June 1, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 30


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome thirty-six individuals from the Mary's Moving for Health Group from Norman's Cove-Long Cove and areas located in the District of Bellevue.

The individuals are accompanied by their president, Mary Smith; by their founder, Daphne Smith; and by Allison Temple, councillor for Norman's Cove-Long Cove; also their bus driver, Dot Penney.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a very special group from my district - the District of Bellevue.

The Mary's Moving for Health Group was formed about eight years ago in partnership with Eastern Health. Former Public Health Nurse, Ms Daphne Smith, along with a well-known community leader, Ms Mary Smith, were the organizers and founders of this group of seniors from the Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove and area.

These ladies get together every Tuesday and Thursday to engage in an exercise routine specially designed for their age group in the basement of the United Church. They walk for a set time, they use resistance bands, steppers and they even lift weights, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, the group has a registered membership of fifty people, each having their doctor's approval prior to joining the group. The oldest member is eighty-five years of age and the youngest is thirty-six years of age.

The Mary's Moving for Health Group is actively promoting the Province's Active and Healthy Living initiative in the Norman's Cove-Long Cove area.

I would like to ask this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mary's Moving for Health Group in their great efforts in promoting healthy living within our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize Great Big Sea on their induction into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame. On May 27, Great Big Sea, comprised of front man, Alan Doyle, along Bob Hallett and Sean McCann, were recognized at the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame gala at the St. John's Convention Centre.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame was established by Junior Achievement of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1990 to honour the individuals who have significantly contributed to the growth and development of enterprise in Newfoundland and Labrador.

By honouring the accomplishments of the men and women inducted each year into the Business Hall of Fame, the best in business are presented to our youth as worthy role models.

Mr. Speaker, this induction recognizes an important contribution often overlooked when we think of musicians and artists in the Province; their contribution to the business community.

Mr. Speaker, when we think of musicians, like Great Big Sea, we do not often consider that besides contributing to our musical and cultural landscape, they are in fact also running a business and must view their occupation in that way if they wish to be successful. Great Big Sea's success certainly illustrates the value of this business-oriented mindset. Their induction into the Business Hall of Fame sends a message to our Province's young people that one can be successful in the music business with the right amount of hard work, dedication and business planning. Not to mention the talent that these musicians and others have.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Great Big Sea for their induction into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame and proving that artists enrich more than our Province's cultural community; they also contribute significantly to our business community and economy as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and proud to stand in this hon. House today and pay a special tribute to Elwood Regional High School's No Stage Theatre drama troupe. I had the awesome pleasure of viewing their performance recently at the sixtieth anniversary celebrations of the Town of Deer Lake.

Mr. Speaker, Elwood participated in the regional drama festival in March and took the award for best performance and earned the right to represent the Central Region at the provincials in Corner Brook on May 6 to May 8. At this provincial event, the drama troupe won four awards including two outstanding acting awards that went to Mark Murdoch and Devon Janes. The troupe also received an outstanding ensemble acting award and an outstanding lighting award.

The school's drama instructor, Jordan Stringer, and the cast which included: Tim Reid, Devon Janes, Robyn Langdon, Hillary Morris, Colten Normore, Robert Wells, and Mark Murdoch are to be congratulated on such outstanding successes.

Mr. Speaker, Elwood performed Line by American playwright Israel Horovitz. Line is a drama about five characters waiting in line, each for something completely different. As stated in their brochure, the play allows us to see just how silly, even ridiculous, our daily routines, our interests and passions, our desires and dreams and most importantly our relationships are when such meaning has been removed from our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for all members of this hon. House to join me in extending special recognition to Elwood Regional High School's drama students and director, Jordan Stringer, on their remarkable theatrical achievements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to acknowledge another major milestone in our Province's petroleum industry – the achievement of first oil from North Amethyst, the first White Rose satellite development, at 3:00 p.m. yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this marks the first oil production from one of our fields in which this Province has an equity stake in every barrel that is produced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Our government, through Nalcor Energy - Oil and Gas, holds a 5 per cent working interest in North Amethyst. Husky Energy is the project operator and primary interest holder.

Mr. Speaker, this development will ultimately return to the Province super royalties of 36.5 per cent when oil prices are above $50 U.S. per barrel. When oil prices are below $50 U.S., the 30 per cent generic royalty regime applies.

Mr. Speaker, the return to this Province as a result of our equity stake, demonstrates our foresight in getting involved as partners in this development. Husky's discovery last November of additional oil in this field allows the Province to benefit, through Nalcor Energy, by such a large amount, that it is the same as recouping the purchase price for our equity in the White Rose expansion and in the Hibernia South extension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: And, Mr. Speaker, depending on recovery rates and the price of oil during production, this one discovery will cover all, or substantially all, the purchase price of our equity share in the Hebron development as well.

Through our policy of acquiring equity stakes, our government is ensuring that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador finally play a meaningful role in the development of our natural resources. Combined with improved royalty regimes and greater local benefits, this approach ensures that we are receiving the best possible value for the development of our non-renewable resources.

