government that has a vision and demonstrated

commitment which will ensure that we travel down the right path for our future.

Most of all, Mr. Speaker, we have youth and other groups who will be the shining

beacons of our success as they transition from school to a rewarding career and

life right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Youth are undoubtedly the future of this Province, our most valued

investment, and our most precious resource. Our government is proud to support

them toward making Newfoundland and Labrador their final destination on their

path to success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

While it is great to hear government announce the new Web portal and how it

in this Province, we cannot, Mr. Speaker, overlook the serious challenges facing

young people.

Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador stands at 24.8

per cent, which is double the national average. Too many of our young people

have to leave this Province, Mr. Speaker, to find work as previous generations

have done. I know the minister mentioned in his statement we have to ensure we

travel down the right path for the future. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is

true they are travelling down a path. I do not know if it is the right one or

not, hopefully it is, because most of them are ending up in Western Canada.

I hear countless stories of young people who have to leave to go away to

work. Youth unemployment, student debt are on the rise, and our young people

have been particularly hit by the economic downturn outside the greater Avalon

area. Young people living in remote, rural areas, and Aboriginal youth are

particularly at risk. Many of these young people will not be able to access the

government Web site because they do not have access to the Internet.

One thing I agree with, Mr. Speaker, youth are undoubtedly the future of this

Province, but we need to do more to retain them.

Thank you.

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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

This is good news. It is important, as part of the Youth Retention Strategy,

in which young people are most communicating these days.

Mr. Speaker, many people, and that includes young people as well, who need

government services do not have online access. So, a paper edition of the guide,

regularly updated, is certainly a good thing also. Lack of information can mean

people missing out on support to improve their lives, and we want to make sure

that everybody, youth and others, get all the information that is available.

With regard to the Poverty Reduction Strategy; the government continues

promoting the Poverty Reduction Strategy but there are two very serious

contributors to poverty in this Province, the low rates of Income Support and

the lack of affordable housing. Those two things affect young people as well,

because young people coming from families who have been living in poverty are

adversely affected as they continue to move forward in their lives.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that youth need jobs. They are not going to

stay in this Province unless there is work for them to do. The minister painted

a really rosy picture but the reality is young people are still leaving this

Province in droves to find jobs. If this government really wants to help them,

Mr. Speaker, I encourage them to get on the job when it comes to making sure the

economy is working for our young people.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to update this hon. House on

the small claims e-filing initiative. The ability to e-file small claims was

introduced last June, and since that time we have seen almost 25 per cent of all

claims filed electronically with the Small Claims Court.

E-filing is easy and convenient and allows users to file claims at any time,

day or night from anywhere in the Province, as long as they have access to the

Internet. There are only two jurisdictions in Canada which offer e-filing and I

am proud to say that Newfoundland and Labrador is one of them.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, e-filing coincided with the legislative amendments

that increased the amount of small claims from $5,000 to $25,000. This was an

important move for all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador as it provides

greater access to the Small Claims Court. Prior to increasing the amount, if an

individual had a claim which was over $5,000, the likely process to address this

would have been through the Supreme Court. This process was costly and one of

our main goals of increasing the monetary limit was to help individuals avoid

that costly process.

Mr. Speaker, for the fiscal year 2010-2011, there were almost 1,500 claims

filed with the Small Claims Court. This is in comparison to the previous fiscal

year when just under 1,300 claims were filed.

While I am pleased with the numbers of the people who have opted to file

their claims electronically, I would like to see more people use this option. I

encourage all hon. members to inform their constituents that e-filing is a

convenient new option.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that both the increase in monetary jurisdiction and

e-filing are ways to provide greater service delivery. Members of the public can

access the e-filing process at the Provincial Court Web site and as an

individual goes through the process online, there are help functions including

an e-mail address and a toll-free number should they have any questions.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is certainly proud of this new

application as it provides more expeditious access to justice for more people.

It is our hope that we will see more people use the e-filing process for filing

their small claims.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is indeed a

good thing when we have people being able to access justice more easily.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, about two-thirds of the people who live in rural

Newfoundland cannot access the new e-filing system simply because they do not

have high-speed Internet in rural Newfoundland, in most cases. It is a great

process, great to have, great initiative, but if we can only get the rest of the

government to catch up with the Department of Justice and the small claims

process, we would be far better off I would say.

With regard to the increase in jurisdiction from $5,000 to $25,000, Mr.

Speaker, that is indeed a welcomed move as well. Small claims were restricted

below $5,000, but over time most claims are well above $5,000. This allows

people, through the small claims process, to take their own cases; they do not

have to pay for lawyers which could be very expensive and so on. That is indeed

a good move and we applaud the government in moving to lift that limitation that

was there previously.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that we have Small Courts Court, as I say,

for access to justice purposes. There are still a lot of issues here; there are

still some complications in terms of the amount of paperwork and the number of

forms that are required. The minister indicated last week when we dealt with

that piece of legislation that he would be moving towards looking at making it a

more streamlined, simplistic process as well. We look forward to seeing those

advances as well.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. As he pointed out

in his statement, the e-filing and the legislation that was changed that

supports the e-filing goes back to last May when we made those legislative

changes here in the House and the minister made the announcement of the

Provincial Court's strategic direction of improving access to justice by

alternative service delivery models.

In his statement, the minister hits the nail on the head when he says

e-filing is easy and convenient

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - for those who have access to the Internet. Well, we have

many people in the Province who do not have access to the Internet, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder, when the minister points out that we had 200 more claims this past

year, is that because of e-filing or is it because of the legislative change

which increased the amount of small claims from $5,000 to $25,000. I suspect it

is a mix and it could be that latter change that made the number go up to 200.

It is important that we have this, Mr. Speaker, but the minister

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - has to realize that the on-line service is not going to

help those who most need it, and that is those who live far away from the court.

This government had better get its act together and get broadband access to

Internet for everybody in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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, according to a report from the World Commission on Dams, large

dams has demonstrated a marked tendency towards scheduled delays and significant

cost overruns. This study states that the average cost overruns on projects like

Muskrat Falls are approximately 56 per cent.

I ask the Premier: What can consumers in this Province expect to pay if

Muskrat Falls goes 50 per cent over budget, as is predicted by the World

Commission on Dams?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she goes far afield wherever she can to find stats that support

their position that Muskrat Falls is not a good plan for Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is a very good project for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker,

because it will stabilize our energy prices and provide energy for householders

and for industry into this Province for years and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, everybody in the world knows that when you are involved in any

kind of industrial activity or construction, there is a risk with regard to

commodities and labour that is not predictable, and so you always run the risk

of an overrun. We run that risk of an overrun on Muskrat Falls, on doing

something in the isolated system here in the Province in terms of our second

proposal, or trying to hook up the sixty or seventy ponds that she talked about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the government has not built in overruns on this project; however, we

do know that the World Commission on Dams is predicting that 56 per cent of

projects like this have overruns. We also know that Professor Gilles Duranton of

the University of Toronto has publicly stated that there is a tendency for

governments to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits to projects like

Muskrat Falls not unlike what we are seeing actually. He has warned that the

final price could be double or even triple the initial estimates.

