May 13, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 21


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair will hear the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pass my congratulations on to the Grade 6 students of J.J. Curling Elementary on the completion of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program or commonly known as DARE.

Mr. Speaker, on April 23, fifty-seven students graduated from the program with a very special ceremony which I had the honour to attend.

Special congratulations go out to McKenzie Hynes of Ms Kearney's class and Emily Cleary of Ms Connery's class who represented their respective classrooms by delivering DARE essays to students, teachers, parents and invited guests. Special mention as well goes to Tyler Wise, Nicholas Childs, Emily Mercer, Catherine Kendall and Jamie Kennedy who were recognized at the ceremony for outstanding penmanship.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Constable Bob Edwards of the RNC, Principal Brian Higdon, parents, school staff, the Corner Brook Rotary and Western School District for working together to give our young people such vital education that they will use as a tool to meet today's challenges.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, May 4 marked the 100 anniversary of the Canadian Navy, now known as the Canadian Forces Maritime Command. The Canadian Navy has fought with distinction in two World Wars, participating in the Battle of the Atlantic, which has been described as the longest battle of the Second World War - from September 1939 to May 1945.

Mr. Speaker, by the time the allies defeated Nazi Germany, Canada, with a population of just 10 million people, had the world's third-largest navy.

To mark the 100 anniversary, Canadian Forces Station St. John's, stationed in my district, and HMCS Cabot held a reception to celebrate the centennial of the Canadian Navy on April 24. The celebration concluded with the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra's premiere performance of a new commissioned orchestral version of Heart of Oak, the Canadian naval march.

Mr. Speaker, CFS St. John's is a Maritime command facility that provides support to the HMCS Cabot Naval Reserve, the local detachment of the Canadian Forces Naval Engineering School, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, seven two eight Communications Squadron, 56 Field Engineer Squadron, 36 Service Battalion and Air Reserve Flight Torbay.

There are a total of 711 people working at the current Pleasantville site in a number of lodger units. There are approximately 225 regular Canadian Force, fifty-seven civilian employees and approximately 485 Reservists.

Mr. Speaker, over the past almost four years that I have been representing the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I have been impressed with the quality of leadership at CFS St. John's. The current leader, Commander Jones, continues to show the kind of community engagement that has becomes a hallmark of the station.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members in this House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, the Canadian Navy, on 100 years of service to our country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, on March 20 of this year, our city and the Province lost one of its very distinguished citizens with the passing of Mr. Jim Shields at the age of eighty-nine.

For the townies among us, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps for many others, there would be little difficultly in remembering Jim Shields Meat Market because it was a real landmark in St. John's for many years. Jim Shields will also be remembered as a World War II Royal Navy Veteran. He enlisted at the age of nineteen and served in several locations overseas, including the Anzio Landings during the 1943 Italian Campaign.

Mr. Shields was a lifetime member of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 56 and a long-time President of the Naval Association of Newfoundland. This is a man who was a very active member of the community throughout his lifetime and this is attested to by the fact that he was a recipient of such awards as the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award, the Minister of Veteran's Affairs Commendation and the Naval Association of Newfoundland President's Award for thirty-five years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in paying tribute to and celebrating the life of one of this Province's real heroes, Mr. Jim Shields.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the contributions made by the 2910 Lions Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corp to the youth of the Bonavista North region and to commend the individual achievements of past and present Corp members.

Four former cadets; Samantha Batstone, Amanda Kean, Hilary Kelloway, and Christina Knee, were recently presented with Gold Duke of Edinburgh Awards by Princess Anne during her stay in the capital city.

The Duke of Edinburgh program promotes the development of skills, teamwork, social responsibility and physical fitness. The individuals involved completed the program while serving as active members of the 2910 Corp. Each young woman is a shining example of the level of excellence that exists within the youth population of our Province.

This Corp has always produced outstanding cadets and continuing that legacy of distinction is also Cadet Sergeant Megan Blackwood who has recently been nominated for the General Howard Award. This award represents excellence in the cadet program and Cadet Sergeant Blackwood received the nomination by virtue of completing the National Star Exam with the highest marks in the Province. Ms Blackwood is a hard working, dedicated cadet and her entire Corp is incredibly proud of her efforts.

The success of these individuals provides a clear example of the important contribution made by the 2910 Corp in the Bonavista North region. The Corp continues to play an integral role in the development of the future leaders of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask all members of this hon. House to join with me to thank and show appreciation for the continued service provided by the 2910 Army Cadet Corp and to congratulate Samantha Batstone, Amanda Kean, Hilary Kelloway, Christina Knee and Megan Blackwood on their recent achievements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to update colleagues on a series of Northern Strategic Plan information sessions taking place in communities throughout Labrador. The NSP is a five-year plan to improve the health and well-being of all Labradorians. At its inception, the plan had an initial investment of some $250 million with 145 commitments. It is now expected the NSP will see $587 million invested in Labrador, with some 210 commitments.

In recent weeks we have held information sessions in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, L'Anse-au-Loup and Port Hope Simpson. Included in these sessions is the presentation on our NSP mid-term progress report. Published copies of the report are now available, which I am sending to municipalities, local service districts and targeted stakeholders throughout Labrador to further ensure that the work being done by this government is conveyed in a transparent and accountable manner.

The report chronicles an unprecedented level of investment and accomplishment that has taken place up until the fall of 2009. These efforts continue through Budget 2010, which will see $158 million invested in Labrador to improve infrastructure and enhance programs and services. By the end of the fiscal year, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will have invested, Mr. Speaker, more than $2.4 billion in Labrador since its first Budget of March 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we are building on our record of achievement through initiatives such as the historic opening of Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway, which will cost approximately $138 million when completed, and another $1.5 million pilot project featuring a year-round ferry service between the Island and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, other Budget 2010 investments include funding to build four social housing units in Nain, $1 million to assist with the environmental cleanup of the former United States military station in Hopedale, and some $673,000 for a new satellite dialysis unit for Labrador West.

Most recently, we had the announcement of the provincial government investment of more than $4 million, with matching funds from the Goose Bay Airport Corporation and the Government of Canada, for a substantial expansion to the Happy Valley-Goose Bay airport. This investment directly supports an NSP objective of an integrated transportation system that is responsive to business and individual needs.

Mr. Speaker, our information sessions continue with details of sessions on the North Coast, Labrador West and Churchill Falls announced in the coming weeks.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had a Premier one time in this Province who used to say: You do not say it once, you do not say it twice, but you say it at least three times before they get the message. That was the former Premier, Joey Smallwood. This is the fourth announcement by the minister opposite since the House of Assembly opened around the Northern Strategic Plan. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I guess there is nothing else in the department that the minister can actually stand up and make a statement on because we all know that he has no files in the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs other than the Northern Strategic Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the only issue with the Northern Strategic Plan is that it lacks strategy, I say to the minister. There is no economic strategy in the Northern Strategic Plan. I have eight out of ten fish plants in my district and the word fish is not mentioned in the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, I say to the minister.

So, Mr. Speaker, it does not talk about economic strategy. It does not talk about the strategy to connect communities that do not have roads in Labrador, by road. It does not talk about how they are going to deal with the poverty rate in many of the communities across Labrador. There is no strategy around anything of these things, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: In fact, Mr. Speaker, when they talk about their cumulative investment in Labrador, it includes everything from the fuel that goes into the diesel plant to run the lights to communities all across Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, we had electricity and we had fuel in diesel plants long before the government added all the money together and called it a northern strategic investment plan, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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 thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am glad he is going around to the communities and giving these information sessions, but I hope, considering the fact that the minister did not attend the annual general meeting of the Combined Councils of Labrador, that he will use these meetings as an opportunity to listen to the people in the communities that are not being benefited by what is going on, communities and local service districts that still need funding for water and sewer and help paying for their very expensive power, the need for recreational facilities.

My encouragement to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is not to talk about money but to listen to the needs of the people. I would like to point out that the $2.4 billion over six Budgets comes to $600 million a year, which I think is not too much to spend on Labrador considering what we get from it.

MR. HICKEY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member for the Third Party on a number of occasions raising the issue that I did not attend the Combined Councils meeting in Labrador West. I want to make something very clear to the members opposite who have raised this. We had every intention on going there but we could not beat the weather, Mr. Speaker. If she wants to check it out, there was a snow storm (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is in the classroom, the playing field, or the corporate environment, earning a reputation –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. I ask members for their co-operation to hear the minister speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is in the classroom, the playing field, or the corporate environment, earning a reputation for excellence is achieved by only a select few; it is also not something that is achieved overnight - it is the culmination of tremendous amounts of commitment, creativity and collaboration.

As members of this hon. House are aware, Newfoundland and Labrador is home to a cluster of companies and organizations that have risen to the top of the global ocean technology sector. Awareness of the local ocean technology sector does not end there, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador's expertise in ocean technology has been labelled as a "hot commodity" and as "standing tall as an international epicentre of marine technology" by Marine Technology Reporter, an international trade publication. That, Mr. Speaker, is a powerful endorsement.

Recognizing what it takes to maintain its leadership position, the provincial government, in collaboration with educational institutions and industry, continues to target activities to strengthen its competitiveness.

Our Oceans of Opportunity - a five-year, $28 million strategy - was introduced and serves as the guiding platform as industry and the provincial government work collaboratively to reach new heights.

OceansAdvance, the association representing the local sector, views the strategy as being instrumental in continuing the momentum experienced in the Province's ocean technology sector, and that it signals a shared vision and affirms confidence in the future of a new economic pillar for our Province.

Over the last year, valuable investments have been made, partnerships have been formed to advance ocean observation projects, and opportunities have been secured to market the local sector to international audiences.

One such initiative, Mr. Speaker, is the SmartBay project which is a joint effort of the Marine Institute, AMEC Earth and Environmental, ICAN and Earth Information Technologies. SmartBay represents the creativity of the industry and is dedicated to monitoring ocean conditions and protecting the ecosystem of Placentia Bay - a bay that has approximately $7 billion in products transported in and out of it annually.

Newfoundland and Labrador will also be hosting two major conferences that celebrate our excellence in oceans.

In October of this year, more than 200 delegates will travel to the Province for Ocean Innovation 2010 that will focus on underwater vehicles. We have also been named site of Oceans 2014, an international conference that attracts upwards of 2,000 delegates.

Both initiatives capture the interest that exists in the Province and provide the platform to showcase our business communities and our high calibre research facilities.

Mr. Speaker, the momentum is building. With high levels of commitment, creativity and collaboration, greater activity and more announcements will continue to unfold in the days, months and years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure how to respond to the minister today. On the one hand I have my leader who is trying to mentor me on how to respond to ministers' statements, and on the other hand the minister is wearing a Montreal Canadiens tie, so it is quite a challenging response. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, first of all, for the advance copy of his statement.

There is no doubt that the ocean defines who we are as people in Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is our history, where we grew up as children and so on, and the economy that it has provided for us over the generations –

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The icebergs that it brings down.

MR. DEAN: The icebergs that it brings down, as Mr. Premier said, yes.

The impact that has on our economy, especially in St. Anthony at the iceberg water bottling plant, and the recreation that it gives us affords us each year in our culture and so on. It is great to see the focus and so on. I trust that we, as a government, and as people of our Province that we will do what we can to preserve and promote it for many years to come.

I would wish the organizers of Ocean Innovation 2010 well. I trust that those who attend as delegates will get a first-hand view of just how important our ocean is to us, and looking forward to the international conference in 2014 again – a great opportunity to showcase. I am not sure when the date is set for 2014, but perhaps we can have it in May or June and we can show people some of those great icebergs that do float along our coast.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I just want to say to him: While we may be on the opposite sides of the House here in this building, we are on the same bench when it comes to the hockey leagues. So, I am very happy to be sitting opposite his tie.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to have this statement that the minister has made in the House today. I do recognize the tremendous technology and wisdom that we have here in our Province right now and the research that is going on, especially in the Oceans of Opportunity, the work they have done, for example, about safe evacuation of rigs and other vessels.

I also encourage the minister and the government to look at how all of that expertise we have, and the research capacity that we have could be used to look more in-depth at the relationship of the oil and gas industry and the fishery. The fishery is our sustainable source and we have the ability to do more research to see how the two can co-exist and how one can grow the fishery because of the other, because of the resources that we are now getting.

Let us do what they are doing in Nova Scotia and do more in-depth research with regard to how we build both of our resources.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House of this government's commitment to student summer employment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a student summer job is often a young person's first exposure to the labour market It is a great way to establish good work habits and an understanding of the value of earning a living. Recognizing this, Budget 2010 included an investment of $3.76 million towards the delivery of a student summer program for high school and post-secondary students throughout the Province.

This year, the provincial government funding will enable over 600 high school Level I, II and III students to secure work with not-for-profit organizations, community agencies and municipalities in approximately 480 summer recreation, heritage and community improvement projects.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to supporting high school students, the provincial government also assists individuals attending post-secondary institutions secure meaningful summer employment with both for-profit and not-for-profit employers.

Through the Student Work and Service Programs, known as SWASP, students returning to post-secondary education earn a combination of tuition and wages for their summer employment.

Mr. Speaker, this combined stipend and tuition voucher brings the hourly wage for students to the new minimum wage of $10 per hour.

Last fall, we released Creating a Province of Choice: A Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador. Developed by youth, for youth, in close collaboration with business, labour and community leaders, the strategy is aimed at countering the impacts of out-migration, strengthening the labour market and supporting the economic development of the Province.

By directly supporting student summer employment, the provincial government is focused on creating opportunity, reducing students' debt burden and building a better future for our young people.

In total, the provincial government will match over 1,300 post-secondary students with employers for meaningful summer employment this year.

At this time, I would also like to thank the Community Services Council, who deliver their component of the SWASP program, and Service Canada, who have also contributed $1 million to this program.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to wish all students a safe, enjoyable and rewarding summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

I say I guess it is a good thing that we do have a good hockey game from time to time to bring both sides of the House together with two parties.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very encouraging statement, to know that government is continuing with funding for the Levels I, II, and III program, as well as the SWASP program which has been ongoing for many years. We all know the benefits that it plays to the young people in our Province, to know that the Level I, II and III students can get jobs with various employers, and some of them, I am sure, probably work within the various departments and the official parties within our government.

Mr. Speaker, not only that, it is a program – I think the minister could probably vouch for this – that treats everybody in this hon. House equally. It is about the same amount of money goes into every district to hire Level I, II and III students. It is always like that, but not every program is like that, that is why I brought it up, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say that we are very pleased with this program and I want to encourage the minister - and hopefully that funding will be continually put into this program. Only one thing I will caution, and I think we all agree with this, from time to time, and I know I find it in our area, that there are some students who have disabilities, cannot fit into the various programs, and hopefully down through the years something will be done so that more young people with disabilities can fit into the programs as well.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I want to thank the minister, to commend all those who helped put this program forward.

Thank you very much.

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 her statement. I had to look for you there, Minister, for a minute. Thank you very much.

I used to look forward to these announcements when I was working in the not-for-profit sector, and now I look forward to it as somebody who can help people in my district receive this help. It is a wonderful program, the one for high school students, and I look forward to the time when maybe we can increase the number of students who can benefit from this program.

The SWASP program, also, is an extremely important program. What I would like government to consider as they look into next year, is the possibility of their working going toward a bursary that would help cover all their tuition costs as well as other costs that they have. So many students, as we know, end up with heavy debt, some as much as $50,000 at the end of their education. According to a recent poll, and I just remind the minister of this, I am sure she knows it, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians agree with the Canadian Federation of Students that there should be a continued reduction of the cost of tuition until it is eliminated. It is a lofty goal, but that goal has been reached in other countries and other places, and I encourage the minister to continue looking at this as a goal for our Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Environment allowed us to review environmental assessment documents in her office related to AbitibiBowater sites in the Province. We were advised that we could take notes but not make photocopies. Meanwhile, the courts in Quebec released these documents publicly for people in the country to view. Certainly a contrast, I say, to openness and accountability when the minister and her government refuses to issue the information in the Province but we can pick them up on the Internet, Mr. Speaker, once they have been posted by the Quebec courts.

I ask the minister: Why were these environmental reports that were in your possession since last fall outlining significant environmental concerns not released? Why were they kept hidden in your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the way Quebec operates in their laws and the way we operate are different, Mr. Speaker. Here we have ATIPP laws that we have to abide by, so we have to redact people's names.