I ask the Premier today: If this project goes 50 per cent over budget, like

many experts in the field are predicting, what can the public expect to pay for

Muskrat Falls power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when this government went about establishing Nalcor, a

provincially-owned Crown corporation that would deal with energy matters here in

this Province, we went and found the best expertise that was available and we

hired them. We got an extra bonus when we did that hiring, Mr. Speaker, because

those people were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and shared our passion about

this place and our commitment to this place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is not the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador that is doing this project. This project comes from Nalcor, with

some of the best minds in the country, getting the expertise that they require

to ensure that this project is properly engineered, contingencies are built in,

and that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I would like to remind the Premier that she had the best

expertise when it came to Abitibi as well, and that has turned into a black hole

for the people of this Province, and the Premier knows that. She also knows that

experts out there are projecting overruns on this project which means it will

drive the price of energy to consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated that Muskrat Falls power will cost 14.3

cents per kilowatt hour, and that is before Newfoundland Power adds their fees.

I ask the Premier today: Given that all of your numbers do not take into account

the full cost overruns that will happen, what will happen to the base cost of

electricity if Muskrat Falls is to go over budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the

Opposition to produce her experts who do these kinds of predictions, who have

concrete knowledge of this project and who are able to comment; because, in

terms of the expertise that we have available to us, they do not concur with the

hypothesis put forward by the members of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour in 2016 without

Muskrat Falls. The only difference is our light bills will continue to grow 5

per cent year over year over year. Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. They are

supported by statistical agencies in Newfoundland and Labrador and across the

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this report studied eighty-one dams in North

America, Europe and around the world and found that the average cost overrun was

56 per cent. I know the Premier does not want to hear this because she does not

want the people of this Province to realize how much they are going to have to

pay for energy. She does not want them to know that their light bills are going

to double. Well, the reality is they are and they may even surpass that.

I ask you again, Premier: Given that this project is likely to go over

budget, why did you agree to cover 50 per cent of the cost overruns on Emera, a

private company in Nova Scotia, why did you agree to cover 50 per cent of the

overrun costs on the Maritime Link?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in Question Period, I think this is our fourth week

of the House of Assembly, and we have had about five questions over the space of

four weeks that get asked time and time again. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to

continue to use the good information that we have here to try to enlighten

members of the Opposition, but I am not living in hope, as I have said before.

Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the capital costs of Muskrat Falls will be borne

by Nalcor, 20 per cent by Emera. As a result, 80 per cent of the power generated

by Muskrat Falls will be available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

20 per cent available to Emera, 20 per cent of operations, and 20 per cent of

maintenance. That is the way the project is constructed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier likes to dish out insults but she certainly does not like to

provide answers to the people of the Province, which is what is expected of

someone in her position.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government has signed on to cover 50 per cent

of the overruns and costs that could be incurred by Emera on the Maritime Link.

Mr. Speaker, Emera Energy of Nova Scotia also owns 29 per cent of the

transmission line from Central Labrador to Soldiers Pond but will not have to

pick up the bill for any cost overruns on that line.

I ask the Premier: Why have you agreed to cover 50 per cent of the overruns

on the Maritime Link, but Emera, who will have 29 per cent ownership of our

link, is not responsible to cover any of the overruns?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, Emera does not own 29 per cent of anything. Mr.

Speaker, they have an opportunity to invest and to get a rate of return, the

same way that Newfoundland Power does, the same way that Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro does.

Mr. Speaker, the basics of this deal is that it is an 80-20 deal, and the

costs are assigned that way, energy is assigned that way. The bonus that we get

besides the $1.2 billion that we are getting for the power, we also have an

opportunity to take excess power, whether it is from Muskrat Falls or somewhere

else, and wheel it through the Maritimes and into New England. That way,

allowing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to earn even more benefit from our

energy resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, we know now that if there are any overruns on the Maritime Link that is

owned by Emera, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will pay 50 per cent of the

costs of that overrun. We know, Mr. Speaker, that Emera Energy will own 29 per

cent of the transmission in Newfoundland and Labrador, because of the investment

that they are going to make, but yet will not be responsible for overruns on

that link. Mr. Speaker, Emera Energy of Nova Scotia, in owning 29 per cent of

the Labrador-Island Link means they will get a cut of all Muskrat power sales in

this Province.

I ask the Premier: How much money will Emera Energy of Nova Scotia make from

selling power to our own people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, these are serious accusations that are

being tossed across the House by the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not know

quite where they come from. I am not quite sure if she is not aware of the

facts, that she does not understand how the transmission of electricity works in

this Province, and that there is a regulated rate of return when people invest

in utilities in this Province, and that is what Emera has taken advantage of,

Mr. Speaker, or there is some other plan afoot.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one thing I am really glad about is that she is

concerned about overruns. I wished she had been so concerned about overruns when

they were trying to do the deal with former Premier Grimes, because that deal

and the overruns that were associated with that, would have seen the Lower

Churchill belong lock, stock, and barrel to Hydro Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows, Mr. Speaker, that she is in the hot seat on this one. She

knows that she cannot explain to the people of the Province why she is going to

increase their electricity bill, Mr. Speaker, and why she is going to allow the

people in Nova Scotia to get a return.

I ask the Premier again today, whether you want to call it a regulated rate

of return, whether you want to call it an investment on which they get money

back, the reality is that Emera with a 29 per cent share in transmission in this

Province will make money off the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So I ask you today, Premier, to stand and tell the people of this Province

how much money they will pay out of their pocket to Emera Energy for that

transmission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of opportunities in Newfoundland and

Labrador to make investments. Not only our own indigenous companies, but

companies come from all over the world to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador.

You are so proud of Vale Inco, IOC, Cliffs, and Kiewit the list could go on

and on, Mr. Speaker ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Husky.

Yes, they make money, Mr. Speaker, and we want them to make money, but we

ensure that the bulk of the benefits come to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is a new circumstance in this Province, Mr.

Speaker a new circumstance that came in 2003 with this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay 14.3 cents a

kilowatt hour in 2016, Muskrat or no Muskrat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Premier forgets that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were

never proud of selling out ownership in their utility company or their energy

company, I say to you Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They were never proud of selling out that ownership to Emera

Energy like you have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House and again today, the Premier stated that

electricity prices in the Province would be 14.3 cent a kilowatt hour in 2016,

regardless of the Muskrat Falls development. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a new

spin. That is a different one for the government than she stated before and it

is different from what Nalcor documents have been stating.

I ask the Premier: Why are you now saying that electricity will cost so much

more regardless of Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: So, Mr. Speaker, we have come a full 360 degrees now.

Mr. Speaker, we have laid it out time and time again, as have statistical

agencies, as have forecasters such as PIRA, the Conference Board of Canada,

Ernst & Young, and CBC has done its own polling. The cost of electricity is

going through the roof for all kinds of reasons. The primary reason that it is

going to go through the roof in Newfoundland and Labrador is because of

Holyrood, Mr. Speaker. We generate almost 600 megawatts of our electricity out

of Holyrood that is dependent on Bunker C. Not even considering the cost that

has on our environment, Mr. Speaker, it is going to drive the cost of generation

through the roof over the next ten to fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as I suspected, the Premier likes to overstate our reliance on Holyrood

for our electricity. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor has informed us that Holyrood

only supplied 11 per cent of the Island's energy last year 11 per cent,

Premier and that the vast majority of our electricity came from hydro

developments such as Bay d'Espoir.