I told the Leader of the Opposition - in fact, I went over and offered to her one day sitting in the House that they could come over. I, in fact, said you can photocopy items but you cannot photocopy items with names on it, and that is why I had somebody from the ATIPP office in the office with them at the time. That is the offer that I made to you at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

We were instructed not to photocopy anything; I want to clarify for the minister. The other piece of this, Mr. Speaker, is that the documents that they did finally give us was blacked out as opposed to the ones we obtained through the Web site and posted by the court in Quebec which contained all the contents and all the information.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to tell us why she had those environmental documents in her possession since last fall but yet did not release them to the public? That is the question I would like to have answered, minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, again, we have laws in this Province and we abide by those laws. Quebec may have something different, and obviously we have seen over the past that they act very differently than we do here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

When we had these reports done, Mr. Speaker, if there was anything that was identified as an immediate human health and safety issue we acted immediately. Look at the case in Buchans, Mr. Speaker. We went out there, we talked to the people, and we put the information on the Web site. All of these other reports are what you would normally see in any industrial site. There was no issue of a concern for the residents in those communities. Mr. Speaker, if there had been, we would have done the exact same thing we did in Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how the minister can judge the fact that there is no concern in these communities when these communities did not even know these reports existed or the information contained in them.

Mr. Speaker, last week when I questioned the minister about these reports she stated that she was not worried because children do not play on industrial sites. Meanwhile, it is reported in these assessments that there are soccer and baseball fields in Botwood that have carcinogens, Mr. Speaker, which we all know are cancer causing agents and chemicals present in the soil that are harmful to human health.

I ask the minister: Why did you not alert the people of Botwood that their play areas were contaminated so they could use their own judgement as to letting their children use these public spaces in the community?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I understand why this is difficult for the member to comprehend because it is very technical in nature, Mr. Speaker. That is why I offered the resources of my staff to explain this.

In the case of the ball field – and by the way, I would like to point out for the member's information we did talk to the Town of Botwood. In fact, my staff were out there on October 28 because when I did see this information I thought there may have been a concern there, but we did further investigation.

Just to break it down so you can put it into laymen's terms, there was one single arsenic excedence that was taken between a half a metre and a metre below the soil in the ball field. The excedence was twenty-five milligrams per kilogram. If you compare that to the risk-based number that was done for Buchans on the surface, that was forty-eight milligrams per kilogram. So when you put the two in perspective, there is no human health safety concern there, Mr. Speaker, and that was communicated to the town October 28.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was also quoted in The Telegram this morning as saying that no further testing is needed on this site because it is buried beneath ground. She says you might run into an issue if you build a house on the site but it is fine for children to play in this area.

I ask the minister: Why did you not do more testing to find out the true scope of the problem, especially when these initial issues were identified to you and to your department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, very technical, but I will do my best to explain it.

When you are doing these types of assessments, you not only have to look at the soil type but you have to look at the type of hydrocarbon, and in this case, Mr. Speaker, it was lubricating oil. When you look at that and you look at it in comparison to the numbers that were done on a risk assessment basis in Buchans, it is two very different cases. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to know, when Buchans is remediated, one of the things that we offered to the Town of Buchans once it is all cleaned up is to put a ball field on the site because that is one of the remediation efforts that you do, is that you cover up. In the case of heavy metals one of the best remediations you can do is cover it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also questioned the minister last week in relation to the sixteen sites of concern identified at the Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. Without highlighting every one of the problems that exists, there is leaching of chemicals into the Exploits River. The consultant had identified chemicals such as chloroform, arsenic, mercury, and PCBs, along with seven other chemicals that are above the guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

I ask the minister: Why are you not concerned about the presence of chemicals in the Exploits River that exceed your own allowable limits under your own guidelines?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, that is the difficulty with letting people see these reports when they do not have the technical expertise to be able to interpret the results. If you look at the groundwater there, the gradient is away from the river, so it is not getting into people's wells. Mr. Speaker, all of the limits, all of the discharge -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - are in line with our provincial discharge limits. There were also environmental effects monitoring done in those areas and no issues were raised.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that she continues to try and raise this fear out there - if there was anything at all that we saw in these reports that would have raised an alarm for human health and safety concerns, we would have did the exact same things we did in Buchans. To even suggest otherwise is an absolute insult to this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For a government who claims that there are no problems out there and no environmental concerns out there they are fighting awful hard in the courts I say to get Abitibi to do the cleanup that is required, and the minister knows the difference and the irony in her own statement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again: Why do you have environmental limits that you sign on to under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment if you have no intentions of following them in situations like this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I never once said that these concerns were not of an environmental nature. Certainly, we want to see these remediated. What I said was there was no human health and safety issue here, Mr. Speaker, and if there were, we would have acted the exact same way we did in Buchans.

Mr. Speaker, all of the discharge limits into the Exploits River are in line with our limits. They are in line with the Atlantic PIRI Tier I limits if you want exact specifics and there was environmental effects monitoring done on the site to show that there are no issues there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is they had the reports, they kept them hidden, they did not have public information sessions and they did not release the information out there in the public until people went looking for it.

Mr. Speaker, the reports also highlight concerns about the presence of PCBs and PCB contaminated material being store outside of acceptable parameters. The minister is quoted today, again, saying that this does not pose any immediate health concerns.

I ask the minister: How can you be certain that this will not have any health impacts without knowing the full extent of the problem, and why aren't you looking to have these serious issues dealt with immediately and have further testing done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I think this government has demonstrated quite clearly that we would have acted immediately had there been an immediate human health safety issue. We did it in Buchans; you can talk to the Mayor of Buchans, how open we were in that case. The Minister of Health was out, I was out - we had a whole team of officials out on two different occasions.

In this Budget we committed $9 million - the tenders are going out within a couple of weeks. All of that work is going to be completed by the fall. If there was any other human health and safety immediate risk, we would have done the exact same thing that we did in the case of Buchans.

All of these other issues are issues that need to be remediated from an environmental perspective. From a human health and safety concern, I want to tell the people out there, there is no need to panic because the Leader of the Opposition says there is need to panic. The science behind it – and we base everything in this government on science. The science says that there is no immediate human health safety concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was doing her job in acting in the capacity of Environment Minister, she would be out there holding public sessions in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Botwood and all the communities that are affected so that they can ask questions and have answers to questions. Mr. Speaker, to date they have not even seen the information, I say to you, Minister. We are sending them the CDs; we are sending it out to them - something you should have done.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental consultant also indicated that they had to stop their investigation of one of the sites because bags containing asbestos were uncovered. While they could not determine the scope of the problem, they did raise concerns about water samples in the area that were above acceptable guidelines.

I ask the minister: As you are now the owner of this site, why aren't you willing to investigate these problems further and the impact that it is having on the local environment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may question how I do my job, but I tell you one thing I do not do, I do not act irresponsibly and I do not flippantly send e-mails –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: - out to mayors of towns spreading panic in a town when there is absolutely no need to do it, Mr. Speaker.

We saw the actions, we saw in the paper last week how I had to call up the mayor, ease the concern there because of the irresponsible actions of the Leader of the Opposition and her staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister needs to realize is there is a difference between panic and public information, I say to you, Minister. Your job is to provide public information –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for the fact that I am sending all of the information to the towns in Central Newfoundland, and I hope that someone will have a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask the minister today why she is not concerned about the fact that there are ten chemicals above limits on their own regulations that are leaching out into the Exploits River, a salmon river in this Province. I ask you, Minister: Why are you not concerned about that, and why are you not taking further action against it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, to say that we are not concerned about the environment is simply unfair and it is untrue. Mr. Speaker, we take the issues of the environment very seriously, and that is exactly why we issued the orders to Abitibi in the first place. That is exactly why we pursued the leave to appeal yesterday in the court, and that is exactly why we will explore every single legal avenue that we have available to our government, to ensure that Abitibi brings the land back to the state that they found it in when they came here to use our resources.

If there is any human health and safety issues we will deal with them head on, and I certainly appreciate the member sending her CDs off to wherever she likes, but the members of all these towns know that my staff are available any time if they want to go into detail, into depth, on all of those reports. We are in fact sending them out as they want them. I have talked to the Mayor of Grand Falls specifically on several occasions. My staff was out talking to the Mayor of Botwood in October. I do not know how many times I have spoken to the Mayor of Buchans, and all for very good reason.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The Minister of Environment and Conservation is more concerned about gravel pit campers than she is about arsenic in our waters.

Mr. Speaker, this government invested $15 million into a Broadband Initiative undertaken by the Premier's buddies back in 2006, yet on February 15 of this year, government quietly announced that Government's Broadband Initiative was cancelled, in the fifth paragraph of a lengthy news release.

Now that this initiative has been cancelled, what plans does the government have in place to provide broadband to the hundreds of schools, government buildings, health facilities, public libraries and municipal buildings in this Province that still have no access to broadband?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we understand what government did in the February news release. What we did was we cancelled the Request for Proposals. We did not cancel the Broadband Initiative. The Broadband Initiative is alive and well, we are still working on it, and we will be coming out very shortly with some information to explain how we are proceeding forward.

It was deemed to be too expensive a venture, based upon the way that we were originally planning on going, and because of our fiscal responsibility, we decided to try an alternate route. The same goals and objectives are there, we will be bringing broadband out to all of the government agencies, legislative bodies, all of the schools, the service centres that we have with government. That will be done, but it will be done in a more fiscally responsible manner, and a way that makes sure that people receive the level of service they should receive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It brings back a memory. The current Minister of Finance said to me one time: Stay tuned. We have been staying tuned on the fibre optic deal now for four years and we still have nothing.

Mr. Speaker, this $15 million got us eight fibre optic strands which sit unused to this day. Other than helping friends and former colleagues of the Premier get their trans-cable network built for them for their own benefit, when does government plan to make use of these strands, or does government plan to sell them off?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member opposite that there was a review done by the Auditor General on that $15 million investment and the Auditor General's comment was that it was a good deal. The Auditor General thought it was a good deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the reason for that $15 million investment was that we as a government, when we formed government in 2003, we inherited from the members opposite what we referred to as a communications deficit. We were lagging, we were behind the times in terms of the communications capability in this Province and we needed to make sure that we had the basic infrastructure to be able to provide appropriate communications.

So, that $15 million was the first phase of a multi-phase project, which includes our high-speed Internet and our broadband strategy. We have seen improvements to the level of service already in this Province. Our corporate customers in the Province have seen a lowering of the fees that they are being charged. There are regions of the Province that have seen multiple services now and competing services. So they are getting better price points for it. So that investment was a good investment. The investments we will continue to make will also be good investments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I remind the minister, they also inherited three oil deals and a good deal called Voisey's that they do not tout too often either. In respect to the Auditor General, I remind the minister that the Auditor General said we would ultimately have to wait to see what came out of this deal in order to determine if in fact it was a good deal. We, in fact, will be asking the Auditor General to revisit the study that he did back in 2007.

The government's rationale for this project was that government and related agencies would save a lot of money by building and using its own broadband infrastructure rather than using what was commercially available, but now we have a government-owned fibre optic link we are not using and we are still using and paying for commercial broadband providers. It seems we got the worst of both worlds. We have had to pay for our own system, and we are not using it –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We paid for our own system that we are not using and we are still paying for commercial providers.

I ask the government: Now that you have us between a rock and a hard spot, how do you plan to get us out of it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, we did come from a hard spot. The hard spot was over there when we inherited government; we have now moved them. We have come from a hard spot, we have moved into a much more comfortable spot. We now have redundancy in the broadband capabilities, the high-speed Internet capabilities that we have. We did not have that before. I do not think I need to remind people in this Province that we used to have outages. We had the whole Province went down when we had a fire at the Allandale Road station because of the fact that we had a lack of redundancy.

I will also remind the member opposite that we do have competing carriers now here in this Province because of the fact that we have that $15 million investment. We also have an investment by Greenland in terms of Milton out in the Clarenville area, where they now have connected us to them and them to us. It allows researchers at Memorial University, for instance, to now do research right across the world. There are all kinds of benefits being sought by that investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

They might not have had a very high comfort level when he says they became government but we certainly have a ‘tanglation' of fibres here now, I would say.

The main reason that government has provided for cancelling this initiative is cost. Rather than costing $20 million a year - which the Premier himself said - for ten years, that we are going to do this deal. It would cost $200 million. Now they have discovered, four years out, that it is going to cost $500 million rather than $200 million. We still have eight cables that we own that we are not using.

Considering this kind of gap exists, minister, between the government's dreams and the reality that is on the ground: How can we have any confidence whatsoever in this government's ability to do a fundamental project management and to cost it properly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, we have already shown by the investment we have made of the $15 million, the benefits that have accrued to this Province. I have mentioned to you the fact that we now have redundancy available and that when we have the original line go down, the whole Province does not have to go down.

We have competing services. We have them happening in various areas of the Province. Before there was only one service provider, now we have multiple service providers. We have multiple services being offered. People now have high-speed Internet, people have high-definition television; people are seeing those kinds of benefits coming to their regions because of this investment.

The strategy was a multi-phased strategy. The first phase was the $15 million investment. The second phase was going to be what we refer to basically as the GBR, the Government Broadband Initiative. The planning on that deemed it to be too expensive in the direction we were going. We are doing the prudent fiscally responsible thing by stepping back from that and looking at alternative ways of meeting our goals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

That is cold comfort to the citizens of this Province who were promised they would have high-speed Internet access and to the government agencies that we were promised would be connected four years ago.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, we get calls and letters from people around this Province who cannot understand why they cannot get broadband services in their area after government promised it to them. We have businesses that cannot relocate to rural Newfoundland. We have students who cannot do their academic work. Broadband is not a luxury any more, it is a necessary part of modern life and the modern economy.

What hope can government give these communities, minister, that they will be able to receive affordable and reliable broadband services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the hope is much greater under this government than it was under the previous government. That is the first thing I will say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the investment that we have made was meant to make sure that we are able to provide the level of service that people expected. There was no deadline given with that. We were in the planning stage. We did not have a deadline date committed. We were planning on trying to move forward with our Broadband Initiative. We are still doing that. We will be able to provide the services to people; we just have to make sure we do it in a fiscally responsible, prudent manner. I would suggest to you that the people of the Province would expect nothing less of us than to make sure that we do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

All they have to offer is stay tuned, stay tuned. Fifteen million bucks out the door, four years in, and stay tuned.

Mr. Speaker, as this government was winding down its own broadband initiative, the federal government is ramping up theirs. On May 9, this year, the federal government announced projects across Canada aimed at linking homes in rural households. There is only one such project in this Province. They are going to link 207 homes in Red Bay, Labrador. That, by the way, has nothing to do with this government. It was a project of SmartLabrador. At that rate, it will take hundreds of years to connect Newfoundland and Labrador the way we need to be connected.

What actions will this government take to partner with the federal government or do you intend to talk to the federal government in any way in order to get this train back on track and get the homes in this Province connected to high-speed Internet as they ought to be?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I will make this point first of all to the member opposite. The government's broadband initiative was not meant to bring high-speed Internet to homes in this Province, nor did we ever say that it would. What we said was that we were going to link all of the government facilities together. We were trying to make the business case for the telecommunications carriers, a better case so that they could provide services to the homes. That is what we are attempting to do.

Right now, the regions that are unserviced are unserviced because the private carriers, which are regulated by the federal government to provide that service, will not go in there and provide the service because of the fact it is cost prohibitive.

So what we are trying to do by expanding the government network is to make sure that some of the electronics and some of the technology that is needed in some of our rural regions is available to the private carriers to piggyback off, to be able to bring services to the private citizens and to the people of the Province. We are prepared to partner with the federal government, with private carriers, with anybody else that has the means to be able to allow us to reach the goal that we are trying to reach, which is providing services throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday government hired a consultant to review offshore oil spill safety practices, a good first step. However, when the Cougar S-92 helicopter crashed last year, government appointed a commissioner to investigate and gave that position wide resources to complete that job.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What resources will government give to the consultant to be able to complete his work in ninety days?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my department is currently working, as we speak here today, on the development of the work plan for the review. Out of that will come a listing of resources that he will need to help him complete his work. Our commitment, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that he has all of the tools, all of the resources he needs to do to fulfill his mandate.

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 look forward to hearing from the minister with regard to that work plan when it is finished.