Why will our rates go up by 50 per cent by 2016 if most of our electricity is

already coming from clean, cheap hydro power in Bay d'Espoir?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, our electricity bills have gone up over

36 per cent in the last ten years. Mr. Speaker, anybody who pays an electricity

rate in this Province, an electricity bill, knows how electricity is going up.

Mr. Speaker, they have stood on their feet in this House and gone on, and on,

and on about us subsidizing electricity, not only in Labrador but to people here

in the Province, because of the cost of heating a home. Mr. Speaker, she has

gotten up and ranted about people having to be in shopping centres because they

cannot afford to turn the heat up in their home.

Mr. Speaker, those costs are going up year over year, over year and they are

predicted to go even higher at the rate of 5 per cent a year without talking

about any of the other considerations in terms of our need for electricity, Mr.

Speaker. We have to find a way to level out (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The way the Premier is planning on increasing light bills in this Province

our seniors will have to move in the shopping malls, I say to you, Premier, not

just go there to get warm.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister confused the media, the House and

the tobacco litigation, so let us try it again today.

You stated yesterday that there is a second contract related to retaining a

local law firm to act as an agent for the Missouri firm Humphrey Farrington

McClain. Can the minister confirm today I will take it very short and slow,

Minister can you confirm today that there is a contract between government and

the firm Roebothan McKay Marshall?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the former Liberal government under

the Opposition House Leader, who was then Minister of Justice, entered into a

contract, contingency agreement with a law firm in Independence, Missouri at the

lucrative return rate of 30 percent; the most lucrative in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. F. COLLINS: In comparison, Mr. Speaker, to a sliding rate, for

example, in New Brunswick of 22 per cent to 18 per cent; 30 per cent, Mr.

Speaker, the most lucrative in the country. Now, Mr. Speaker, in addition to

that, prior to entering into that contract the government of the day retained

three firms in the Province to carry this file, all three of them with notable

connections to the Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now the minister is reading up on the history, let's see if he can get his

own history right. Back in February, Minister, you said that the previous

contract, the one you are referring to in 2002, had been cancelled and that your

government had entered into a new contract.

Stand in the House today, explain why you would make that statement in

February and make a different statement today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, the original

agreement was with the firm in Independence, Missouri. Mr. Speaker, the

contingency agreement was with that firm. That firm retained the local counsel

Roebothan McKay Marshall to be their agents on the ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: A very good choice, I might say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not pay Roebothan McKay Marshall one cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: Any funds that Roebothan McKay Marshall gets are out of

the contingency agreement that was to be paid to the American firm. I want to

make that perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I created any confusion

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: - over the contract, the tender. We had to revise that

agreement in December to make the local counsel, the counsel for the purposes of

expediting the process in the court, as I mentioned yesterday. That is the only

revision, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So we got to the crux of it, Mr. Speaker. There was a new

contract. The 2002 contract does not exist anymore. There was a new contract; it

was put in place in December.

I ask the minister today if he can confirm for me what the context of the

negotiations of the new contract is. What is included in it? What is the rate of

pay that is going to be made to this particular company?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to

check with her colleague next to her, she would know very well why we cannot

release that document.

When the hon. member was the Minister of justice, he came into this House and

he waved the contract saying 30 per cent, continuously, which waived his

solicitor-client privilege which resulted in us having to release all documents

to the other side. We have no intention of doing that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have established now that there was a new

contract, the old one was thrown out. There was a new contract in December, Mr.

Speaker, between the government and the United States firm. The minister

confirmed in the media yesterday that there was also a second contract entered

into between the government and Roebothan McKay Marshall.

I ask you, Minister: When was that contract entered into, and why did you

enter into that particular contract when you already had the firm in the US

acting on behalf of the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I have to reiterate, and if I confused

people on the other side yesterday then I apologize for that, but, Mr. Speaker,

I want to say there was an original agreement with the American firm, Humphrey

Farrington McClain. Mr. Speaker, they retained local counsel, Roebothan McKay

Marshall. Humphrey Farrington McClain could not bring the statement of claim to

the court. We had to revise the document to make the local firm the lead counsel

so that they could expedite this process and bring the statement of claim into

court. That is the so-called second contract, Mr. Speaker, if you want to call

it that. Really, it is a revision of the first one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I ask members

if they would be kind enough to stop shouting back and forth across the House.

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the questions and the answers.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now we have identified that there was a second contract and it was issued by

the government opposite, and it was with Roebothan McKay Marshall. Now let's

talk about when the firms changed hands. In 2002, there was a local firm

contracted by the name of Browne Fitzgerald Morgan Avis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, when the firms switched from the Browne firm

to the Roebothan McKay Marshall firm, and will you confirm that it happened

under your government's watch?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm that no contract was entered into with the Liberal firm that

was just mentioned. It never happened, never happened. They tried to get part of

the action, Mr. Speaker, but the American firm did not accept them. They instead

shopped around and picked the firm Roebothan McKay Marshall. That is what

happened, Mr. Speaker. Roebothan McKay Marshall has been involved in this file

for at least five, six years, at least five or six years; no contract entered

into with Dennis Browne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Little bit by little bit we are getting the information.

The contract with Roebothan McKay Marshall was entered into under your

government's Administration about five or six years ago. It has nothing to do

with the previous government, as the minister tried to lead people to believe

yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the government: Did you have any influence or any involvement in

recommending Roebothan McKay Marshall to this Missouri firm for the work and the

contract that they received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, for the final time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the American firm

would have access to a list of law firms in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. There was provision directly in their agreement, put there by the hon.

member across the way, that you can retain a local firm to act as counsel, which

is what they did. I can assume they would have shopped around; checked out all

the firms, picked the one that best suited the bill and chose the firm they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: Any more than that, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard that Kiewit Offshore Services is pulling out

of the bidding for the Joint Support Ships contract to build navy frigates and

Coast Guard vessels. Kiewit had been one of the five companies shortlisted for

the $35 billion, thirty-year federal shipbuilding strategy. I recognize that

government is building two ferries at their facility, and that is good, but it

is still only short-term work, and even if the next two planned ferries are

built in Marystown, it will only bring us up to 2014 or 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is her government going to meet with Kiewit

to try and find out why they made the decision to withdraw from bidding on the

JSS contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy

has been ongoing for a number of years. Our government and my department have

been fully engaged with Peter Kiewit Sons through a series of meetings,

discussions, and very open communication. We were advised late last week that

Peter Kiewit Sons has decided to withdraw from the process.

They have cited publicly that their reason for withdrawing is the fact that

they have too much work. They are not in a position right now to focus on the

bid. As a result of securing some recent contracts and as a result of

opportunities that are coming up in the Province, Peter Kiewit Sons feel they

want to focus on that work, focus on hiring Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

and, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the decision.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Kiewit only has to worry about the immediate

future, but this government has a responsibility to worry about the long-term

future of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, Kiewit has benefited from government investment in the Marystown

Shipyard. Now what we need to see, Mr. Speaker, is far more aggressive action on

the part of this government to ensure our ship building facilities are being

fully used and to ensure we get our fair share of the developments in our own

country in the long-term. Government must ensure that there is a long-term

future for this shipyard.

So I ask the Premier again, Mr. Speaker: What is government's long-term plan

for promoting the Marystown Shipyard and the work in that shipyard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was a young woman growing up in Burin when Marystown Shipyard

was constructed. I understand the importance of that facility to all of the

people on the Burin Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, is it not a wonderful thing that Kiewit can walk away from a

thirty-five year contract bidding because they are so overwhelmed with work?

There is so much going on right here in this Province that they do not have the

capacity to take on more work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that we have

been very supportive of Kiewit, especially in terms of the work they were doing

in trying to secure the contract with the Canadian Armed Forces, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We talked about an investment of tens of millions of

dollars in infrastructure in Marystown, Mr. Speaker. We are very supportive and

we will continue to be.

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.

Yes, there is so much going on right now and we know how short-term that very

much is. I am talking about the long-term future, Mr. Speaker. We know what

happens in Marystown when there are gaps in projects at the shipyard, whether it

is three years time or it is seven years time. People have left the Burin

Peninsula and gone to work in Alberta. We need to keep our skilled workers here

in the long-term, not just in the next five or six years, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I want to know: What is the Premier going to do to ensure a

long-term future for marine fabrication in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing that all of the time. We have put all our energy

into making sure that there was industrial development right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we do industrial benefits agreements with

people such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Husky about the development of our

offshore.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we grabbed the opportunity on Vale Inco; so that we

could ensure something more than best efforts, which they negotiated, the

Liberals negotiated, when they signed that contract with Vale, to be able to say

that we had concrete benefits, tangible benefits, tangible employment coming to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, that is our history, resources developed to the benefit of the

people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Tabling of Documents

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the report with

Tribunal appointed under

section 28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, to report

on salaries and benefits for provincial court judges.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the following

resolution.

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under

section

28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and

benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the Tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice

on September 30, 2010; and

WHEREAS the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges

Salaries and Benefits Tribunal was tabled in this hon. House today; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under

section 28.2 of the Act to

approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to accept the recommendations

of the tribunal as contained in its report of September 30, 2010;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of

the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and

Benefits Tribunal.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the communities in Labrador,

Mr. Speaker, that are asking the government to pave the Trans-Labrador Highway,

as it is a vital lifeline to the Labrador communities. It reads:

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the

Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and

allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and other connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador

Highway are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe

for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and

paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to urge government to

provide additional funding for much-needed improvements to Route 510 and

connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is being circulated all across Labrador for the

information of members across the way who are asking who signed the petitions,

Mr. Speaker. There are signed petitions from communities in Lake Melville

District, Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair District and Labrador West District, Mr.

Speaker, and any other people from the Island of Newfoundland who have the

fortune to travel into Labrador but the misfortune of travelling over that road,

have signed this petition as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is being spearheaded by a local group made up of people

from all across Labrador. They have been meeting on this regularly. They feel

that their concerns are being ignored by the government. They feel that in their

last meeting with the minister they were told that paving for this

section of

road is not on the radar of government, will not be on the radar of government

for at least another couple of years before they decide to do anything at all

with it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the road is in deplorable condition. I drove over

that highway myself this past weekend and it was nothing only potholes and ruts

all in that road everywhere, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I stopped and I talked to grader operators who told me that the

road is so bad that the blades now of the grader are digging into the rocks and

jolting them in the seats of the machinery that they are using to try and

maintain those roads. That is how bad it is. The pavement in the Labrador

Straits, Mr. Speaker, because of the increased traffic, realizing right now that

all traffic in Labrador is going over this

section of road. The amount of

traffic there, Mr. Speaker, has quadrupled over the last number of years. There

has been a lot of wear and tear on pavement that was already old. Last year, the

potholes in the paved

section of the road was so deep, Mr. Speaker, that people

were damaging their vehicles every day on that

section of road, and the

department of highways, for weeks, did not even take the time to go out and put

a sign up to say that there was a bump there. Then, they would not reimburse the

people for the amount of damages that they did.

It is unfair treatment, Mr. Speaker, of the people in this part of the

Province. They belong to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well. They

deserve to have representation from their government. They deserve to have roads

that equal to other roads and highways across the Island of Newfoundland, and

they are asking the government to take this issue seriously, to invest money,

and to do what is right and bring this road up to a paved standard that is

acceptable to the people in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to enter my seventh petition concerning the washroom-restroom,

or lack thereof, in the community of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou servicing the

community of La Poile.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer, as stated, pretty well lays it out pretty clearly:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order

to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town

of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom-waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche

where users of the ferry services may utilize washroom facilities; and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member present his petition.

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

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

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors,

disabled persons, require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the

course of their travels, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems;

and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity, as well as health and safety

regulations, to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a

waiting room-restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche, such that all users

of the provincial ferry system which operates out of La Poile may be able to

utilize such washroom.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is my seventh time in entering this

petition in this House. Hopefully, it gets the attention of the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

I was in Rose Blanche, actually, on Saturday night past for a firemen's ball,

met with several people in that community, and residents earlier that day from

La Poile. They are very disgusted, would be the only word, that this matter has

not yet been addressed.

Now, we are expecting to get the Budget next Tuesday on the nineteenth.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the people will no longer have to deal with and handle

these inhuman, unsafe, unhealthy circumstances, and that the Minister of

Transportation will find the dollars in order to put a facility there.

Hopefully, the facility will not be what they did out of pure embarrassment and

disrespect to the people of Ramea when they stuck porta-potties out on the head

of the wharf. A porta-potty is not good enough. They need a facility and they

need something that is humanly decent to use when they are travelling.

Any person who uses a public transit system in this Province ought to be

entitled to the basic services that go with it. That includes having a washroom

that you can use. You should not be expected to wait on the wharf in your

vehicle, have to use the washroom while you are waiting for the provincial

ferry, only to find yourself up behind a rock somewhere because you had to

relieve yourself. It is absolutely embarrassing to even have to talk about it,

Mr. Speaker, but that is the reality of it. Those are the facts of what is

happening.

In this day and age, in this Province, when we talk about being a have

Province, well, the people of La Poile do not have a washroom and they are

deserving of one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, residents in The Isles of Notre Dame, in the

communities of the Twillingate-New World Island area, is very upset by

government because of the acute care beds that were closed in their hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear a thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

I remind hon. members as well that is unparliamentary to sit with your backs

to the Chair of the Speaker. I remind members as well that if they have private

conversations if they would take them to outside, please, and allow hon. members

here to carry out the work of the Parliament, allow petitions to be presented,

listen to the directions that are given from the Chair, and allow the Orders of

the Day to be presented when the time comes.

For the final time, I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your ruling.

I know it is hard for government members to listen to petitions from their

constituents that are coming to the House of Assembly, but it is the reality.