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's press release the minister says safety and protection are paramount in our offshore, but in the terms of reference there is no mention of workers, in spite of the fact that eleven workers were killed in the Gulf. Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for the consultant are vague on the legislative and regulatory regimes and practices regarding worker safety in the potential of spills.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why he is investigating the regimes regarding worker safety not mentioned in the terms of reference?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference make Captain Turner responsible for a review of all of the legislative and regulatory processes in our offshore; both those contained within the Accord act and those outside of the Accord act. Mr. Speaker, that means human safety and the environment.

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 am glad to hear that specified clearly because it is not clear from the terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources said she is confident that the C-NLOPB will protect worker safety, citing that they have a chief safety officer and a chief environmental officer. However, Mr. Speaker, during the S-92 crash hearings, that same chief safety officer revealed that though he knew emergency suits were not fitting properly, he did not know as a regulator how to broach these problems with the operators.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: In the light of this information, how can she say that she has confidence that worker safety issues are being covered by the current regime and why did she not see the need because of that to include the regime specifically covering worker safety in the terms of reference?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my former answer, when Captain Turner was asked to review all of the processes of the C-NLOPB, the Accord acts and response systems not covered by the Accord acts, that meant everything, Mr. Speaker. There were no carve-outs at all. So it would be logical to understand that human safety certainly will be a part of that review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the suits, emergent suits that are worn and the issue that has been raised in the Wells Inquiry with regard to the helicopter, Mr. Speaker, standards are set outside of the C-NLOPB and there is a federal authority responsible. The standards that were existent in this country at that time were being met. Those standards are now being reviewed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final question, the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I do ask the minister though, Mr. Speaker, when she heard these comments made during the Wells hearings, which I am sure that she did, did she follow it up to look at what the role of the chief safety officer might have been in pursuing how he could deal with - it is very disturbing to read. It is said in the report, and I have read it, that he did not know how to broach this issue because of the regulations. That seems to be a real weakness in the C-NLOPB, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and not only were we looking at it at the time it rose in the Wells Inquiry but the Premier and I raised this issue publicly. We raised it with the C-NLOPB. We raised it with the operators in our offshore. We raised it with the federal government, and we raised it with the certifying agencies and organizations in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we take these issues very, very seriously and while the board operates arm's-length from this government, Mr. Speaker, we raise issues whenever they are identified.

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.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I stand today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of: King's Point; Harry's Harbour; Rattling Brook; Deep Bay, Fogo; Goose Cove; Corner Brook; Jackson's Cove; Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, I will read in the prayer of the petition again:

WHEREAS we the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have always built cabins and tilts away from our homes for hunting, fishing, berry picking or just spending time up in the country or places around our shores sometimes just to get away from the stress of everyday living, a place to relax and enjoy the great outdoors; and

WHEREAS your government has come down hard on the thousands of cabin and trailer owners that are out on our land with eviction notices and forcing them to move without providing them with an alternative; and

WHEREAS Kruger Incorporated has timber rights to approximately one-third of the forested land on the Island is refusing the vast majority of applicants for cabin development;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to urge government to have compassion on the citizens of this fair Province and allow them the right to enjoy what is rightfully ours. We were born on this land and we should have the right to enjoy it, and as in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, those people were asked to leave different areas for various reasons. I know there were some concerns environmentally but why would everybody have to leave a site if there were issues that were environmentally unfriendly because now we know what happened in the Whiskey Pit area.

I spoke to an individual today who said that yes, we can go back there camping on the May 24 weekend as long as we move our trailers on the weekend. That is fine, that is all people are asking for. Why was everybody booted out at the one time? That is the concerns those people have. It is not only in that area, it is right throughout this Province. They are asking government just to sit down and consider the situation and see if they can come to a solution where everybody will be happy with the situation.

We know the May 24 weekend is approaching and many people are concerned, wondering if they can do this, wondering if we can do that, wondering if someone is going to put a sticker on our trailer or whatever, or tell us that we have to move it.

Mr. Speaker, people are saying the federal government took away our right to go out and jig a fish when we wanted it. Now they are saying the provincial government is taking away our right to go out and enjoy the great outdoors. There is only one thing left in this Province now that anyone has that is free, and that is the free on the Bingo card. From now on, I would say that will be taxed before it is all over, or you will not be able to use it when you go to a bingo hall.

Mr. Speaker, those people are saying, look - the lady I spoke with this morning, I think she said her husband is seventy-one years of age and all they are asking is to be given the right; and hopefully they have that right. I am sure my hon. colleague across the way knows who I reference, because I received a letter from the lady, and it is good to see that people are talking to them and saying: Look, yes, you can do this under certain regulations.

All I am asking is, on behalf of those residents - and every one of those people live in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. All they are asking us is to reconsider what is taking place so that they can enjoy the great outdoors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

MS JOHNSON: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, on a point of order.

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, it is probably more of a point of clarification.

The member opposite leaves the impression that we are not okay in the government with short-term camping. Mr. Speaker, I have said publicly on many occasions, we have no issue with somebody who wants to go out and camp for the weekend, just as long as it isn't a permanent fixation, you do not see outhouses, you do not see decks and so on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - and just as long as they take the septic home with them at the end of the weekend.

I want to make that perfectly clear, because the long weekend is coming up. We have never had an issue with that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the hon. minister stated, it is not a point of order; it is a point of clarification.

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 go to the Order Paper and call Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government; the Budget Speech.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Deputy Chair of Committees and the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly like to take the opportunity to welcome to the fold, to our caucus, the Member for Topsail. Congratulations to both him and the Member for Terra Nova on two outstanding maiden speeches that were a joy to listen to in this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: They contained very relevant commentaries on the successes of this government.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank the government for their quick response and support given to the Town of Hampden with their recent washout. The Departments of Transportation and Municipal Affairs were there for the community, so I am so pleased with their outstanding efforts. On behalf of the people of Hampden, and on my behalf as their MHA, a most sincere thank you to this government and to my colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: I am certainly happy to stand today and give my response to the Budget, from both a provincial and a district perspective.

It is tradition, Mr. Speaker, for a Finance Minister to buy a new pair of shoes for Budget day. This year, the footwear the Finance Minister bought was not for wearing, but rather symbolizes the Province's focus, and this Budget's focus, on children and families. Mr. Speaker, it was a tiny pair of blue ceramic baby boots which cost $1.47. The colour blue, Mr. Speaker, is strong and steadfast like this government.

This Budget is all about the future, it is all about our children, and I would like to congratulate the Finance Minister on the outstanding job – my colleague from Humber East. He has become, for me, a mentor, a close colleague and a friend. He is well respected not only in his district, but the entire West Coast and throughout this great Province of ours, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy once said that children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future. This Budget and this government certainly recognize this fact with its emphasis on children. We are definitely moving in the right direction, and I honestly believe that we are doing it as a government because we care about the youth in this Province of ours.

Mr. Speaker, prior to 2003 this Province was certainly in the economic doldrums. With mounting debt and crumbling infrastructure, the debt was approaching $12 billion, and a deficit approaching $1 billion a year. Those were the dark ages in our Province's economic history, Mr. Speaker. Just think about the awesome burden that the previous Administration was placing on the shoulders of our youth and the future generations.

Something very significant happened, though, in 2003 when the current government took office. The dark ages are behind us. The sun is shining, and in the sky so blue, Mr. Speaker, the Province is experiencing a renaissance of new ideas, growth and prosperity –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: – under the guiding hands of our current Premier and his dedicated team.

All told, the government budget is approximately $7.5 billion, and it plans to run a deficit of $194 million. The Finance Minister said that as the Province continues to recover from the recession, it needs to keep the current momentum going.

This year has been a very difficult year, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador, not only for Canada, but worldwide. The economic global recession that happened over the last year or so has certainly impacted on all of us. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we were not immune to that particular recession, especially in terms of GDP, which is Gross Domestic Product, the value of goods and services that are produced in this Province in a year.

We acknowledge up front that GDP in this Province was reduced by some 8.9 per cent due to a number of things, and certainly industry closure. We survived the brunt of the recession here in this Province again because of economic foresight, Mr. Speaker, of this government, because of the speedy action of this government, and because of the outstanding leadership provided by this government under the current Premier and the Cabinet ministers and caucus.

Newfoundland and Labrador, like the rest of the world, has indeed felt the effects; however, we have remained far better positioned to weather it than most jurisdictions internationally and here in Canada. The Greece experience today should be a wake-up call for others. Thankfully, the government's head was not buried in the sand but took steps involving financial prudence to put our Province on the right track for its people, and especially our children, so we would have the financial capacity to face the current economic storm.

We had the right plan, a strong foundation already in place which guided us through the downturn and kept our momentum going. Now, Newfoundland and Labrador is set to resume growth in 2010 and confidence once again, Mr. Speaker, is soaring. Consumer confidence in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is now the highest in Atlantic Canada. Incomes are growing, Mr. Speaker, housing starts are rising, and so too is the retail trade. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador recorded the strongest increase in retail sales among all provinces in 2009, and another 5 per cent growth is projected this year.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Business reported to this hon. House that business confidence is very strong as well. He reported that according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business latest Business Barometer – and, of course, a barometer forecasts - even though on a national scale optimism has fallen of late, the level of business confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador is the second highest in the country, and well above, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian average; a most significant accomplishment that this government can certainly be proud of, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the survey showed that 98 per cent of firms in this Province rate the overall state of business here as either good or satisfactory. We have a positive climate for business investment and growth being created right here in this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are doing this by investing in programs to facilitate business expansion, by investing in our education system and initiatives that support the development of the skilled labour on which businesses rely, and by improving the tax and regulatory environment, including further reductions in personal income and the small business tax rate in Budget 2010.

More and more businesses are recognizing that Newfoundland and Labrador is an attractive place to be. The doom and gloom mentality of the Opposition is far from healthy. Sometimes you wonder if they are not operating in a vacuum from the real world. Capital investment growth in this Province is poised to lead the country this year at a projected 23 per cent. This is a choice location to invest, to pursue a career and to live, and our government will continue to ensure that we have the environment to support new business attraction which will generate prosperity and pay dividends for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today and into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: These investments are paying dividends and will benefit our children and our grandchildren.

More positive news, Mr. Speaker: personal income growth grew by 3.9 per cent, in fact. It is projected that it will grow by about 3.9 per cent in 2010. Our residential construction increased by 11.4 per cent to $1.5 billion, Mr. Speaker. Again, huge confidence is shown in this Province. Our population, Mr. Speaker, increased. For the first time since 1983 we were able to show in this Province an increase of 0.5 per cent in net migration. That is something that we are certainly all in this hon. House very proud of.

This funding in infrastructure projects will benefit all regions of the Province, not only the larger centres, and represents a new record for infrastructure spending. We have a government who cares and sees the blue sky potential of this great Province. We have a government who cares. We have a government who cares and is committed to rural communities.

In my district, a rural district, money is going into roads, money is going into recreation, money is going into water and sewer, money is going to provide support to seniors' groups, money is going into business and money is going into health care. Thanks to this government, we are seeing change, Mr. Speaker, change for the better throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. This government, Mr. Speaker, is on the move and cares about the people of this beautiful place we call home, Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: This investment in infrastructure –

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't hear you.

MR. KELLY: Well, if you listen you might.

This investment in infrastructure is expected to generate 7,740 person years of employment in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. No doubt, this government has a vision for a strong and prosperous tomorrow for the people of our Province. By looking forward and anticipating the needs of future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are making the right investments to ensure that our children and our grandchildren will inherit a diversified, strong economy along with the quality public infrastructure needed to support it.

Here and around the globe economies are recovering from a recession, and rising out of that period of uncertainty we are surely ensuring Newfoundland and Labrador is well positioned to grasp emerging opportunities.

Budget 2010 included significant investments in public buildings, transportation, justice, environment, conservation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing infrastructure, as well as in municipal, education and health infrastructure. Budget 2010 provides $367.7 million for various infrastructure initiatives through the Department of Transportation and Works which included $177 million in provincial funding for road and bridge expenditures throughout the Province. This provincial government investment will be supplemented by an additional $57.9 million in federal government funding, for a total bridge and road investment of $235.6 million, Mr. Speaker.

In my district, approximately $6 million has been allocated to resurfacing the TCH from Crooked Feeder to just west of the Hampden intersection. Major work is scheduled for the Howley Bridge as well, Mr. Speaker. This Budget allocated $50.3 million towards the purchase of four new water bombers in our Province, Mr. Speaker, as announced in October, 2009; two of which, of course, will be received or have been received this year.

Other investments include $10 million for heavy equipment acquisitions and $1.5 million, Mr. Speaker, in a provincial government contribution to the ongoing work at the Deer Lake Airport runway extension, which is being cost-shared between the provincial and federal governments and the Deer Lake Regional Airport Authority.

Municipalities, Mr. Speaker; Budget 2010 provides $135.5 million provincial investment for municipal infrastructure. This will leverage an additional $53.4 from the federal government, bringing the total to $188.9 million, and if you add in the municipalities' contribution, $225 million.

In The Telegram after the Budget came down, Mr. Speaker, a number of leaders in the Province, a number of municipal leaders made some commentary on the Budget. This is one individual, the Mayor of Leading Tickles - and of course the Mayor of Leading Tickles happens to be in my good friend's District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Harry Hallett, who is now also the President of MNL, which is Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, said: "There's a good deal of infrastructure money there that is badly needed. In fact, it's the largest amount of money that's ever been spent on infrastructure in this province. Good stuff." Good stuff.

Municipalities are also being given $2.5 million to buy fire trucks as part of a $7.6 million four-year project. They will also get $1 million to upgrade and replace firefighting equipment, Mr. Speaker.

From the West Coast, Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Mayor Neville Greeley, who also happens to serve on the Board of Directors of MNL, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, he is the Western Director, and he said: "…the budget is great for the province as a whole, but was pleased with what municipalities received. ‘From the municipalities' perspective…' in quotation marks, Mr. Speaker, ‘…it was a good news budget,' Greeley said."

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador supported a number of municipal infrastructure projects during the last two years in my district. Municipalities applied for and received funding which was used for paving and road reconstruction, water and sewer, and fire protection services. In total, Mr. Speaker, over $9 million worth of projects were funded with the Province's new municipal cost-shared funding ratio which is being widely and highly received throughout our Province.

The Province also approved funding recently, Mr. Speaker, of $86,130 to upgrade the Deer Lake waste management site and close the incinerator. The site provides services to a number of municipalities in my district.

Mr. Speaker, education – prior to entering politics, I spent thirty years in the education field. It is a proud moment for me to be here this year, in this Budget, when the amount came down, that this year the Budget for education was $1.3 billion - the highest allocation in this Province's history.

Mr. Speaker, I was guest speaker at a luncheon banquet of the Provincial School Administrators' Conference in March of this year. I spoke to many administrators who spoke highly of government's commitment to education and the positive changes being experienced in many areas. Just think about it, Mr. Speaker, no interest on the provincial portion of student debt, free textbooks from K-12. There was a time - all thirty years I spent as a school administrator - the textbook policy for the Province was free textbooks from K-8. Often, students, unfortunately, had to make program choices based on a cost of a textbook in high school. I am so very pleased that this government had the foresight to make that change. It is certainly well-received and it is wonderful - absolutely wonderful.

Not only have they done that, Mr. Speaker, but they provided significantly more funds to the university, to the College of the North Atlantic, to the college system. This government's commitment to education is unprecedented.

A number of schools throughout the district have received funding from the provincial government for improvements to their facilities. Projects, Mr. Speaker, included: roofing, site access changes, heating. In my district alone, it totalled over $1 million for maintenance. Of course, prior to 2003, as a school administrator, we had to go around with garbage buckets to collect the water that was coming into the classrooms from leaky roofs.

This government, Mr. Speaker, continues to ensure that in Newfoundland and Labrador, students receive a quality education through excellence in programming and curriculum. Quality education is vital for our youth and for the prosperity of our Province. Our government has made tremendous advances in education in recent years. We are continuing to make the right investments in Budget 2010, so that we provide the best learning opportunities for students of all ages in this Province.

Class size in Budget 2010 was capped for Grades 6 and 9 - very significant. Also, Mr. Speaker, there were increases in supports to classrooms; $14.6 million to help meet the diverse requirements of students with special needs. Budget 2010 also included $2.2 million to complete the implementation of Excellence in Mathematics strategy in Grades 3, 6 and 9 and to begin expansion of the strategy into high school.