Their constituents are not happy and that is why they are sending these

petitions to the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it says:

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial

Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed this past summer and did not

reopen in the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of

Twillingate and New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute beds is resulting in people being denied

admittance to Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate-New World Island do not want to see their

health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge the government to reinstate the five acute care beds

in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, the petitions that I have come from communities like Moreton's

Harbour, Valley Pond, Bridgeport, Summerford, Virgin Arm, Cottlesville,

Twillingate, Carter's Cove, Toogood Arm, Cow Head, Herring Neck, Bayview, Cobbs

Arm, and the list goes on actually. These people are not happy. They are not

happy at all because they depend upon the services of Notre Dame Bay Memorial

Hospital for all of their health care services in that immediate area. When five

of their acute care beds closed last year for the summer, it was under the

impression that they would reopen in the fall. Instead, what the government did

was played very cute with the people in this area. They told the people in the

area that they would install, or make available, five restorative care beds

because they knew there was a need as well for restorative care beds in that

particular area. They said we will make those beds available to you, but what

they did is they took the five acute care beds that were in the hospital, they

designated them as restorative care beds and that was the plan that they handed

the people.

To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, the MHA for the area, the MHA that the

people elected in Twillingate-New World Island area to come to this House of

Assembly to represent them, went out there with the minister and tried to pull

the wool over people's eyes, tried to sell the people a bill of goods that we

were going to give you five restorative care beds when, in fact, they were

closing down acute care beds in this hospital.

The people in the area are not happy about it. They are petitioning the House

of Assembly, they are petitioning the government to do something about it, and

they are petitioning their MHA to stand up and to represent their issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will commence with some bills for first reading. With that, Mr. Speaker, I

move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources to ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Forestry Professions, Bill 27, and

I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

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

House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting

Forestry Professions, Bill 27, and that Bill 27 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 27 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An

Act Respecting Forestry Professions", carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Forestry Professions. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 27 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 27 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. Minister of Health

and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, Bill 28, and I further move that

the said bill be now read a first time.

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

House Leader to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Health Research Ethics Authority Act, Bill 28, and that Bill 28 be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 28 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 Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act", carried. (Bill

28)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act.

(Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 28 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 28 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 28 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

Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

to consider Bills 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 20.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House now

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we would like to call Order 9, Bill 18.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities

Act, 1999 No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2". (Bill 18)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

We would like to call Order 10, second reading of Bill 20.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill 20)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: We would like to call Order 5, Bill 11.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act,

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991". (Bill 11)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: We would like to call Order 6, Bill 12.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 12,

An Act To Repeal The Regulatory

Reform Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act". (Bill 12)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we would like to call Order 7, Bill 13.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 13,

An Act To Repeal The Subordinate

Legislation Revision And Consolidation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And

Consolidation Act". (Bill 13)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And

Consolidation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

We would like to call Order 8, Bill 14.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 14,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings

Against The Crown Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act". (Bill 14)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would like to call Order 4, Bill 1.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Protection Of

Adults.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults". (Bill 1)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Chair.

During second reading last week there was discussion of

section 16.(4) of the

act and some issues were raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I

have since had an opportunity to look at that and will be proposing an

amendment.

If you want to deal with sections 1 to 15, we certainly can, but I do wish to

have the opportunity to speak on

section 16 and the proposed amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will proceed with clauses 1 through 15, and then we will accept the

amendment from the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 15 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 15 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 15 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thanks, John.

Mr. Chair, during a discussion last week in second reading an issue was

raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi in relation to

section 16 of the

proposed act which dealt with the investigation.

Section 16 of the proposed act

would have involved an overriding of any claim for a solicitor-client privilege.

The member opposite raised concerns about that, Mr. Chair, and I indicated I

would go back and have a look at that.

I will indicate, Mr. Chair, that the concerns raised by the Leader of the NDP

are valid concerns; that there was a real concern there in relation to the

overriding of solicitor-client privilege. We are proposing an amendment, a copy

of which I provide to the Opposition.

Before getting to that, Mr. Chair, I wish to speak very briefly on this issue

of solicitor-client privilege. Mr. Chair, as pointed out by the Leader of the

NDP, solicitor-client privilege is a very basic privilege that exists in our

legal system. It describes the privilege that exists between a client and his or

her lawyer. Clients must feel free and protected, to be frank, and candid with

their lawyers with respect to their affairs so that the legal system may

properly function. Having been a practising lawyer for many years prior to my

election into politics in 2007, I am acutely aware of the importance of

solicitor-client privilege.

Mr. Chair, what we have to look at when we are bringing in a piece of

legislation, the one privilege that if not sacrosanct, near absolute in our

legal system, is that of solicitor-client privilege. The Supreme Court of

Canada, in a decision called Pritchard v. Ontario in 2004, reaffirmed the

principles underlying solicitor-client privilege and the importance of the same.

Mr. Chair, as long as the communication falls within the usual scope of a

professional relationship it is something that must be given respect by the

courts. It is, once established, considerably broad and all-encompassing.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Chair, in this particular case, Justice

Major writing for the court, referred to previous jurisprudence on

solicitor-client privilege and basically stated, "The privilege is jealously

guarded and should only be set aside in the most unusual circumstances, such as

a genuine risk of wrongful conviction." He referred to previous case law which

says that, "solicitor-client privilege must be as close to absolute as possible

to ensure public confidence and retain relevance. As such, it will only yield in

certain clearly defined circumstances, and does not involve a balancing of

interests on a case-by-case basis."

In a subsequent decision, Mr. Chair, out of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

and Labrador Trial Division in 2009, Justice Valerie Marshall in reviewing

this was an ATIPP case referred to R. v. Pritchard, and stated that in R. v.

Pritchard the Supreme Court of Canada stated, legislation which purports to

"limit or deny solicitor-client privilege will be interpreted restrictively".

Further, at paragraph 35, the Supreme Court of Canada concludes that a

legislative expression of intention to abrogate the privilege must be clear and

unequivocal.

Mr. Chair, the point raised by the Leader of the NDP is a valid one. It is

one that demonstrates the importance of debate in this hon. House. It is

something that I certainly should have been more alert to as I was reading and

preparing for the act; however, again, it emphasizes that the role played by all

members in this hon. House can be very practical, it can be one that can allow

for the recognition of oversights, mistakes, errors, or correction. So, what we

are going to do is we are proposing an amendment to this bill based on the

Supreme Court of Canada case law, which I just referred to, and out of our

Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division. Mr. Chair, I have to

again come back and just reiterate that the purpose of this act is to protect

vulnerable adults.

Section 12 of the act states that, "A person who reasonably believes that an

adult may be an adult in need of protective intervention shall immediately give

that information, together with the name and address of the adult, if known, to

the provincial director, a director, a social worker or a peace officer." What

it does, Mr. Chair, it places an onus upon all of us if we are in a situation

where we have information that an individual, a reasonable belief that an adult

may be in need of protective intervention. This

section is consistent with the

Child, Youth and Family Services Act. What I am trying to do with the amendment,

Mr. Chair, is ensure a balancing with the spirit intent of the act, yet respect

the near absolute solicitor-client privilege. I had to look at, how can we

achieve these goals? How can we balance the importance of solicitor-client

privilege with the overriding intent of this act is to protect vulnerable adults

and to ensure that they are protected?