Mr. Speaker, to help prepare young children for their school years this government has done a lot. Not only that, they are looking at investing now into early child education this year as well in Budget 2010.

Mr. Speaker, a sustainable and viable economy depends upon high literacy levels. Literacy is the means by which our children become strong, critical and creative thinkers.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is running short. Health and Community Services - $2.7 billion this year in the Budget - the highest again in the Province's history. Of course, I am so proud to say that approximately $350,000 was spent to do repairs in the Deer Lake clinic.

Tax reductions - tax benefits for seniors, increasing the program expenditures, the low income benefits for seniors, so much in this Budget for seniors. Reductions in personal income taxes as well.

Tourism, Mr. Speaker, we have all heard many accolades about what this Province is doing in its marketing efforts to encourage tourism.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KELLY: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member, by leave.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, under poverty reduction, since 2006 we have invested $482.7 million in poverty reduction - half a billion dollars. By all accounts, we are seeing progress. The incidents of low income have decreased from 12.2 per cent to 6.3 per cent, a decrease of some 30,000 people who are no longer considered below the poverty line. As well, the depth and persistence of poverty in this Province has shown considerable improvement. In fact, the depth of poverty in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is the lowest in all Canada as a result of our Poverty Reduction Strategy. We now know that 4,000 fewer people are on our income support caseloads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be a member of this outstanding team, a team who has done so much for the children and youth in this Province, a team who has done so much for seniors, a team who has done so much to reduce poverty, a team who has done so much for education, a team who has done so much to support business, a team who has done so much to support health care, a team with a true vision for this Province, a team who cares about all of our Province, especially rural Newfoundland, a team who truly believes in the future of this beautiful place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a team who is doing so much to help all Newfoundland and Labrador. If Joe Chesterfield was a real person, he would see the benefits too, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments, but I want to say that I very much support Budget 2010 and all of the positive work that we are doing for the people of this great Province.

Mr. Speaker, an old Chinese proverb states: One generation plants the trees and another gets the shade. I am confident that today's investments will indeed have significant benefits down the road, especially for our children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased today as well to stand and speak in support of this Budget, the same as my government colleagues have done. That is a bit different from what we expect from the Opposition. From me, you will hear about the good things that are in the Budget, from the Opposition you hear what is not in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into that I would like to take the opportunity as well to join my colleagues in welcoming our newest members to our caucus: the Member for Topsail and the Member for my neighbouring District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, prior to last year's Budget, our government anticipated that we would be facing a number of challenges. We were part of a worldwide recession, but our government had a plan to counter these challenges.

We continued with our tax reductions, we continued with our debt reduction, we continued with strategic spending and we continued with our investment in infrastructure and our social programs. Mr. Speaker, we continued to stay the course and we are following a similar plan for 2010-2011.

As our Minister of Finance said when he presented the Budget, now is not the time to put the brakes on. Our objective is to keep as many people as possible working in this great Province. Our objective is to keep the economy going, and that is what we are doing. I would have to say that we must be doing a pretty good job of it because the financial experts and the credit rating agencies continue to reaffirm that our plan is working and we are making significant advancements and improvements upon the fiscal foundation that we started back in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, we must continue to take a responsible and a cautious approach to our investments and our planning. We must ensure that our spending of public money is sustainable in the future. Mr. Speaker, that is the key word, sustainable in the future. While we have billions of dollars coming into our revenue each year, this year is no exception, we still have to be extremely careful as to where we spend that money. While the price of oil might be $78 or $80 a barrel right now, we do not know what it will be next week, two weeks from now or three months from now. We must be forever cognizant of that fact, Mr. Speaker.

We found that out last year when the price of oil dropped and we will encounter it again as long as this Province is an oil-producing Province. We know that some day the oil wells will run dry. We know that we are dealing with a finite resource. Whether it is twenty-five years, thirty-five years, fifty years, we do not know because we have so much unexplored potential in our offshore resources. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the end will come to these revenues.

It is my hope as a member of this government, and I am sure it is the hope of the Premier, the Minister of Finance and all of the members in our caucus, that after we catch up on rebuilding our infrastructure and after we get a major grip on our debt charges, our long-term debt, that someday we will begin to build some kind of endowment fund, some kind of major savings plan so that we will have money for the rainy day. Mr. Speaker, we have already actually begun that process of preparing for the future and we are doing that by investing or planning to invest in the Lower Churchill Hydro Project. What better use can be made from our non-renewable resources into the renewable water resources of the Lower Churchill River? If you want to talk about investing in our future, then there it is, Mr. Speaker: a project that is recognized as one of the best undeveloped hydroelectric projects in the world; a project that will continue to provide revenues to our Province as long as the water flows. That is our plan, Mr. Speaker, that is the direction this government has taken.

If you listen to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, what do you hear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not very much.

MR. HARDING: Not very much, my colleague just said, and it is true.

Last week I heard her make three statements in particular: the government is not spending much money for middle and lower-income families; (2) we are not spending money in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; and (3) we cannot even pay our doctors an adequate wage.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the doctors first, just briefly. We have $79 million on the table now for increased wages and benefits for the doctors in this Province. We have more money than that, in terms of funding for new hospitals, new home care facilities, and new equipment for these facilities.

Mr. Speaker, on April 13 I was driving from my home in Badger's Quay to St. John's, and it was somewhere just before 7:30 in the morning or just after 7:30 that I heard an interview that was given by a doctor at the hospital in Gander. The statement that he made was that they needed, or this Province needs an additional 122 emergency room and family care doctors in our Province right now. That is the statement that he made. In the same breath, Mr. Speaker, he said what really bothered him – and this is what really got to me. What really bothered him was the fact that in the afternoon he would look out over his clinic and he would see so many people with runny noses, sore throats and sore arms.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been in the workforce for over forty years and I have never gone to a hospital yet for a runny nose or a sore throat or a sore arm. Mr. Speaker, while I say that, I know that there are some people with certain illnesses and diseases who have to go to see a doctor at the onset of a cold or the flu. I know that some of our seniors have to do the same thing because they cannot come back, these diseases, at this time in their lives. Mr. Speaker, that is quite understandable and that is not the people I am talking about it. If all of the other people that that doctor was referring to, if these are the people, the people with the runny noses and the sore throats, if these are the people he is using in his statistics for wait rooms, wait lists in our hospitals, then we do have a major problem with health care in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the other point now with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's comments. She said that we are not spending money in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, overall last year, this government invested somewhere around $800 million in infrastructure funding for the communities in this Province. Most of that money went to communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition did not go through Bonavista North last year because if she did –

AN HON. MEMBER: She probably does not know where it is.

MR. HARDING: That could be as well – except for the by-election a few years ago. They all knew where it was then, Mr. Speaker.

A few of the expenditures in my district last year: Indian Bay, just over quarter of a million dollars for their water system; Musgrave Harbour, $2 million for upgrading and repaving the roads; Lumsden, $700,000 to replace their water treatment plant; another $240,000 was approved for Lumsden for a new fire truck and that truck is currently on order and will be delivered later this year; Gander Bay South, $62,000 to cover an overrun in their waterline extension; Centreville, Wareham, Trinity, almost a half a million dollars to replace their water systems; New-Wes-Valley, approximately $2 million to upgrade the school, Lester Pearson Memorial High; another $1 million to build a new fire hall in New-Wes-Valley; $5 million approved over a three-year period for water and sewer installations in the community; $1 million last year as well to complete the sewer extension from Lester Pearson Memorial High.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. In roadwork, $2 million last year on the Gander Bay Highway, and a section between Trinity and Indian Bay. In addition to that $2 million, another $2 million to replace two bridges on the main highway in the Deadman's Bay area. In terms of special assistance grants, it was almost $200,000; that included $100,000 for the Barbour site in Newtown.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on this afternoon with more and more of these expenditures but I will go now to the third comment that she made, and that was with respect to not spending money for middle and lower-income class families.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of taxation, we have implemented and enhanced the Low-Income Tax Reduction, this was started in 2005. This eliminates the provincial portion of income tax for individuals with net incomes of less than $16,000 and families with net incomes of $27,000. These people do not have to pay the provincial portion of income tax now, Mr. Speaker.

I will give you a little example of what it means to some of these people. In 2009, last year - or now when people were completing their income tax return this spring – an individual with an income of $16,000 saved $544 in personal income tax. In terms of a family with an annual income of $26,000, that family saved almost $800 last year, and that will continue, Mr. Speaker, as the years go on.

On July 1 of this year, the Minister of Finance announced again another decrease in personal income tax rates, applicable to the second and third income tax bracket people. These are more the middle-income tax earners. Their taxes will decrease from 12.8 per cent to 12.5 per cent and from 15.5 per cent down to 13.5 per cent. We have been reducing income tax for every worker in this Province for the past number of years. We have now the lowest personal income tax in all of Atlantic Canada.

In 2005, our government froze post-secondary education tuition for all public institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Last year our government eliminated the interest on the provincial portion of student loans. This benefited 49,000 people living in our Province. We increased the up-front non-repayable needs-based grants to students; approximately 8,400 students receive these grants. Mr. Speaker, these grants, the biggest part of them go to students from rural Newfoundland and Labrador because it is based on need, and the cost of educating a person from rural Newfoundland is much higher; in fact, almost twice the cost of someone living in the metro area or in the immediate area of St. John's.

Persons below the low-income cut-off level in 2003, there were 63,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in that category. What I mean by low-income cut off, is it refers to people who spend more than 20 per cent of their income on food, clothing and shelter. In 2003 we had 63,000 people in that category. In 2008 that had dropped to 33, 000 people, today it is even lower. It is still not low enough but we are at least moving in the right direction.

We expanded again this year, the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. This year, again there is an additional $3.2 million to cover the cost of adding ten new drugs under the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, and some of these drugs are cancer fighting drugs. We have expanded the Newfoundland and Labrador Dental Health Plan where we now include youth from ages thirteen to seventeen. These people were not included before. We have free textbooks and eliminated the school fees for our students. A provision in this year's Budget to cover the cost of these textbooks and the different fees is almost $20 million.

We have increased continually the minimum wage in this Province, giving our lower-income earners more money to put in their pockets. We have done a new financial assessment process for home support workers. Starting in December of last year, this will see more money staying in the pockets of our seniors and others requiring home support. These people with lower incomes will pay the less, and I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker.

Persons with a family income at or below $13,000 per year for a single person, and $21,000 a year for a couple will not be required to contribute towards home support. Before, just as a comparison, a person with a monthly income of $1,169 would have had to pay $295 a month for home support. Now, under this new plan that came into effect in December, they only have to pay $15 per month.

Mr. Speaker, in the case of a couple receiving home support, a couple who had an income last year - or before December of last year - an income of $2,155 per month would have had to pay almost half of that for their home support, $1,077. As of December 9 of last year that couple receiving home support now have to pay just $124 - 124, Mr. Speaker, in comparison to $1,077.

The maximum Seniors' Benefit increased from $803 to $900. On July1 government will increase the hourly wage again for home support workers by seventy-five cents an hour. This will cost the government an estimated $8.9 million. We have eliminated the sales tax on insurance premiums.

In this year's Budget alone, Mr. Speaker, there is a total tax reduction to the people of this Province of $48.5 million. Since 2007, total tax reductions for people in this Province have amounted to $1.2 billion. That is money going back into the working people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly investing in our infrastructure. We are investing in our rural communities. We are investing in poverty reduction. We are investing in health and wellness, and we are investing in our children, in the future of this Province.

This Budget again, Mr. Speaker, is about making the right decisions for the right reasons. It is the right investments for the day that will achieve the best results for tomorrow.

I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. May I have leave just to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. member is asking for leave.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say, in conclusion, that we are, as a government, on the right track and people can see the improvements everywhere in the Province. In 2003, this government was floundering in a deep hole; in 2010, we are continuing to move upward and onward. It is just like our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said a while ago when he was involved in the controversy over the fishing industry in our Province, he made the statement that we all have to work together in order to make that industry what it was and what it can be - the processors, the fisherpeople and governments working together. That is what it is with everything, Mr. Speaker, it is going to take all of us to bring this great province back to where it should be and where it deserves.

I will conclude with a quote from Helen Keller. Helen Keller said: I am only one, but I am one. Alone, I can do very little, but together we can do much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is indeed an honour to stand in the hon. House here today and to have a few minutes to speak regarding Budget 2010. It is also an honour, Mr. Speaker, to stand in my place representing the people of the great District of Lake Melville that includes the great Towns of North West River, Sheshatshiu, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mud Lake and Churchill Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we have come a long ways, this government, since 2003. We came into power at a time in which the people of this Province wanted change. I say, Mr. Speaker, according to the polls, I believe that that people of the Province are pleased with the work that our good Premier is doing, the Cabinet and, indeed, members of our caucus throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when we came into office in 2003 we were certainly in a fiscal position that – certainly in a position in which the hon. members on the other side of the House had basically squandered it. They had squandered the good money, the funds of our Province, and we had to get it back on track, and on track it is.

I want to take a few minutes this afternoon and talk about some of the good things that are happening up in Labrador, because Labrador, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. crowd across the other side was in power, was really a forgotten place, as part of this Province. I can attest to that, having been certainly involved with the Combined Councils of Labrador, as the Mayor of the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and certainly served in a municipal benefit on municipal council there. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, having dealt with the hon. crowd from the other side, that Labrador was indeed forgotten. There was a deficit in Labrador. There was a deficit in health care. There was a deficit in transportation. There was a deficit in infrastructure. We have come a long ways in just a few short years.

I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the projects that I was very pleased that our government took on, front and centre, and that was the Trans-Labrador Highway. That was a key piece of infrastructure that we in Labrador had fought for many years that we had asked previous governments to become involved in. I will say the federal government of the day, the late Lawrence O'Brien, he certainly played a key role in bringing some $341 million to get the road built between Cartwright and L'Anse-au-Clair. Listen, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that we have made great gains in Labrador over the last number of years.

I want to go through some of them because when I listen to the hon. crowd across the way trying to tell the people of the Province that the sky is falling in, the doom and gloom that is around our Province. I say, Mr. Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth - nothing can be further from the truth. Our Province is in better shape today than it has ever been in its history. The reason why it is in better shape that ever it has been in its history is because we have the leadership in our Premier and because of the dedication of our Cabinet and caucus to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador gain the maximum benefits of our resources, and that our youth have a strong future as far as jobs, opportunities for training on some of the big projects that we are going to see coming forward over the course of the next number of years.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about some of the things that are happening in Labrador, and I certainly, as the Minister of Labrador Affairs, want to talk a few minutes about the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador. Right now we are going to be spending somewhere in the vicinity of $587 million will be invested in Labrador through the Northern Strategic Plan to expand the infrastructure, to advance the delivery of programs and services, and to encourage economic prosperity. By the end of the coming fiscal year, our government – and I am proud to say – will have spent more than $2.4 billion in Labrador since the Budget of March of 2004.

Budget 2010, Mr. Speaker, supports our government's efforts to achieve real and substantive progress for Labradorians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. This investment builds upon the impressive record and accomplishment of this government. This government is listening intently and working hard to achieve a collective vision of a prosperous and progressive Labrador for all.

Mr. Speaker, in the area of Transportation and Works, and I just want to highlight for the people of the Province, for my colleagues here today, that the provincial government is showing a continued commitment in infrastructure, and the Trans-Labrador Highway is the number one infrastructure project for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are also investing, certainly this year we will see the connection, the completion of Phase III between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I can tell you it certainly did my heart good when we delivered to the people of Coastal Labrador last year, in December, when we connected the road between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot of great things in this government, but I can tell you the positive reports that we got from those people along that coast.

I will tell you the story of a gentleman, a friend of mine, who worked for Newfoundland Hydro; he was in Cartwright. I happened to see him in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He told me about how he had broken one of his teeth, and about how he got up in his car the next morning and drove to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, saw a dentist, had it fixed, and was back home in his community that night. Before the road connection, Mr. Speaker, that would have cost him $800 in airfare.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is very much appreciated by the people of those communities who now come in to Happy Valley-Goose Bay for everything from their fuel, their medical, dental, banking – all of those communities now are better served because of the connection on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, since we came into office, I can tell you, we have spent somewhere in the vicinity of $185 million to $200 million on the Trans-Labrador Highway. This year alone we will spend another approximately $90 million to continue the hard-surfacing between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West. This road, Mr. Speaker, is continuing to attract attention.