Mr. Chair,

section 16 then deals with the investigative stage. The amendment

we propose, Mr. Chair, would now read, under subsection (4): For the purpose of

subsection (3), the right to information overrides a claim of confidentiality or

privilege, except solicitor-client privilege. Now, perhaps I should expand on

that for a second because there are different kinds of privilege. There is the

doctor-patient privilege, the priest-penitent privilege. There are other types

of privilege that are outlined in such scholarly texts as Sopinka, Lederman &

Bryant on evidence, Wigmore on Evidence .

What we are trying to do here is to, again, pay due respect to the Supreme

Court of Canada dicta in Pritchard and other cases, such as McClure, and

Lavallee, which have preceded that. We are now highlighting the importance of

solicitor-client privilege and that a claim of privilege or excuse me, that it

is overridden except in a solicitor-client privilege. Mr. Chair, now we have to

come back though and say: well, look, the purpose of this act is to protect

vulnerable adults. How can we achieve a legislative balancing of the interests

of the intent of the act, to protect vulnerable adults, with the respect for the

solicitor-client privilege?

What we are proposing, Mr. Chair, in subsection (5) is that, "Notwithstanding

paragraph (4)(

a) an investigator may, in the course of an investigation, require

and access information that is solicitor-client privileged, where it relates to

a report of a solicitor under

section 12."

Now, Mr. Chair, this is clear and unequivocal language, but I want to put it

very practical. If I, as a solicitor, make a report that I have reason to

believe that there is a vulnerable adult then I have made that report so I have

to cooperate with the investigator. However, Mr. Chair, if an investigator comes

to me as a lawyer looking for information that is solicitor-client privileged, I

can say no. It is not a report that was made by me.

That is a very practical distinction and perhaps, Mr. Chair, if I can just

give a couple of working scenarios to try to explain the rationale behind this

amendment as we try to balance these rights.

Mr. Chair, we have an individual who is a business owner, a long time client

of a lawyer. The lawyer has advised the client on many business matters. Last

year, the lawyer completed a will for the businessman but in a meeting last week

the lawyer became aware that, his client said, well my son is moving back from

the US and I have not had contact with him for ten years but I am going to; he

is coming back. Then what happens is, since the son has come back, Mr. Chair,

the client, the long standing client, his behaviour has changed. The son now

makes business related decisions. He talks of changing his will and naming his

son as beneficiary but, Mr. Chair, he seems that he is agitated and nervous. He

notices some bruising around the neckline, Mr. Chair. He is looking malnourished

and unkempt and not like himself in all the years that the lawyer has been

dealing with him. He reports his concern to a social worker as he suspects that

this may be a case of abuse. He reports that to the social worker under

section

12 as required. Now, Mr. Chair, that investigator can go to this lawyer and say

well we need you to cooperate. In those circumstances where the lawyer made the

report, Mr. Chair, the solicitor-client privilege would be overridden.

Mr. Chair, in that particular case the lawyer would be expected, if an

investigation is required and the social worker will determine that then the

investigator will access information from the lawyer.

Now, Mr. Chair, we have another scenario where a social worker receives a

referral that a lady, maybe an adult in need of protective intervention from a

neighbour. So, an investigation is started. The social worker doing the

investigation under the act calls a lawyer regarding the lady who is the subject

of the call or who may be in need of intervention. The lawyer, Mr. Chair, is

representing the lady on a number of matters including a divorce. The lawyer,

Mr. Chair, has no reason to believe that the lady, his client, is an adult in

need of protective intervention. The social worker wants to discuss the

investigation with the lawyer and is seeking access to some of the files.

The lawyer in this circumstance is not required to cooperate, Mr. Chair,

because what has happened is a neighbour phoned a social worker about Mrs. W.

The social worker has concerns. She phones the lawyer and says, well, I know you

act for Mrs. W; I want you to cooperate. The lawyer says, no, solicitor-client

privilege applies.

So again, Mr. Chair, the practical distinction is if as a lawyer I have

observations, I make those observations, and I feel compelled to report that. If

an investigation is conducted, then solicitor-client privilege is overridden to

the extent that I must cooperate. Mr. Chair, if someone else makes a report, I

as a lawyer have no obligation and in fact cannot cooperate because of the

importance of solicitor-client privilege.

So, Mr. Chair, these are not circumstances that arise often. We do not know

under the new act. We have tried to beef up the new act to ensure that adults in

need of protection receive that protection they need. We do know, Mr. Chair,

under the previous act there were not a lot of complaints. We have to ensure,

Mr. Chair, and I have to ensure as a minister of the Crown where I am aware of a

situation such as raised by the Leader of the NDP, and when we go back and look

at it and we say, yes, he or she has a good point in terms of whether it comes

from one of my own Cabinet colleagues, from caucus colleagues, from members of

the Opposition, or from a member of a public. Certainly, we cannot simply bring

in a piece of legislation where I know there is a potential problem.

Now, that problem may never arise, Mr. Chair. I could simply say, well, I am

not going to cooperate here. This is not something we are going to do. We are

going to barrel ahead with this legislation. That defeats the purpose of debate

in this House, Mr. Chair, and the purpose of debate in this House is to have

discussion, to highlight problems, and to take into account suggestions. I for

one, Mr. Chair, as a minister, can ensure the members of this hon. House,

whether on this side of the House or on the Opposition's side, I have no

difficulty with taking those suggestions into account, going back and looking at

it, and determining whether or not it is a valid suggestion, a valid criticism,

a valid complaint, and whether it has merit.

In this, Mr. Chair, I can say that, and I thank the Leader of the NDP for

raising this point. She has certainly highlighted a situation, Mr. Speaker, that

I, quite frankly, would have been somewhat embarrassed if it had come to court

in something, again, being a lawyer by training, that I had missed.

We have taken this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to correct this oversight. I

hope that it meets with the approval of the members opposite in terms of the

suggested amendment. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to read the amendment that we

are suggesting, into the record. It would be in Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The

Protection Of Adults.

"1. Subclause 16(4) of the Bill is repealed and the following substituted:

(4) For the purpose of subsection (3), the right to information overrides (

a) a

claim of confidentiality or privilege, except solicitor-client privilege; and

(

b) a restriction in an enactment or the common law about the disclosure or

confidentially of information.

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(a), an

investigator may, in the course of an investigation, require and access

information that is solicitor-client privileged where it relates to the report

of a solicitor under

section 12."

That would be the proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members

opposite for their suggestions, especially the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is properly moved by the Minister of Health and Community Services that

clause 16 be amended and the Chair finds that the amendment is in order.

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

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

I am delighted to stand and respond. I thank the minister for the clear

explanation that he has given. I am very glad to hear him recognizing what he

has recognized here today, that we all are responsible in this House, not just

in this House but particularly in this House, we are all responsible for every

piece of legislation that goes through. We all have to personally hold that

responsibility and know that if a piece of legislation goes through, we want to

make sure that it is accurate and that it meets the needs of the people of the

Province, and anybody else who is going to be affected, any groups that are

going to be affected by a piece of legislation.

Having the time to read legislation before it comes to the House for reading

is extremely important. I am glad to say that with Bill 1 we did have the time

in our office to carefully go through the bill and to make sure that the bill

was good, that it was accurate, that it did what it wanted to do. I was really

pleased to say during second reading, and pleased to say again today, that the

bill, as a whole, is an excellent bill. I really believe it is. I really do

believe it deals with protecting adults. Adults who need protection sometimes

from themselves, sometimes from others, sometimes from a system, will definitely

be taken care of by the Province because of this legislation and by our legal

system because of this legislation.

In going through the bill, as the minister has indicated, I did find that

section 16.(5) was really questionable when it talked about the fact that

solicitor-client privilege could be ignored by an investigator, somebody

investigating a complaint. While we do not have lawyers in our office, we

certainly do have people who are excellent researchers and I have to say it was

I, myself, who picked up on this section, as well as the researcher who was

working on it. We said this certainly cannot be meant. It cannot be meant that

solicitor-client privilege can be ignored by an investigator.

I am really glad to have had the wonderful explanation that the minister gave

today, showing the legal precedents and the reason why we have to make sure that

we do not have something in a piece of legislation that could ignore something

as important as solicitor-client privilege. What would have been really awful is

that if this had gone into legislation and remained there, it would have set a

terrible precedent in our Province. I am sure that somewhere down the road it

may have been picked up, but it is much better to pick up something like this

prior to its being passed in the House rather than after.

Once again, I want to point out how important the process is of our getting

bills early enough and being able to go through them so that we can be sure that

what we are passing is accurate. This is not a statement about the minister, but

I would just like to point out that even after this bill was done very

carefully, I am sure, in the Department of Health and Community Services and

even after lawyers went through this bill, as I know happens, still, this point

about

section 16.(5) was not picked up by anybody. I am very glad that I have

been able to make sure that this clause is not going to be in and we now have

the amendment that was put forth by the minister.

He has explained very carefully where it is necessary that solicitor-client

privilege will be overlooked and that is where a solicitor, him or herself,

actually is the one who makes the report. Then, of course, their information,

their papers, et cetera have to be accessible.

We have read the clause and the minister, as a lawyer, certainly got engaged

in the amendment, I know. The amendment is excellent. The amendment does meet

the needs of the legislation itself, while making sure that, in general,

solicitor-client privilege is continued to be honoured by this House. So, I am

very happy to support the bill with the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment to

clause 16?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 16, as

amended?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 16, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 17 to 41 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 17 to 41 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 17 through 41 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried with amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 1, 11, 12, 13, 14,

18, and 20.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 1 with

amendment, and Bills 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, and 20 carried without amendment, and

ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 carried with

amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the

Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to

report Bill 1 with some amendments.

When shall the amendments be read?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Health and Community Services, that the amendments be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendment be now read

a first time.

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

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of amendments.

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

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

and Community Services, that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now

read a second time.

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

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 1, as amended, be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, amendment read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third

time presently, by leave.

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

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

and Community Services, that Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults,

be now read a third time.

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

Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Speaker and Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered

the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 11, 12, 13,

14, 18, and 20 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the

Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to

report Bills 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 20 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

Now?

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time

presently, by leave.

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

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

and Attorney General, that Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, be

now read a third time.

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

Bill 11 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

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

and Attorney General, that Bill 12,

An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act,

be now read a third time.

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

Bill 12 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Regulatory Reform Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

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

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

and Attorney General, that Bill 13,

An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation

Revision And Consolidation Act, be now read a third time.

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

Bill 13 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And

Consolidation Act. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Subordinate Legislation Revision And

Consolidation Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 13)

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

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

and Attorney General, that Bill 14,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The

Crown Act, be now read a third time.

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

Bill 14 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act.

(Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 14 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act",

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

14)

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

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

Resources, that Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, be

now read a third time.

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

Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, be now read a third

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill

15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 15 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act", read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

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

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

Affairs, that Bill 18,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, be

now read a third time.

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

Bill 18 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2. (Bill

18)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 18 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2", read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 18)

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

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

Affairs, that Bill 19,

An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000,

be now read a third time.

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

Bill 19 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000.

(Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000",

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

19)

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

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

Government Services, that Bill 20,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, be

now read a third time.

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

Bill 20 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will now go to the second reading of bills and, with that, I will call

Order 11, second reading of Bill 16.

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Education, that Bill 16 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, entitled

An Act To

Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders

Enforcement Act, 2006". (Bill 16)

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 16,

An Act To Amend The

Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. Bill 16 proposes three amendments to that

act, and I will refer to these amendments in a few minutes.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Support

Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. It was passed by this House of Assembly on May 26,

2006 and it was proclaimed in force on April 13, 2007. This act replaced the old

act, the Support Orders Enforcement Act, which was first introduced in 1988.

Mr. Speaker, the Support Orders Enforcement Act is designed to help

individuals who are entitled to receive support pursuant to a support order. The

legislation establishes the agency known as the Support Enforcement Program,

which has been situated in Corner Brook now since its inception but its staff

services the entire Province. The Support Enforcement Program falls under the

responsibility of the Department of Justice and is a publicly funded program.

The program is set up to enforce all child and spousal support orders on behalf

of parties in whose favour these orders have been made. Mr. Speaker, for the

purpose of this presentation, the party in favour of who the order has been made

is referred to as the creditor.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, requires that every support order that was

made after May 1, 1989, the date on which the old legislation came into effect,

is to be registered with and enforced by the program. Every support order,

supported by the court, approved by the court, has to be registered with the

program and enforced by the program, unless the creditor decides to opt out. It

is the court's responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to send a copy of the support order

directly to the Support Enforcement Program, not the creditor's responsibility.

It is the court's responsibility to send a copy of the support order directly to

the Support Enforcement Program.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the person entitled to receive the support,

known as the creditor, will be asked to complete a registration form which

contains the information that is necessary to enforce the order. The Support

Enforcement Program monitors the payments through a computer system, and should

default occur at any time, that program will take enforcement proceedings

without the necessity of any intervention by the creditor to whom the money is

owed. That responsibility is the responsibility of the Support Enforcement

Program. When monitoring the payments if they find that someone has defaulted a

payment, that director of the enforcement program will take action, without any

necessary intervention by the person who is entitled to receive it, to make sure

that the money is paid, to take the necessary intervention.

Mr. Speaker, in April of 2007 the House of Assembly passed the Support Orders

Enforcement Act, 2006. That legislation dramatically increased the powers that

were available to the director for the enforcement of support orders that were

in the initial enforcement act introduced in 1998. The director now has

significantly increased availability or capacity to enforce the program.

Some of the enforcement tools that are available to that Support Enforcement

Program are set out in the legislation and they include such things as wage

garnishments - you can garnish wages, garnish bank accounts. It can register the

support orders with the Judgment Enforcement Registry and that enables the High

Sheriff to then enforce the program. The High Sheriff has the same powers as the

director does but he has additional powers, he can seize property for example.

The enforcement tool available to the program also would include the

establishment of a lien against real property. It can result in the suspension

of a debtor's driver's licence, or it could impinge or impede his ability to get

big game licences for example. It could also attach certain entitlements that he

might be due, for example, registered savings plans like RRSPs or RIFFS. These

are enforcement tools that the director has in order to enforce this program.