Mr. Speaker, before this road was connected, I was talking to a trucker who told me he used to have to put his false teeth in his pocket because he could not keep them in his mouth while he was driving over the rough roads that we had left over by the Liberals. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that is no longer the case.

It is not only in Labrador we are seeing transportation improvements, Mr. Speaker. We are seeing improvements to transportation here on the Island part of the Province. I was out in the good community of Deer Lake last fall and I went and drove up to Plum Point. It was nothing but a clear sheet of blacktop from Deer Lake right to Plum Point and beyond. So I can tell you, when I drove over it in 2003, Mr. Speaker, it was potholes.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the way.

MR. HICKEY: All the way. That is why the people of the Province wanted to see change. They were sick and tired of driving in the potholes. They were sick and tired of the schools that had never seen any maintenance. The windows were leaking, the roofs were leaking; you name it. They never did anything, absolutely not.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing it. In 2003-2004 the then Minister of Transportation and Works and previous Premier of the Province, the hon. Tom Rideout of the day, went to Ottawa and managed to convince the federal government that the Trans-Labrador Highway had to be part of the National Highway System. That was the key. That enabled us to be able to take the standard that we had before, widen the road three metres – and, I can tell you, anybody who drives that highway today, with what we have done, is very pleased and very proud of the progress that we have made there.

It took some challenges. I remember in 2003 when we took office, down in the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse-au-Clair's district, we had to put in a brand new depot. We spent I believe it was $1.5 million, Mr. Speaker. We had to put a depot at Chateau Pond to fix the rock cuts, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member, the now Leader of the Opposition. Now they are called Yvonne's rock cuts. Everyone down along the coast calls them Yvonne's rock cuts.

Mr. Speaker, that is still there, it is still an issue, and we will certainly look at fixing that problem in the course of the next year or so, but now there is more accessibility than ever before, Mr. Speaker. That is going to mean more business opportunities for everybody in Labrador and certainly our connection to the Island portion of the Province.

When it comes to health care, Mr. Speaker, health care is certainly a huge issue. It has been a huge issue for us in Labrador for many years, but we are making improvements. I am happy to report here that we are about to open a new long-term health care facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Construction is about to start in my colleague's district of Labrador West on a new hospital and a new college facility over there. Close on $100 million will be spent over on that facility, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to dialysis equipment: before, when you were in Labrador West or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, you had to move your family right out of Labrador in order to get kidney dialysis treatment. That is no longer the case, Mr. Speaker. Kidney dialysis units are now in place in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Certainly, in this year's Budget there was another some $700,000 to put one in Labrador West. It is much needed, Mr. Speaker, and much well-deserved by the people over in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to touch on another couple of issues regarding health care. While I have not waded into this issue lately, I do want to make a couple of comments regarding the move of the air ambulance. This has been a very important issue for the people of Labrador for some time. This has been an issue that certainly my colleague from Labrador West and my colleague from Torngat Mountains - this has been a hot-button issue for us on this side of the House as we deal with the many issues and complaints that we have had over the last number of years.

The air ambulance, of course, is a critical component to the health care, providing medevac services to patients when road ambulance and commercial flights are unsuitable to a patient's condition, during the distance of a patient's transport, and its geographic location.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, as the MHA for Lake Melville, this has been a huge issue for me and for my constituents. I remember one time there, a couple of years ago, between myself and the Member for Lab West, we had some ten patients who were in St. John's waiting to go home. Because of conditions, they could not take a scheduled flight at that time. We had to wait until an emergency happened in Labrador, to be able to take those people home to their loved ones on a medevac. We had to wait for someone to get sick up in Labrador so we could ship these people back from the Health Sciences and St. Clare's Hospital. That was not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say, this week I was a little perturbed, to say the least, when the Member for The Straits & White Bay North stood on his feet and made this comment. He said, "The fact…" - and I am reading from Hansard here, Mr. Speaker - "The fact that you would take a service that is so vital to this Province, that you would remove a piece of the economic engine that drives our district and so on…." Well I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, my concern is for the health care of the people of Labrador, and not for the economy. That was an issue that has been far too long - that has happened in Labrador.

I remember back in 1991 - and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will remember this, because she was the Mayor of the community of Mary's Harbour - in 1991, the people of Labrador, all the communities had met and said: Listen, we are not happy with the service that we are receiving in Labrador by Grenfell. At that time it was unanimous, and the member who was then the Mayor of Mary's Harbour agreed with that, that we should have our own health care system in Labrador and our own board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the mayor?

MR. HICKEY: The mayor at the time was Yvonne Jones who is now the Leader the Opposition, and this has been an ongoing issue, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you one thing right now, those days are over. It is not about a community's economy, it should be about the health care of the people that we serve. I want to commend the Minister of Health. I want to commend the Cabinet and the support we received from the caucus on this particular issue. We have received letters, Mr. Speaker, from the towns Forteau, who are in the hon. member's district Cartwright-L'Anse-au-Clair, in which they say and they support the move of the air ambulance from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that when referring to members of the Legislature that we refer to them by their title or their district.

MR. HICKEY: I apologize, Mr. Speaker; a slip up, Mr. Speaker. I get emotional over this stuff.

Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut government also wrote letters of support, as did the communities of Makkovik, as did the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, as did communities of Rigolet, Postville, Forteau, L'Anse-au-Loup. All of these communities see that the work we have been doing on this particular file, is we made a decision that was in the best interest of the people and the health care of the people of Labrador. We had an independent consultant go out and brought us back an independent report. It was very clear from the report that things had to change. We were not prepared to continue to see the lives of our loved ones and our families at risk because we wanted to keep an air ambulance in St. Anthony to drive the economy of St. Anthony. That is not where we should be making our decisions, Mr. Speaker. We should be making our decisions in the best care and the best interest of the health care of the people of Labrador, and that is exactly what this government is doing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on here for another two hours to talk about the good things that are happening in Labrador, but I will tell you, that in my district things are going very well and we hope to certainly see an expansion in the mining industry in Labrador West. I was absolutely delighted the other day to hear that the economy of Labrador West is going to see an influx of close on half a billion dollars in Phase I of their expansion over there with future expansions. When we look at the mining up in Schefferville with the New Millennium project and the Labrador Iron Mines project, all of these are going to create great wealth, Mr. Speaker, not only for Labrador but for our entire Province.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government under the leadership of Premier Williams in which we are moving this Province forward. I think the message we sent to Hydro-Quebec in the last couple of days is certainly evidence that there is going to be no more giveaways, Mr. Speaker. The giveaways are over. We saw the giveaways when the hon. crowd on the other side were in power. We saw that from Grimes and Tobin and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, with that I will –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this point, we will adjourn debate on the main motion, on Motion 1 on the Order Paper, and we will continue through the Orders of the Day. We will go to, on the Order Paper, Order 4. We will continue Second Reading of a Bill, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, Bill 7.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always good to hear my colleagues in the House speak on the different issues that come up in the House, especially on the Budget and to hear them speak on some of the bills that are being put forward in legislation. It gives me great pleasure to stand here in this hon. House myself and take my place as the MHA representing the great District of Bellevue and speak to Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago this bill was introduced and was opened by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. I just want to mention some of the comments that my colleague made in the purpose of amendments of the Commissioners for Oaths Act. This bill "would broaden the category of persons who may be appointed commissioners for oaths or persons who have the status of permanent residents of Canada." It also gives a permit to the minister to set fees that a commissioner may charge for his or her services. It also makes it an offence to pretend one is a commissioner when one is not. Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate on that in just a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, after my colleague the other day spoke in the House, the Opposition House Leader got up, and he had sixty minutes to speak on this issue. I have twenty minutes, but I do not know if it is going to take me twenty minutes or not, but I will try to do my best in addressing some of the comments that were made.

The Opposition House Leader certainly gave us a good lecture on the Commissioner for Oaths. Although he did emphasize on the Commissioner for Oaths being documents that are witnessed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he spent most of his time, Mr. Speaker, speaking on what would have been a criteria for a notary public outside of the Province. It was a lot of time, I felt, wasted on this bill and should have been directed directly to the comments of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

I, myself, had some experience as a Commissioner for Oaths over the years. I was Mayor in Norman's Cove-Long Cove for ten years. Several times I have had to witness signatures for people in my district, in my community at that time. Even now, as a Member of the House of Assembly, I am a Commissioner for Oaths as well.

I want to say, too, that a lot of people back a few years ago would rely on the Justice of the Peace to sign the papers or documents; to witness the documents. I think right now, the Justice of the Peace, as they retire or as they decease or what have you, the Justice of the Peace now is no longer and the Commissioner for Oaths is taking the place of the Justice of the Peace.

I also want to mention about the permanent residents because ironically, just a few weeks ago, I was talking to somebody who is living in our Province under a permit, and they asked me if they could be a Commissioner for Oaths. I told them I did not think they could under the present act. Mr. Speaker, under this act now, once this amendment is put through and voted on, then this person who is a member in my district right now would be able to apply and become a Commissioner for Oaths.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read a little bit of information here that I have on a permanent resident and what a permanent resident actually is and the difference between a permanent resident and a Canadian citizen. A permanent resident holds many of the same rights, responsibilities as a Canadian citizen, among others the rights to work for an enterprise as well for the federal or provincial government, but, Mr. Speaker, the main differences between the Canadian citizen and a permanent resident is that the permanent resident who lives in the Province cannot vote in federal, provincial or municipal elections in Canada, run for elected offices, hold Canadian passports, nor can they join the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, there are three application processes that you have to go through to become a Commissioner for Oaths. There is an application form for a Commissioner for Oaths, just a regular application form for any individuals who want to apply for a Commissioner for Oaths. There is also another form, an application form for a Commissioner for Oaths for a Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government employees. Some of the people who work in the motor registration building are Commissioners for Oaths and there are others throughout the Province as well. Mr. Speaker, clergy also can apply for a Commissioner for Oaths, but the difference with a clergy is that there is no fee required for clergy but there is an application process that they have to follow as well.

The process for applying for a Commissioner for Oaths would be an application must be completed and submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice. This applies to new requests and renewals and applications forms are available on-line too for the public and for government employees as well. There are forms there as well, the form for the public is 34KB and the forms for the public employees are 346KB. Mr. Speaker, accompanied with that application there is a fee of $50 which has to be accompanied with a cheque made out to the Newfoundland and Labrador Exchequer account. Mr. Speaker, the appointments are – once you are successful and the minister does an appointment, your appointment is good for five years.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that mayors in all communities and even the chairs of local service districts can apply to become a Commissioner for Oaths. Out in the district that I represent, a lot of the problems that we run into in the district are small communities that do not have a Commissioner for Oaths or a JP or a notary public, and in a lot of cases they have to travel long distances to get some papers or witnesses or documents witnessed when they are preparing for things like selling a car. One of the big documents that I see here since I have been MHA is through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, when you make an application, request that you sign an affidavit witnessing that you own your house. That is one of the big things there that I have seen with respect to being a Commissioner for Oaths.

When I was Mayor of the Town of Norman's Cove, several times, I would have people come to my house who were buying a car, that car was under the value that was in the book value for the car, so they had to have accompanied with them an affidavit. So they had to come and get somebody to sign it, and most times I would be the one that would get the call to sign the papers for them. It was a privilege for me to do that, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to point out too that marriage commissioners, for instance, marriage commissioners are not Commissioners for Oaths, and I want to point that out. Somebody said to me one time that a marriage commissioner could sign documents, but no, marriage commissioners are not Commissioners for Oaths. I am not saying that they cannot sign documents pertaining to the marriage commissioner, but they cannot sign as a Commissioner for Oaths.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment also relates to a fine for an offence – which is guilty of signing as a Commissioner for Oaths, a person whose appointment as a Commissioner for Oaths has expired. It also addresses this as well, that the fine will be not more than $500. It is an offence, like for instance, a lot of the elections last October, a lot of the mayors were Commissioners for Oaths, and if they are still signing documents now today, then they should not be doing so, because once they gave up their years of service or retired from the mayor or got defeated in election, then they should have notified or withdrawn their Commissioner for Oaths, and it is no longer is in use.

I must also point out that when I did sign the Commissioner for Oaths and stamp the documents for people, I always accompanied in writing, my own handwriting, the date of the expiry of my Commissioner for Oaths, five years. That is very important to people out there.

Mr. Speaker, I have quite a bit of experience as well, since I have been the MHA, in travelling throughout my district and going into the small communities and talking to a lot of people, I find that there are many people who have to wait, and when they know you are coming into the area they will wait until the MHA comes there to get some documents signed. Only last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I was in a couple of communities and I had to visit some of the people there and sign some of the documents that they had.

Mr. Speaker, with that I just want to say that it gives me a great privilege to stand here today and have a few words on this bill and on the amendment of this bill, and I certainly look forward to listening to my other colleagues in the House speak on this bill as well. I certainly am going to support this amendment.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have come to learn over my two-and-a-half years in the House of Assembly is that if you are the last one to get up usually there is not a lot left to say. The debate that has gone on so far has served quite a number of purposes, obviously there has been a bit of discussion regarding the actual changes here that are being made. Also, there has been some additional discussion, one could almost say a very thin tangent as the Member for Burgeo & La Poile used the word affidavit to launch off into some other areas of particular concern; nonetheless, the Speaker in the Chair at the time did reign him in and he got back to information more relevant to the topic at hand.

On that point I would like to extend, I guess, a bouquet to the Member for Burgeo & La Poile. I found that when he did get into the meat of the discussion pertaining to the legislation in front of us today he actually did provide some very, very good information which I had not realized before. There is so much that is available in legislation but then there is also the practical application and the real world experience that many people bring to this House, and certainly the Member for Burgeo & La Poile did that.

I would also like to compliment the Member for Bellevue because in the time that he spoke, again, my body of knowledge with regard to what it means to be a Commissioner for Oaths certainly was expanded. Oftentimes these things come on you without knowing it. I really had no idea when I put myself forward as an MHA that becoming a Commissioner for Oaths would be part and parcel with the job, so one day you are not and the next day you are. I am not sure that I gained any real experience or any sort of insights that would make me a Commissioner for Oaths; nonetheless, here I am and it goes along with the job.

Now, these changes that are happening here are, in many cases, just sort of a housekeeping bit of work. Certainly, the whole business of changing the definition from restricting it to a Canadian citizen to a permanent resident is one that certainly does make sense when you look at the evolution of not only the demographics of the Canadian population but also the Newfoundland population. So, bringing in a permanent resident certainly does make a lot of sense.

The second and third parts of the changes that are being made are essentially housekeeping ones that come up with a situation that allows the minister to be a bit more dynamic in changing any kind of regulations that are required rather than going through a long, drawn-out process. Section 14, that is going to be added, talks about the minister being able to set the fees that Commissioners for Oaths may charge.

Now, in parliamentary language, may charge is very different than shall charge - may charge provides there is an option. Most Commissioners for Oaths by virtue of the positions they hold are very much inclined to do it just as a public service. There is certainly no one who is going to get rich being a Commissioner for Oaths. I expect that there are a number of them around that, if you find someone who is requiring a charge for putting their name to something, you will just as easily find someone who would not charge for the same service. So, I suspect that it is not really going to be a big issue, but nonetheless, if you do have someone who is in a monopoly in a particular situation or a community, by doing this it prevents that person from charging to the hilt, gouging, if you will, to provide a service that is not readily available. So, the minister in his capacity can certainly set limits to that. In many ways, it gets back to the whole business of consumer protection. Even though it does not fall under the Minister of Government Services, it does put some limits around what someone can or cannot charge for a service.

Section 15 deals with what happens if someone puts themselves out as a Commissioner for Oaths when in fact they are not – either because they have not applied or maybe they have applied and their term has run out. Certainly the previous act, I believe, used to have a fee of –or, sorry, a fine of up to about $10 plus court costs. I am not sure that is really a huge deterrent. This one right here says a fine of not more than $500. So nonetheless, it does put some certainty into what can happen and what will happen should someone contravene these regulations.

As I stated earlier in my remarks, one of the big benefits of listening to this debate, particularly if one does listen, is the ability to learn different things that are going on and the process of how things work. For example, the legislation we are dealing with here today is entitled, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. It seems fairly straightforward but as it turns out the act that it is actually amending is called An Act Respecting Commissioners To Administer Oaths. That is how it is put on the books; however, it seems that most acts, particularly when the proper title is trying to be very descriptive of what the legislation is dealing with, it often includes a short title. For the act that I have just mentioned the short title is just called, The Commissioners for Oaths Act and that is what we are amending here today.

When we just go through a little bit of what is in the act - the Member for Bellevue covered quite a bit of it. Section 4 and 5 states that barristers are automatically Commissioners for Oaths, as are MHAs. Essentially, it is just to provide the situation where someone makes a statement of fact or what they consider to be fact and the only role of the commissioner is that I, as a commissioner, witnessed this person giving this statement or attesting to the statement. That is all you are required to do.

I certainly like that the Commissioner for Oaths is not responsible for the veracity of the statements that are made, only that the statements were, in fact, made. Then they sign off according to, shall we say, the standards that are set by the legislation in order for that to be fully and properly put through.

It also confers a certain amount of confidence in the Commissioner for Oaths system knowing that particularly if the consumer – and I say consumer even though they may not be purchasing the service. If the person who asked the Commissioner for Oaths to perform a duty, that certain things are in place - for example, the Commissioner for Oaths has to sign it, the Commissioner for Oaths has to put down his or her designation as a Commissioner for Oaths. Also, they should put down the date at which their term expires. As the Member for Bellevue mentioned, most of these terms are not only a five-year term, but certainly a five-year renewable term. So, someone does not come to an end of a time and say okay, well that is it, you have done your bit, we are going to pass it on to somebody else. Someone can for years and years and years hold that function in a community and, again, become a very trusted member of the community for those functions.

The Member for Burgeo & La Poile yesterday asked the question, which I believe may have been answered off microphone with regard to most people know that the mayors of cities and towns are and are able to be Commissioners for Oaths. The question was raised can the chairpersons for a regional council or a local service district fulfill that function and the answer, according to legislation, is yes, it is very clear that those kinds of abilities are conferred.

One thing though that I did notice was that section 7 also assigns that the designation of Commissioner for Oaths to regional directors, district managers, social workers and financial assistance officers who are employed by the department – and this is the relevant part – of social services, and are appointed in the appropriate manner.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know the department of social services does not exist under that same name. It has evolved through different areas and currently a lot of those functions reside in the Department of HRLE, or Human Resources, Labour and Employment. If you reviewed the list of the job descriptions that I just gave there may, in fact, not be those actual job descriptions still in place, but in many cases, Mr. Speaker, this only speaks to the fact that legislation, while it is passed and proclaimed, is not carved in stone in that it is very much a living document. The department of social services, as it is written right in the legislation, currently does not exist, yet the spirit of what is intended is certainly right there because you get a lot of people who may be in need of someone to have an oath sworn out to, an affidavit sworn out to, and those people who had previously been the department of social services now hold the same type of job description, hold the same sort of place in the community, the same sort of place in terms of how they deal with the individual clients and consequently they are also, even though they work with HRLE, they are still able to perform those functions.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to finish off. I know I have a bit more time but as I said earlier once you get to this stage there is not a whole lot to be said, just that anyone who is interested in being a Commissioner for Oaths may apply to the minister to receive the same designation; certainly, the minister and his staff will exercise due diligence in making sure that this person is an appropriate person for the job. A certain amount is charged to become a Commissioner for Oaths. Again, a lot of the discretion in making this legislation relevant, current, and topical does come into the minister's hands and, as such, he will take that as it comes.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish right there. Again, it is just very much a housekeeping type of thing with some very relevant - and I again emphasize relevant, and as the Chair would know, relevancy does seem to be one of his areas of expertise. We will finish off right there.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): If the hon. Minister of Justice speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to thank the hon. members for their comments in the debate on this bill, and thank them for the time and research that they did to get themselves familiar with this bill. As we said before, it is always a good thing to see that members are getting interested in things in the House that they might not have an opportunity to do prior to that.

A couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, with respect to issues that were in raised in debate: The hon. Opposition House Leader raised the issue of local service districts and the fact that a chairman of a local service district, he was not sure whether or not that person could be a Commissioner for Oaths. The act does in fact allow for that, Mr. Speaker. Mayors or the chairperson of a municipality can be a Commissioner for Oaths, or is automatically a Commissioner for Oaths, and he signs as a Commissioner for Oaths for the Province, being the mayor of the particular community.

For the purposes of this act, Mr. Speaker, municipality means the City of St. John's, City of Corner Brook, City of Mount Pearl, and a town, community, regional council or local service district committee established or continued under the Municipalities Act. So the chairperson of a local service district is automatically a Commissioner for Oaths.

The Leader of the NDP also raised a question, and she admitted that when she was out – she was out of the House for part of the presentation, raised the issue, which she obviously misunderstood: Why were we dropping citizens and only giving Commissioner for Oaths status to a permanent resident of Canada? That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. We are, of course, also including citizens but we are expanding it to include permanent residents of Canada.

These were two issues that came up in the debate that needed to be responded to. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members for their comments, and now I move that this bill move to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act. (Bill 7)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 7)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 8)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act". (Bill 8)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

Mr. Speaker, we will find I think that a lot of the debate and the comments made are very similar to the comments made with regard to Bill 4, the Commissioners for Oaths Act, but there are some very significant differences.

The Notaries Public Act, Mr. Speaker, again is a mechanism for appointing notaries public in the Province. The difference, Mr. Speaker, between the notary public and the Commissioner for Oaths, of course we will get to in a few minutes, but it deals basically with the fact that notaries public can witness documents to be used outside the Province, which the Commissioner for Oaths cannot. We will talk more about that in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, although the act does not specify it, the practice in recent times have been to appoint lawyers as notaries public because lawyers are members of a self-regulating body, the Law Society, and we assume of course they are a member of good standing, is a reputable character and we rely on the Law Society to ensure the continued good character of its members.

As a matter of fact, in section 5(2) of the act, the appointment of a notary public who is a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador is automatically revoked where the member is suspended or disbarred under the Law Society Act. So we rely on the Law Society for the continued good character of its members. This is a self-regulated organization.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a drafting problem in this bill that we will refer to before I sit down, that will have to be taken care of in Committee, but we will get to that later.

The amendments to the Notaries Public Act, Mr. Speaker, address a number of deficiencies. Again, this bill "…would permit persons who have the status of permanent residents of Canada to be appointed as notaries public. It would remove an obsolete provision respecting the setting of fees that a notary public may charge." It will again "make it an offence to purport to be a notary public when one is not."

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is responsible for the administration of the Notaries Public Act. As I mentioned, subject to the Law Society Act, 1999, a notary public in this Province has "the power to witness a document brought before him or her and demand and receive" fees. This includes witnessing documents for use outside the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as in the practice of law, quite often we have to witness and officiate with regard to documents that have to be brought outside the Province. If, for example – again, relating to the same sort of documents referred to in the last bill – real estate documents, mortgage documents, any document that has to be witnessed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to be used in another province in Canada can only be witnessed by a notary public. A Commissioner for Oaths cannot do it. A Commissioner for Oaths has no authority to witness documents that go outside the Province. So that is the big difference between notaries public and the Commissioner for Oaths.

The other thing, too, of course is that notaries public – with the Commissioner for Oaths, a lot of people, as the act explains, are automatically Commissioners for Oaths, and that is not the case with notaries public. For example, mayors, chairmen of a local service district, government employees designated and so on, MHAs, these are not notaries public. It is, I suppose, as a designation a little bit higher in terms of authority than the Commissioners for Oaths Act because of the fact that it is primarily now designated to lawyers and deals with documents for serving and for jurisdictions beyond the Province.

Mr. Speaker, section 2 of the Notaries Public Act again, authorizes the Minister of Justice to appoint a person who is a Canadian citizen and a resident in the Province to be a notary public for the Province. So accordingly, a person with permanent resident status in Canada is unable to apply, as is the case with the Commissioner for Oaths.

Now, a permanent resident - again, to repeat - is someone who is not a Canadian citizen but who has been granted permission to live and work in Canada without any time limit on his or her stay, but must live here for at least two years out of five or risk losing that permanent resident status. A permanent resident holds the same rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen, such as the right to work for any enterprise as well as the right to work for the federal or provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned in the previous bill, the difference between a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident: a permanent resident cannot vote in a federal, provincial or municipal election in Canada, cannot run for elected office, cannot hold a Canadian passport or cannot join Canada's Armed Forces. That is the difference between a permanent resident and a citizen. A permanent resident, as I mentioned as well prior to the other bill, may apply for Canadian citizenship after three years in Canada but it is not mandatory.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to the labour mobility provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade; that is the labour mobility agreement between the provinces. That has brought attention, Mr. Speaker, to the need for our provincial government to review its legislation so that the requirement of Canadian citizen or resident of the Province is fitting to all pieces of legislation. With respect to the Notaries Public Act, it has been determined by the Department of Justice that a citizenship requirement is not legally necessary to perform the function of a notary public in this Province. Accordingly, it is appropriate to expand the requirement to include a permanent resident of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there is potential for litigation if this section is not changed. There is a case where a permanent resident lawyer who was denied a notary public appointment because he was not a Canadian citizen indicated that he may pursue litigation in this matter. There is a B.C. case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that a citizenship requirement is not necessary to practice law. As a matter of fact it is unconstitutional to demand that a lawyer be a citizen of Canada to practice law. The court was very much influenced by this factor, all the more reason to make changes, to make this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, in Manitoba, ministers responsible for designating of notaries public may appoint a person as they deem fit. There is no requirement that the applicant be a Canadian citizen. They can appoint the people they deem fit. In British Columbia the legislation has expanded to include Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada. There are still three provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta that maintain the strict requirement that applicants must be Canadian citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment to the Notaries Public Act will be to expand the Notaries Public Act to include permanent residents of Canada. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, section 7 of the Notaries Public Act states that, "The rule committee…in the Judicature Act may fix, increase, reduce and otherwise alter or amend the scale of fees to be demanded and received by notaries public." In other words, the Notaries Public Act does not deal with fees, or the scale of fees that a notary public may apply.

Now, to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, this power was never invoked by the rule committee, and it is the position of the Department of Justice that since it is the Minister of Justice that appoints notaries public, then any decision regarding the fees or any authority to set fees demanded or received by the notaries public should be really in the purview of the Minister of Justice. So, Mr. Speaker, there, we are going to repeal section 7 of the act, the current act, which states, "The rule committee provided for in the Judicature Act may fix, increase, reduce and otherwise alter or amend the scale of fees to be demanded and received by notaries public."

So that is going to be repealed, we are going to take that out of the hands of the Judicature Act. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to insert a new provision in the amendment, because the minister has the authority under section 21 of the Executive Council Act to set the fees in any event. So this act will be silent with respect to the setting of fees.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the notaries public legislation again does not include any offence provision which makes it an offence to pass oneself off as a notary public. The Department of Justice, again, we have received a number of complaints about people who are passing themselves off, whether knowingly or not, as a notary public without proper designation, and the department has had problems in addressing this particular situation. So we want to make sure that the act does cover this deficiency, Mr. Speaker. Many Canadian jurisdictions, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have that provision in their legislation, and it prohibits a person from holding out or representing themselves to be a notary public.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the amount of the fine varies with each jurisdiction – $10 in Manitoba, $500 in Alberta and Saskatchewan, no more than $2000 in Ontario. The Department of Justice feels this Province should adopt a monetary fine which would have some deterrent value, and the proposed fine amount would be not more than $500, where determined to be appropriate, in this instance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is where the drafting problem comes in with the amendment. The current act, Mr. Speaker, if I may refer to it, in 5.(6) states that, "A person who refuses or fails to surrender his or her seal or to return his or her certificate or other evidence of appointment as required under subsection (4) or (5), or who, after the revocation of his or her appointment, uses or exercises the powers conferred upon a notary public by this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100."

Mr. Speaker, we are going to change that in Committee by leaving out that section, "…who, after the revocation of his or her appointment, uses or exercises the powers conferred upon a notary public by this Act…" In other words, we would leave in the part where there is the fine of $100 if he does not surrender his seal and that would make it consistent with the Commissioners for Oaths Act. We are repealing the section in there that also includes who purports himself to be a notary public when he is not. Instead then, in the new amendment we will have a section that deals with the penalty. We will deal with that in Committee, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment will have a section that says: A person whose appointment as a notary public has been revoked, or who, after the revocation uses or exercises the powers conferred on a notary public by this act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not more than $500. So, we will make it consistent that way. We will fix that in Committee, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I look forward to the comments by my colleagues in the House on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to this bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, as introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General and was spoken by the minister just previously.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks I think it may be a valuable exercise to define or discuss briefly exactly what a notary public is and clarify exactly what a notary public does in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Canada as well as definitions of a notary public do vary throughout some parts of Canada and in other countries.

Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, a notary public is known as a public officer, constituted by law and in Newfoundland and Labrador by the Notaries Public Act, and generally serves the public with matters such as estates, deeds, oaths, witnessing documents, affidavits, certifying true copies, et cetera. Under the current legislation, a notary public has the power to witness a document brought before him, demand and receive fees for witnessing such documents.

Mr. Speaker, the function of a notary public includes witnessing documents for use outside of the Province and outside of the country. This was referred to by the minister in his remarks. An example of this is when a family travels outside of Canada, sometimes it could be for vacation purposes, which I have seen in the past, and is accompanied by a minor child other than a minor child of the couple. In those circumstances, it is recommended and quite often required that the travelling people have a notarized written consent advising that these people have the care and control of this minor child with the consent of the parents. That type of a document would have to be notarized by a notary public. It cannot be done by a Commissioner for Oaths.

Mr. Speaker, the role of a notary public in Quebec and British Columbia, as I have learned, is somewhat different – exists the ability to exercise greater powers. They are able to dispense with legal advice, which is only permitted in Newfoundland and Labrador by a lawyer practicing under the rules of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. As well, they can draft public instruments, such as real estate, wills, contracts, easements and so on.

As the minister has addressed, this bill contains positive improvements and change for the public, and benefit to the public and also the legal profession in this Province. The bill will address deficiencies that exist in current legislation. The first one I want to speak to is under section 2(1) which currently allows for the Minister of Justice to appoint a person who is a Canadian citizen and a resident in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill expands that to include a person who has the status of a permanent resident in Canada.

A permanent resident is a person who is not a Canadian citizen but has been granted permission to live in Canada, to work in Canada without any time limits. It can be any person who has been granted that permission to live and work in Canada without time limits. The difference in a Canadian citizen and a permanent resident, Mr. Speaker, is a permanent resident cannot vote in an election. A permanent resident cannot run for elected office, and a permanent resident cannot hold a Canadian passport. Of course, as we now know, a permanent resident cannot be a notary public.

The change will be consistent with the requirements of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador whereas most all notaries public in this Province, with some possible exceptions, are members of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador and practicing lawyers in this Province. Under the rules of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, a lawyer does not have to be a Canadian citizen. Therefore, with this change will be consistent with the rules of the Law Society in that a person who is a practicing lawyer in Newfoundland and Labrador and not a Canadian citizen, will also be able to act as a notary public.

Also of interest, Mr. Speaker, is a person being a permanent resident cannot join the Canadian Armed Forces, however, similar to the rules of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act states, "A person shall not be appointed as a police officer" with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary "unless he or she, (a) is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada..." So even under that legislation, as a Province, we allow our police officers with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to be either a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. Again, this change is in line with other occupations, such as policing in other jurisdictions in Canada who have also removed the citizenship requirements for notaries public.

A second improvement in this bill, which I am going to speak to today, Mr. Speaker, proposed in this bill, refers to making it an offence to purport to be a notary public when one is not a notary public. The current legislation designates an offence where a person supplies false information to the Minister of Justice, in making an application to be appointed. Under the current legislation, a person who wishes to be a notary public must file an application with the Minister of Justice and must do so honestly, and it is an offence under the current legislation to supply false information through that process. Currently, a person convicted of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $200.