He can also, Mr. Speaker, attach funds that are payable to the director from

federal sources such as income tax refunds. He can attach GST, HST rebates. He

can attach Canada Pension Plan, Training Allowances, and he can attach

unemployment insurance. He can also request that federal licences and permits be

suspended. For example, he can have your Canadian passport suspended. The range

of enforcement tools available to the director for enforcement, Mr. Speaker, is

pretty large. The new act has dramatically increased the powers available to the

director.

Mr. Speaker, since the new Support Orders Enforcement Act, was brought in, in

2006, this has significantly increased the amount of support collected annually

in this Province. One would make that deduction, obviously, from the increased

enforcement tools now that the director has. The amount of support collected

annually now has increased dramatically. For example, Mr. Speaker, in 2005,

under the old act, the Support Enforcement Program was collecting $22.5 million

in support payments annually, $22.5 million. This figure now, Mr. Speaker, has

increased to almost $31.5 million annually, which equates, basically, to a 40

per cent increase in collections since the end of that fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this current fiscal year, the Support Enforcement

Program will have collected and distributed to creditors $386.1 million to

custodial parents since it was first introduced in 1989. Currently, the program

monitors over 7,000 active accounts and has eleven enforcement officers. This

equates to a caseload of about 648 cases per officer and it issues an average of

7,700 support cheques per month, or 92,400 cheques annually. Mr. Speaker, the

effect of the program is quite substantial.

The latest report that was released by the Canadian Centre for Justice

Statistics covering the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2010, demonstrated that

this Province's Support Enforcement Program has the second highest compliance

rate in the country, behind only Quebec, at 78 per cent. The program, Mr.

Speaker, is doing quite well. Our Support Enforcement Program also had the

lowest percentage of cases in the country in arrears at 37 per cent. The

enforcement program is working quite well.

The act, Mr. Speaker, sets out a series of enforcement options which promote

greater compliance of support orders, but Bill 16 seeks to introduce some

amendments that are necessary to address a number of circumstances which have

come to light related to the enforcement of support orders of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly read the amendments that we are presenting in

this bill. We are making two amendments to

section 8; one, "to expand the

director's ability to withdraw a support order if the creditor wilfully fails or

refuses to provide to the Director of Support Enforcement any information

necessary to enforce a support order." That is the first one.

Mr. Speaker, currently,

section 8 of the Support Orders Enforcement Act

states that the director may withdraw a support order where the creditor

wilfully fails to or refuses to provide information about the debtor that the

director requires to enforce the order. The director needs certain information

in order to enforce the support orders and if the creditor refuses to give

information about the debtor that the director needs, then he can withdraw the

support order. For example, the debtor's whereabouts - if the director needs to

know the debtor's whereabouts and the creditor knows but refuses to disclose it

- the place of employment, telephone number. This information is necessary for

the Support Enforcement Program to be enforced and make use of the enforcement

tools that are available pursuant to the legislation. If that happens, the

director may decide to withdraw the order from the program.

Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that the support order is no longer valid. It

just means that the director does not have enough information to properly

enforce it. All support orders remain valid and remain on the books until the

child is no longer a child of the marriage or the relationship, or until the

ordered is varied by a court competent jurisdiction.

Now I am advised, Mr. Speaker, by the Director of Support Enforcement that

there are situations where information about the status of the children have to

be provided and is also necessary to enforce certain support orders. That

information can only be provided by the creditor. Now, there are some support

orders registered with the Support Enforcement Program where the children

involved are over the age of nineteen, for example, and the creditor is not

providing information with respect to their status. For example, is the child

enrolled in full-time studies? If he or she is, they might be eligible for

support from the debtor. Is the child still dependent on the creditor, or is the

child off working somewhere in some other jurisdiction? Is the child employed

full-time? Does he reside with the creditor? These are valid questions, Mr.

Speaker, that can only be confirmed by the creditor or the custodial parent.

There is nothing in the act, Mr. Speaker, that mandates the creditor to

supply that information. The only thing in the act that mandates a creditor to

supply information refers to the debtor only. This bill proposes to amend

paragraph 8(

e) of the Support Orders Enforcement Act to "expand the director's

ability to withdraw a support order if the creditor wilfully fails or refuses to

provide to the Director of Support Enforcement any information necessary to

enforce a support order." Not necessarily only referring to the debtor, but any

information. This language, Mr. Speaker, is not unique. It is found in similar

legislation in the other provinces. That is the first amendment that we are

proposing.

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is also to

section 8 to "permit the

director to withdraw a support order if both the debtor and the creditor no

longer reside in the Province."

Mr. Speaker, this is currently the practice. The director will withdraw a

support order when he is advised by the creditor that neither party resides in

the Province. The order is withdrawn because it is more appropriately

transferred to the jurisdiction where the creditor resides.

It is not uncommon, Mr. Speaker, that a creditor will advise the director

that he or she is moving to another Province. The director will simply advise

the creditor that he or she needs to re-register the support order in the

province of the new jurisdiction. The director will facilitate this transfer. He

will continue to enforce a support order until he receives a letter from the

maintenance enforcement program in the new jurisdiction requesting that the file

be transferred. So until he hears from the new jurisdiction, he will continue to

enforce the support order.

It does happen, Mr. Speaker, on occasion, that the Support Enforcement

Program enforces a support order notwithstanding that both the creditor and the

debtor no longer reside in the jurisdiction because nobody has told the director

about it. The Support Enforcement Division has not been made aware that the

parties have moved. That is quite understandable, Mr. Speaker, because in some

situations there is little need for any day-to-day involvement of the creditor.

He or she does not become involved in the program because payments are

forthcoming from the debtor and the transfer of funds is completed by electronic

banking. There is very little occasion where the creditor becomes involved in

the day-to-day involvement, and moves from the jurisdiction and does not advise

the director.

It is important, however, Mr. Speaker, to set out this power in the

legislation to ensure that the public is aware that the Support Orders

Enforcement Act, 2006 is indeed provincial legislation and that the Support

Enforcement Program only has the jurisdiction to enforce orders that are

registered with it, where either the debtor or the creditor both reside in the

jurisdiction. This amendment proposes to add an amendment that the director can

withdraw a support order if both the debtor and the creditor no longer reside in

the Province. That is the second amendment. It is currently the practice but we

want to enshrine it in the legislation.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the last amendment requires a debtor to serve notice to

the director if the debtor applies to court for an order suspending any

proceeding taken by the director. This amendment will require the debtor to

serve notice to the director if he is going to apply to the court for any order

suspending the proceeding taken by the director.

Section 14, Mr. Speaker, provides that mechanism, whereby a debtor may apply

to the court to have the director stop enforcing the support order for a period

of three months. Now, while the debtor must serve the stay application on the

creditor, there is nothing in the act, Mr. Speaker, which obligates him to serve

a copy on the director. The director may not know that there is an application

before the court by the debtor to vary the support order. That is not consistent

with maintenance enforcement legislation in other provinces and is not

consistent with the role of the director, because the role of the director is

that he stands in the place of the creditor for the purpose of this act.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the director to be in attendance at any

court hearing which involves any actions taken by the debtor, and it is equally

important that the director have the opportunity to present any information

necessary to the court in such a situation. Currently, the director may be given

notice in some of those matters, bec