The current legislation also designates an offence under circumstances where a person uses or exercises the powers conferred upon a notary public by the act, after the authority or appointment has been revoked. Under the current legislation, the Minister of Justice has a legislative right under the act, under section 5, to revoke an appointment of a notary public, and a person who continues to act as a notary public after that allowance has been revoked by the minister, does commit an offence.

However, Mr. Speaker, the missing piece of current legislation is an offence or a circumstance where a person would present themselves as a notary public when they have never been designated or appointed by the Minister of Justice. Under those circumstances, under the current legislation, there is not an offence to cover such a circumstance.

This new bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, Bill 8, will include an offence for a circumstance where a person purports or presents himself, acts as a notary public when they have never been designated by the Minister of Justice as a notary public. Under these types of circumstances, the maximum fines, as outlined in Bill 8, will now be set at $500.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, these are very small changes in many regards, however it can be very important to a person who is not a Canadian citizen, who is practicing law in Newfoundland and Labrador as a permanent resident, but under current legislation is not able to act as a notary public. As well, it adjusts the fines, as discussed by the minister, and as well includes an offence when a person acts or purports to be a notary public and is not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I have just a few comments on Bill 8. I do not intend to belabour the point. It is very similar, the nature of this change, as we dealt with in Bill 7 concerning Commissioners for Oaths. Of course, my comments I always strive to keep relevant. I would not want to stray from that practice on my regard. I try to keep my comments purely relevant. There has only been a couple of times the Chair has even had to remind me of that, but sometimes we get carried away when matters of state and matters of importance are upon us, particularly if it in any way or shape is impacted by the piece of legislation that one happens to be talking about. It is relevant of course then because the public – I guess it is always relevant if the public wants to know about something. I guess it just depends on the forum you are in or the topic you have as to who determines what is or is not relevant. Of course, in this Chamber here, it is always you, the Chair, Mr. Speaker, who decides what relevance is.

Historically, of course, when it comes to relevance we have been given a lot of leeway; leeway because a House of Assembly is a place where one would not want to restrict free expression and debate. That is the whole purpose of being here, so that – unlike some countries in the world where we do not have democratic principles, the House of Assembly is the ultimate forum of democracy represented in our world. It is a place where if one has thoughts you can come and freely, without being prohibited by anyone, comment on anything you would like to say.

We have had some challenges to that. It is quite common, for example, for a government sometimes to – or government members, in my experience. If an Opposition member is commenting on an issue, that government members who might want to shut you down or do not want you to talk about a certain issue, they will always rely upon the old rule of relevance. They will ask the Chair, they will say: Mr. Chair, make sure he stays relevant, make sure he stays relevant. Well, all they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is obviously keep the person from talking about what they want to talk about.

In any case, regardless of how the Chair rules - and, of course, when the Chair rules that someone is not speaking relevantly to the legislation at hand, that person is expected, in this Chamber, to live by and abide by that ruling, never to challenge the Chair, because the Chair's authority is final. Even when that happens, that is not to say that it can never be talked about. All that means is that you have to find the right opportunity to talk about it. For example, when I talked about the Abitibi court case here and Your Honour felt that might be somewhere out of place, I stopped talking about it.

Now, I will find an opportunity to do that again, because when we come back to the Budget debate, of course, that is where there is much more leeway of relevance. So I will reserve my comments on that particular case until we get to the appropriate forum, which brings me back again, talking about appropriateness, I come back to the Notaries Public Act, Bill 8, that we are dealing with here.

Mr. Speaker, there are some differences between what we talked about Tuesday in this Chamber and what we are talking about today; and we also talked today about Commissioners for Oaths as well. There are some comparisons that are important here.

I gave some explanations Tuesday as to what I thought a Commissioner for Oaths could do, and what he or she ought to do, and what some of the responsibilities were on a Commissioner for Oaths. Some members came to me after, in fact, and said: I appreciate that. I did not realize - some did not realize that they were, by virtue of being an MHA, a commissioner. Of course, they found that informative. They also know now that they can get a stamp that you can pay for out of your Constituency Allowance, so that has been confirmed, and they have a better idea and understanding as to what you can and cannot do as a Commissioner for Oaths.

For example, whether it is a commissioner we are talking about, or a notary public, in both instances you must prove the identity of the person who is giving you the oath. Now there are all kinds of ways to prove the identity, of course. You can ask them for a passport. You can ask them for a utility bill. It does not have to a birth certificate sort of thing - a lot of people do not carry their birth certificates around in their pocket – but anything that is generally accepted as a form of identification, like a driver's licence. It could be your light bill, your phone bill, and that is pretty reasonable to ask somebody. Most people do not have to go too far to get a form of identification, but a lot of people do not think about it. There is a requirement, whether you are a commissioner or whether you are a notary, to take those basic steps.

I explained the other day, too, that when we talk about notaries public you usually see upon the shingle that the lawyers put out: Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public.

If you become a lawyer in this Province, and I think it is the case in most other provinces - and I will come back to Quebec because that is a particular type of issue here when we talk about notaries; I will come back to that - in most provinces, when you become a lawyer and you are called to the Bar as a solicitor and a barrister, automatically, the same day, you are given your notary public.

The biggest difference, of course, between a commissioner and a notary public is that as a commissioner you can only witness documents that are used in the Province, or are going to be registered in the Province; you are restricted in the scope of it. Whereas if someone comes to you, for example, and wants a document witnessed that is going to be used in Nova Scotia, or is going to be used in Ontario or in the United States, or outside of North America even, then the document has and must be witnessed by a notary public. It is no good for you to witness something as an MHA, in your capacity as a commissioner, if the person you are doing it for wants to take it for some use down in the United States, for example.

For example, you might have friends who bought a condo down south. They come to you and say, look, we have some documents here we need signed; we have to get them back to the real estate agent down in Florida. You say - trying to be helpful - sure, come here, I can witness it; I am a commissioner. You put your stamp on it, off it goes to Florida, and it is no good. That is a fact; it is no good because, as a commissioner, it does not have extra provincial applicability for when it comes to registration purposes. In that case, another piece of information you might want to file away in your head is: I can't do that. – but you can tell them and be helpful and say, go find yourself a notary because a notary can do that.

That is the big distinction here. A notary can sign documents that are usable outside of the Province. Now, the means of identification are the same, whether you are a notary or a commissioner. You can ask them for a passport, you can ask them for a driver's licence, a utility bill, something of that nature; that will be acceptable.

The other thing that is a big difference between a commissioner and a notary is that a notary has more of an onus to test the veracity of what is being said in the affidavit. You can't give legal advice - if you are just a notary you are not giving legal advice - but you have an obligation to go a little bit further than just asking the person to sign, to identify themselves, and to say: Is that true? There is a little bit more of an onus on you as a notary public. You should make sure that the thing is proper, is readable; make sure that you actually see the person sign it; make sure that you get their identification. You should even probe and ask a few questions. Do you know what you are signing here? Good question.

For example, if you are witnessing as a commissioner on a document, there is no requirement that you ask the person: Do you know what you are signing here, or what this is all about? There is no obligation whatsoever.

If you are signing as a notary, there is an expectation that you would ask the person: Do you know what this is that you are signing here? Obviously, if it is a legal document that they are signing, and they say: Well, boy, I don't know what this was; I thought I was signing on to get my telephone hooked up. – well, obviously there is a problem. There is more of an onus there to make sure that the person who is signing knows what they are doing.

The other distinction is that if you are ever in Quebec and you look at a phone book, or you look at the shingles of a lawyer in Quebec, they do not call themselves lawyers, they do not call themselves barristers, or they do not call themselves solicitors in Quebec; they call themselves avocats or notaries. In Quebec, a notary in Quebec does have the right to give legal advice. A notary public in our jurisdiction cannot give legal advice. For example, lawyers usually have notary public tacked onto them - barrister, solicitor, notary public - but you can also be a notary public, as the act says, without a law degree. You do not have to have a law degree to be a notary public. You can get that by making an application to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice looks at your application, and if he feels that it is appropriate he can automatically go and do that.

I am wondering if the minister, maybe when he is closing out second reading on this bill - and I forgot, actually, to ask it in relation to Bill 7, commissioners - I am just wondering: Was there a circumstance that prompted this amendment? Because, in the amendment here, the basic piece we are talking about right here is that it would permit persons who had the status of permanent residents of Canada to be appointed as notaries public. That was the same case. The persons who have the status of permanent residents of Canada could be appointed as commissioners, when we dealt with Bill 7.

I am just wondering – and maybe I missed it, because I am in and out of the Chamber from time to time doing other business, of course, and I may have missed it in the minister's speech, but I am just wondering, and I think the people in the Province would be interested in this - what brought these amendments to the floor of the House. Why would we, all of a sudden – did somebody have an incident where a person who had permanent resident status could not become a commissioner or a notary? Was somebody denied the right to do that? Who pointed it out, for example, and said we should expand this to include permanent residents?

Do not take that, by the way, to mean that I am not in favour of it. That is not the case at all. I am just wondering. Usually these things come about because there has been some incident or occurrence whereby someone comes to the minister and says: How come I cannot do this? I have landed resident status – or permanent resident status, excuse me. Why can't I be a notary public?

I am just wondering if the minister can relate how the background fits in here. Was it, for example, the Human Rights Commission? Lots of times things happen over in human rights and people file a complaint and they say: You know, that is contrary to human rights. I am a permanent resident of Canada; why can't I be a commissioner?

So, just to give some background and detail here in case I missed it, if there was some particular circumstance that brought this amendment about, I certainly would appreciate knowing what the background was. I think it helps educate us all if we understand – it is fine to say we are going to expand it, and it is a great thing to expand it, but this just did not pop off the legislative draftsman's desk upstairs, Mr. Lake. This came from somewhere, and I would just like to know the background as to who felt it was necessary to have this debate in the House of Assembly to include permanent residents into these two bills, because there is always a reason. There is always a reason.

The solicitors in our Justice Department are too busy to have sat down and thought about this in the course of their daily work. So I would suggest it must have come from somewhere outside, and I think it would be nice to know where it came from. We know now what it is going to do. We all agree, I would think – and I am certainly going to support the bill – that it is the right thing to do, but it is helpful to know why we are here doing it.

A lot of times we come in here, we make comments about a piece of legislation and some people out in the public are saying: What are they talking about that for? Why do they need to be occupying the time in the House of Assembly of this Province when we have so many important things going on? We have issues with paper mills and court cases and environmental disasters out in Central. Yet, they only take thirty minutes in a day to allow that crowd to ask questions, but yet they can take three hours and talk about one little bill, one little section of one little bill about a notary public. People are out there - I got asked that question a dozen times. Where is the balance to, they have said? How come, Parsons, you can only ask questions for thirty minutes, from 1:30 to 2:00 on a normal business day, but yet you fellows will get up from 2:30 and talk until 5:30 about something that we know nothing about, and we are wondering where is the balance to?

It is nice, of course, to explain to the people what we are doing here with it. Of course, we all understand. We who live here, we who work here, of course, understand that it is a necessary process that you have to go through, and some bills, of course, warrant more debate than others. Some warrant more debate than others. I mean, we have a bill coming up later on about the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. That is going to be, to put it in my lingo - that is going to be a humdinger. That is going to be a humdinger, that one, because we have had so much talk about that piece of legislation that is going to come forward, that I cannot wait for it, Bill 20, and I am not even the critic for that bill. I am not even the critic for that bill and I just cannot wait for it, because we have been told now for two years about this new department. The minister traipsed around this Province, went from community to community talking about this bill. So I am anxiously waiting for that bill to hit the floor of this House so that we can debate it. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province will certainly understand, by the time we are finished the debate, what that new department is all about. We are all anxiously waiting what is going to happen on that particular piece of legislation.

Now with that, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to use my full time today. There are lots of times that I do not use my full time, because when I feel, of course, that I said all that deserves to be said, I do not believe in wasting time. So given that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my leave and allow one of the other hon. members to give me their enunciations and explanations –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: – of this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have spent some time earlier today, and as well yesterday – or Tuesday - debating the Commissioners for Oaths bill. Today we are debating, again, the Commissioners for Oaths bill, we are also debating a notary public bill. For some in the general public, the legal community – and a number of people obviously know the difference. For some in the general public, not everybody understands the difference between a Commissioner for Oaths and a notary public. Quite simply, a Commissioner for Oaths can sign or witness any documents that are to be used or intended for use within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. By virtue of many of our positions, each one of us here in the House of Assembly are a Commissioner for Oaths. Mayors are Commissioners for Oaths. Some clergy, as well, are Commissioners for Oaths. So by virtue of our positions, some individuals are Commissioners for Oaths. We are able to witness documents that are intended for use within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A notary public, on the other hand, can not only witness documents that are intended for use within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also witness documents that are intended for use outside the Province. A notary public does not automatically get the designation of notary public by virtue of one's position. That is a designation that an individual would have to apply to the Department of Justice and receive the designation from the Department of Justice in order to become a notary public. So those are the differences in the bill that we debated on Tuesday, and again earlier today, and the bill that we are debating at present.

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason, I guess, that we now have this bill before the House – there are a number of reasons, but part of the reason is labour mobility within the federation of Canada. A number of provinces now are moving toward trying to tighten up their legislation and ensure that our legislation is more in sync with the legislation in Nova Scotia, theirs is more in sync with ours, and likewise ours with Ontario or Manitoba, as a result of labour mobility. We do have individuals who moved to this Province to work, or individuals who move from this Province to another to work. While they still consider themselves to be a resident of this Province, for some period of time may work in another Province or may take up permanent residency in another Province. As a result of labour mobility, legislation does have to be tightened up to ensure that legislation is in sync across the country. In essence, part of what we are doing with this particular bill today is trying to tighten up the legislation to ensure that we are more in sync with the legislation in other Provinces.

Notaries public do perform an important service. The fact that they are able to sign documents or witness documents intended for use outside the Province, it is important that our legislation is modernized as well. Parts of this legislation are quite old and we do have to bring the legislation – make it more modern. The bill will also update administrative procedures within the legislation associated with the designation of a notary public and allow the process to become more efficient. So that is part of what we are doing with this particular piece of legislation as well.

The other aspect that really takes on a greater role of importance, as far as I am concerned, is the instance – and we have had situations that the Department of Justice have become aware of, law enforcement have become aware of as well, and that is an individual misrepresenting themselves to be a notary public when in fact they are not. What happens with a document when it is witnessed for use outside the Province? Oftentimes, the recipient of that document will in fact contact the Department of Justice here in this Province to verify the witness or the notary public who had witnessed that document. There have been instances where individuals have passed themselves off to be a notary public, when in fact they are not. The document is then sent outside the Province to the recipient. That recipient will make contact with our Department of Justice, ensure the validity of the witness, but not always is the case that the person passing themselves off to be a notary public have received the designation from the Department of Justice to carry out the role of a notary public.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to amend the legislation to ensure that the general public is protected from instances where individuals pass themselves off to be a notary public. I notice within the legislation, we now have the ability to fine those individuals up to $500 a day. There are offence provisions which would make it an offence for an individual to pass themselves off as a notary public. Prior to this bill, once this bill is adopted, the Department of Justice, and law enforcement as well, will actually have the legislative authority to address this type of situation. Prior to this bill being debated in the House, prior to the bill being adopted, which presumably it will be, the Department of Justice, nor the law enforcement in the Province, had the offence provisions or the legislative authority to take action against individuals who passed themselves off to be notaries public.

Other Provinces have taken on provisions within their notary public legislation to prohibit persons from holding out or representing themselves to be a notary public. The monetary fine of not more than $500, while some may say that it is not significant, it is a deterrent, I believe, enough of a deterrent to prohibit some individuals from posing themselves to be a notary public. It should be an appropriate amount, I believe, to dissuade these individuals from carrying out that role when in fact they have not received the designation to do so.

The general public and the legal profession will benefit as a result of this legislation once it is passed. Permanent residents of Canada will now have the ability – and that is the other aspect of this legislation, lawyers in this Province do not have to be a Canadian citizen. They can be a permanent resident of the country of Canada, a permanent resident of the Province, and they can be a member of the Bar, they can be a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. If you are not a Canadian citizen, prior to this legislation, you could not apply for the designation of a notary public. So there was a discrepancy in that legislation. There was a gap. This legislation is intended to fix that gap as well, and allow permanent residents of Canada who are not citizens of Canada, to apply for the designation of a notary public, and receive that designation. As well, this legislation will allow the Minister of Justice to set appropriate fees, whereas prior to this particular bill, those fees were set by another body.

So it does tighten the legislation. It brings the legislation more in line with the legislation within other Provinces of Canada, and it provides protections, not only for the general public, but for the legal community as well. Therefore, I will be supporting this piece of legislation. I think it is good legislation, and I think it is certainly needed legislation to provide those protections to the general public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to be able to take a moment to speak to Bill 8. Basically, I just have a couple of questions and points that I want to raise, as has been pointed out by other speakers, and there have been a number, so I – thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many people have explained what the bill is about, and what a notary public is, et cetera, so I will not go in to that, but as has been noted, this bill is quite similar to Bill 7, in that in Bill 7 we were dealing with Commissioners for Oaths, and here we are dealing with notaries public. The previous speaker has explained the difference between the two, but there a couple of questions that I have that I would like the minister to explain when he next speaks.

First of all, I want to make a clarification for the minister. When he spoke at his final points in the debate on Bill 7, he made reference to a question that I had asked, and I think he misunderstood my question. No, I did not think that the permanent residents who would now become Commissioners for Oaths, or in this case, permanent residents who become notaries public are the only ones who are going to be. They are not replacing citizens; that was not my question. I think the minister misunderstood me. What my question is why are we now including into the group of citizens, why are we including permanent residents? I ask that question both for Commissioners for Oaths and now for notaries public. I am not totally opposed, it is not that I am opposed, I am just curious as to why this step is being taken.

I did note when I was looking at the Commissioners for Oaths that there is no consistency across the country with regard to that. There are no general rules. I think the same is true for notaries public. I just wanted a clarification from the minister as to why we are proposing to include. The reason I want clarification, and I will state it again, is that I just have a concern, and I would like the minister to speak to this concern, that we may not have as much information about somebody who is a permanent resident and not a citizen as we might have about somebody who goes through the process of becoming a citizen, because you can be a permanent resident for many, many years, but for fewer years as well. So, I guess I am just interested in the safeguards with regard to ensuring the background of the person who is going to be, in this case, a notary public, but then in the last bill, a Commissioner for Oaths. So, that is what I am asking of the minister, just clarification as to why this is being sought, and how he views the issue around the safeguarding of making sure that the people who are being given this responsibility are absolutely trustworthy.

The thing that I do want to ask and I seem to have a different interpretation of the last speaker, one of the things that are happening is section 2 of the bill says that section 7 of the act is repealed. Section 7 of the act says, "The rule committee provided for in the Judicature Act may fix, increase, reduce and otherwise alter or amend the scale of fees to be demanded and received by notaries public." So my question to the minister is: If section 7 is being repealed, what is replacing it? Is it automatic that the minister is going to set the fees, as is the case with the Commissioner for Oaths, or is nothing happening with regard to who sets the fees, because section 7 is repealed, but I cannot see anything in the act that is replacing section 7, whereas, in Bill 7, it names the minister.

So I would like clarification on that point. It seems to me that we have to have somebody setting the fees and making sure that individual notaries public are not just able to charge whatever they want. So I need clarification on that from the minister, and I think that is sufficient, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to prolong the discussion, and I know the minister has been listening to what I have said, so I look forward to hearing those answers.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Justice. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to thank hon. colleagues on both sides of the House for their comments with respect to this bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act, and for the time taken to take part in the debate.

A few points to respond to, raised by the other side; the hon. Opposition House Leader raised a question and the NDP Leader also raised some questions, all of which were explained in my opening remarks, but, Mr. Speaker, it probably behooves me to repeat them because, obviously, my remarks did not register for some reason.

With respect to the question raised by the hon. Opposition House Leader: What gave rise to these amendments? He made reference back to the fact that our drafter up there has lots of things to do, and the Department of Justice has lots of things to do instead of drafting acts for the sake of drafting them. There are a number of reasons why we amended the Notaries Public Act, for the same reasons we amended the Commissioners for Oaths Act.

There was one particular incident, Mr. Speaker, that I will refer to that I mentioned earlier. There is the potential for litigation on the part of an individual who is a permanent resident who is a lawyer at present, but he is not a Canadian citizen. He has been refused a notary public appointment. He raised the issue that he might pursue such an option. I also mentioned earlier the Supreme Court of Canada in a case in B.C. ruled out citizenship requirements as a necessary requirement to practice law. He said requiring a person to be a citizen in order to practice law is unconstitutional. So, the Supreme Court of Canada supports it on this.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I also repeat the fact that the agreement on internal trade, which is a labour mobility agreement between the provinces, necessitates the need now to make our legislation uniform with regard to the requirements of being a Canadian citizen. A lot of our legislation, the practice has been in this government now and these acts were mentioned earlier - I am trying to recall - the Law Society Act is one, the Royal Canadian Constabulary act is another, Engineers and Geoscientists Act is another. These are acts that all drop the requirement for citizenship to perform certain functions.

All across Canada now, most jurisdictions, it has been determined that a citizenship requirement is not legally necessary, and consequently, it is appropriate to expand the requirement to include permanent residents of Canada. Hopefully, that will answer some of these questions.

The NDP Leader also asked: Why extend it? That is why we are extending it, for that reason. They also raised a question: How can we ensure that notaries public are trustworthy people? While the Opposition House Leader is correct in saying that anybody can apply for a notary public, the practice of late has been to ensure that only lawyers receive notary public designations because lawyers are regulated by the Law Society and we presume that the Law Society, in regulating their society, would ensure that the person is of reputable character and if he is not, he is dropped from the Law Society. If he is revoked by the Law Society then the notary public designation is also revoked.

The NDP Leader also asked why we were appealing section 7 of the current act which sets out the fact that the rules of the Judicature Act sets fees and the same thing occurs with the Commissioners for Oaths Act. On the Commissioners for Oaths Act, what we have done, as I mentioned earlier, is to put a provision in the amendment that allows the Minister of Justice to set fees, rather than the rules of the Judicature Act doing it. We reasoned that the person who appoints the commissioner is also the person who should make the fees. The same thing applies to the Notaries Public Act. We want the Judicature Act taken out of it, but we have not replaced it with anything because section 21 of the Executive Council Act already gives the minister the authority to establish those fees.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, these will answer the points raised by the other side.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act. (Bill 8)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 8)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 7, second reading of Bill 11.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11 entitled, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act". (Bill 11)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring this bill to the House, a very important bill, a bill that will see significant change in procedure and give access to justice in our court system, the Small Claims Act.

The Small Claims Act, Mr. Speaker, is a creature of statute in that it is governed under the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Act and it only has the powers in jurisdiction that is given to it by that act. It does not have the jurisdiction, the inherent jurisdiction that a court has. It is a division of the Provincial Court and it, at one time, had a limit of $3,000 of a monetary jurisdiction, it is now up to $5,000. The advantage, Mr. Speaker, of the Small Claims Court, there are little costs to the parties involved. A person usually represents oneself and court people down there are usually pretty accommodating in leading the people through the process of going to the Small Claims Court.

If I could just give some statistics, the Provincial Court officials advise that in 2007-2008 there were a total of 31,326 small claims cases initiated in the Provincial Court in 2007-2008. That was almost 5 per cent of the business of the Provincial Court. Now, there has been a gradual decline in the total number of civil cases filed with the Provincial Court, but the Supreme Court Trial Division also provided statistics of civil claims filed in that court with a value of less than $5,000, and those between $5,000 and $25,000. Again, in 2007-2008 there were 367 claims in the Supreme Court Trial Division that were valued less than $5,000, and 927 claims between the $5,000 and $25,000 categories. So, it is quite a lot of activity in the Small Claims Court; hence, this is very important piece of legislation.

The Small Claims Court has a very limited jurisdiction. The amount of monetary claims it can pursue is set by regulation and, as I said, at one time it was $3,000, now up to $5,000. The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, would be to increase that amount to $25,000. It does not have jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, to recover personal property. It does not have jurisdiction to do anything with land titles or estates or malicious prosecution or false imprisonment or defamation or criminal conversations or breach of promise of marriage and these sorts of things. It does not have the jurisdiction to do that. The act is silent on it. So if the act is silent on it, it makes the presumption, of course, that the court does not have the jurisdiction.

Now, the proposed amendment would expand section 3 of the Small Claims Act to allow for the adjudication of claims for the recovery of personal property and for a specific performance of agreements relating to personal property or services. Quite often, Mr. Speaker, in a Small Claims Court you will find matters dealing with items of claims less than $5,000. It can do car repairs. For example, if somebody does damage to a car and they cannot claim it under the insurance, looking for repairs to their car. If there are home renovations that people have a problem with, they might look for the cost to finish home renovations. If somebody is owed money, less than $5,000, then a claim such as that could be dealt with in a Small Claims Court.

Municipal taxes, Mr. Speaker, municipalities can bring claim for taxes owed by individuals, by residents in the Small Claims Court, provided of course that the amount of taxes owed is less than $5,000. Mr. Speaker, the court does not have any jurisdiction to do anything beyond that. That is really the thrust and the focus of this amendment.

The amendment, as I mentioned, would allow for, in addition to monetary claims, to allow for adjudication of claims for the recovery of personal property, which it does not have now, and for specific performance of agreements. In other words, demand a person carry out a contract relating to personal property or services. Small Claims Court, as I mentioned, is part of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and it has a claim, a monetary jurisdiction of $5,000, which is probably the lowest claims unit in all of Canada.

Pursuant to section 3.(1) of the Small Claims Act, a judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for financial debt, or for damages; including damages for breach of contract. He may also adjudicate actions for unpaid municipal taxes, as I mentioned, as long as they are less than $5,000. I mentioned car accidents, for example, or failure to pay for something. If you sold something to somebody and they failed to pay you for it or performed a service that you did not get paid for, as long as it is less than $5,000, you can bring that claim to the Small Claims Court. If it is over $5,000, right now you have to go to Supreme Court Trial Division. Failure to repay loans for example, or failure to perform services adequately, such as car repairs, carpentry, plumbing, these sorts of contracts.

One of the first things I ever did, Mr. Speaker, when I came to the practice of law was to pursue a claim in the Small Claims Court for an elderly lady who had a contractor engaged to do some home repairs. Mostly it had to do with roof repairs, with leaks. She was not satisfied with the job that was done, the roof continued to leak, and it caused a lot of damage inside her house. She made a claim for, at that time it was less than $3,000. That was one of my few experiences in Small Claims Court because usually lawyers do not represent clients in Small Claims Courts because the amount that a person can receive back in terms of compensation from the other side was less than $3,000 then, now it is $5,000. The cost of legal services and the time spent, you probably are not going to get very much out of it, if anything, by the time you have to go to law services to do that.

Many of the cases involve oral contracts. One of the problems the courts have is trying to determine the actual terms of an oral contract. As I mentioned, a court has no jurisdiction over land titles, municipal prosecutions and so on.

Mr. Speaker, the Small Claims Act does not include the jurisdiction to grant non-monetary remedies such as specific relief in the form of transfer of liberty or return of property. As I mentioned, Small Claims Court is a creature of statute. So it only has the powers given to it by the statute. It does not have the jurisdiction of a superior court.

In the absence then of that jurisdiction in the act, it has been concluded that that power does not exist. In the case, Mr. Speaker, of Poplar Shoes, an appeal court decision of this Province, 1998 decision. In that case, the plaintiff brought a small claims action against the defendant for the price of forty-two pairs of shoes that he removed from her store, with her consent, and said there was a deal for the sale of the shoes at a discounted price. The judge of the Small Claims Court concluded that there was no contract for the sale of the shoes and ordered the shoes returned.

Mr. Speaker, that was overturned in the Court of Appeal because the Small Claims Court did not have that jurisdiction to order the shoes returned. It can only give a monetary value of the shoes. That remedy then, Mr. Speaker, is unavailable in the Small Claims Court. This is one that frequently arises in small claims litigation. Quite often, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to put a value on the item that is in dispute. It might be possible in that particular case where you have forty-two pairs of shoes because they would have been priced in the store. Quite often, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to, or very difficult to ascertain the value of a disputed item. Frequently, the item itself has more value to the claimant than what the value would represent, but the judge does not have any jurisdiction to return the item or order the item returned. All he can do is put a value on the item, and that is the only jurisdiction he has.

A family heirloom, for example - a locket, a vase, a bit of jewellery - it might not have any real apparent value, it might be difficult to get a book value for it, but it might hold a great deal of value to the individual for personal, sentimental reasons. All a claimant might be looking for, Mr. Speaker, is the return of that item. Unfortunately, the court does not have the jurisdiction to do that. The court has to put a value on it and give the claimant the value of the item.

The same way with the completion of renovations to one's home, if the contract - as in the case of what I just mentioned a few minutes ago of a lady that I represented, the court could not order the contractor to go back and fix the roof. It could only order a claimant damages and put a monetary value on it, because the court does not have the jurisdiction to demand specific performance of a contract for services or for goods. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will permit the court to make that judgement.

Mr. Speaker, jurisdictional review of other Canadian jurisdictions. A number of Small Claims Courts across the country have been vested with this limited ability to grant non-monetary remedies in small claims for the purpose of recovering personal property and the specific performance of contracts, as long as the value of the property or the value of the specific performance does not exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the court. For example, if we kept the ceiling at $5,000, you cannot order the giving back or the returning of an item if it was over $5,000. Some courts across Canadian jurisdictions do have some limited ability to grant non-monetary remedies. British Columbia has it, for example, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Yukon. So we are lagging behind, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to that particular jurisdiction.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, one of the first calls I had when I was appointed Minister of Justice was from some lawyer friends downtown who said: Look, the first thing you have to do is amend the Small Claims Act, increase the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Act. It is now $5,000. That is not in the act, Mr. Speaker, or will not be in the amendment, it will be done by regulation. Following discussions between the Department of Justice and Provincial Court officials - we have had a lot of consultation on this - our government supports increasing the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court from $5,000 to $25,000.

This increase will provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a more simplified and less costly process, because right now if it goes over $5,000 you have to go to the Supreme Court Trial Division. To go to the Supreme Court Trial Division, Mr. Speaker, that is quite a different experience than going to the Small Claims Court. It is a complicated process; you usually need a lawyer – expensive. So for that reason we want to keep as much of that as we can out of the Supreme Court and raise the value, the ceiling in the Small Claims Court to $25,000. That will give improved access, Mr. Speaker, to court services that are not there right now.

In most jurisdictions, the monetary limit is already much higher than ours. We are at $5,000, New Brunswick is $6,000, Quebec is $7,000, Prince Edward Island is $8,000, Northwest Territories, Ontario and Manitoba is $10,000, but Ontario has announced its intention to raise its limit to $25,000 in 2010. Saskatchewan currently limits small claims cases to $20,000, but that is again part of a staged increase that will bring the limit eventually to $25,000. These changes will make the limits in most provinces across the country set at $25,000.

Mr. Speaker, that gets it out of the Supreme Court process. The Supreme Court process is expensive and it can be intimidating for the average person. By increasing the monetary limit of the Small Claims Court more individuals now will be able to use this process of the Provincial Court. It is less adversarial, more user-friendly. Often mediation is used, or if there is a settlement conference it is usually at the beginning, and I believe that this approach will provide much greater access to the court process for individuals, especially those who previously thought that they could not take on such a process.

One of the biggest problems identified by our court system today – as a matter of fact, the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Green, in a speech not long ago identified a major problem in our courts, that most people cannot afford access to the courts. For a claim over $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000, $10,000, to go to the Supreme Court Trial Division for that matter, Mr. Speaker, often most people will not go that route.

So, Mr. Speaker, I believe these changes are positive for both the general public and for the legal profession. As I mentioned, this Province currently has the lowest small claims limit in Canada. This will increase the access and improve access to court services, something our government firmly believes in, and I know our courts believe in. It is firmly held by our courts, both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court, that access to court services need to be improved and that is something we share.

The expansion of the courts jurisdiction, as proposed by this amendment, will facilitate the increase in the monetary jurisdiction and also ensure the other remedies that we mentioned, return or transfer of personal property, enforce specific performance and give the Small Claims Court more jurisdiction that would make it more user friendlier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss those amendments and I ask for the support of all the hon. members of the House in supporting this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that, Mr. Speaker, considering it is almost 5:20 this afternoon and the next speaker would have sixty minutes to speak to this particular piece of legislation, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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