The announcement of first oil, as a partner in this project, is a tangible result of the visionary approach of our Premier and this government. This is a proud day for the Province, and once again reflects our determination as a people, that the days of giveaways are a thing of the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the White Rose oil field has grown substantially since first production in 2005. Its satellite fields will provide approximately $5 billion to the Province, depending on oil prices at the time.

Production from North Amethyst clearly demonstrates the opportunities that lie before us for growth and development in established fields. Mr. Speaker, North Amethyst was brought into production less than four years after its discovery.

Mr. Speaker, we are working with industry to find ways to economically extend the lifespan of mature, producing oil fields through subsea tiebacks to existing infrastructure. This is the first subsea tieback in Canada. The North Amethyst development will enable us to offset the natural declines at the main White Rose field with an additional 68 million barrels of recoverable oil.

Husky Energy will continue to ramp up production and conduct well testing in the field during the coming weeks and eleven wells are planned for this development over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate our industry partners on this achievement, and in particular I would like to thank Dr. John Lau for his contributions to this Province during his tenure as President and CEO of Husky Energy. It is quite fitting that during this – his last week at the helm – he is witnessing the fruits of his labour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We too would like to congratulate the industry partners in this achievement and to recognize Mr. John Lau, President and CEO of Husky Energy, for the contributions that he has made to the oil and gas industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

The minister likes to talk about no more giveaways, but we have already witnessed that one of the largest giveaways in our history as a Province occurred under the watch of the government members opposite, Mr. Speaker, and that included the giveaways to AbitibiBowater.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we want to say today that it is definitely wonderful to see that we have more oil and, Mr. Speaker, we hope to see oil continue to pump in this Province for many, many generations to come because it not only means a good, solid industry but it means good, solid, stable revenues, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, for the Province for a long time to come as well.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes chuckle when I see the government opposite talk about the oil industry because if they could convince people that they actually put the oil in the ground in Newfoundland and Labrador, they would attempt to do so. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. That is not the case at all. In fact, Mr. Speaker, North Amethyst is not a brand new field but just an extension of the White Rose field project that was negotiated, Mr. Speaker, and developed by the former Liberal government in this Province. That is the piece that they tend to always forget.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, if I was to make a comparison today, I would say to the minister: Let's not forget it was a Liberal government who built the house, who paved the driveway, who put in the gardens. All they did as a government is build the barn out back, I say to the minister. That is about the extension of what we are talking about in North Amethyst in this particular deal, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, is a government that is projecting revenues in the oil industry based on $82.50 a barrel. Even with that figure, they are looking at running a deficit in Newfoundland and Labrador this year, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that needs to be –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just conclude –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. This news that she brings to the House today is obviously good news for all the people of the Province. The NDP has always supported having an equity stake in the offshore industry and continue to do so. Every time that something we have an equity stake in comes to fruition, it is bringing more revenues to the Province.

I do have to remind all of us, and the government knows this, that having an equity stake – it behoves us to make sure that all safeguards are constantly in place so that we do not have accidents like the one that is happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now. Having an equity stake makes us have more interest in making sure that is the case.

I caution the government with regard to the drilling that is going on in the Orphan Basin right now, Mr. Speaker. It is reminding us of something very important; we cannot deal with oil spills at that depth into the ocean. We have a company like BP right now whose losses are beyond our imagination. We do not want to end up like BP down the road.

So I ask this government to reconsider the fact that we have drilling going on out in the ocean at 2.6 kilometres below the ocean. It just should not be happening, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize June as Seniors Month, a time to recognize the significant role that seniors make in our community and to celebrate their accomplishments.

It is our government's vision to have a supportive, age-friendly Province where seniors contribute to their communities, and in turn, our communities support senior residents in living as independently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we just recently announced the recipients of our Age-Friendly Newfoundland and Labrador Grants Program, which is designed to provide funding to incorporated municipalities, Inuit community governments and reserves, and seniors' organizations throughout the entire Province to support them in planning for an aging population. Overall, Mr. Speaker, our government invested $200,000 in the Age-Friendly Grants Program which benefited ten communities and thirteen seniors' organizations throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first steps we took upon forming government was to create three separate entities to ensure that the Province was proactive in how it responds to the needs of our aging population. We established a Ministerial Council on Aging and Seniors to ensure that the needs of our seniors are met. We established a Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors, comprised of seniors and experts on aging, to advise government on matters related to the quality of life for seniors, and to facilitate public discussion on aging. We established an Office for Aging and Seniors in the Department of Health and Community Services to ensure that programs and services meet the needs of seniors, and to address aging and seniors issues.

Our government launched a Healthy Aging Policy Framework, outlining six priority directions together with a series of goals and actions to create an age-friendly Province. The intent of this initiative is to further support and recognize seniors for their diversity and valuable contributions.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made significant investments to help enhance and improve the lives of seniors throughout our Province, including enhancements to the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, increases to the Home Heating Rebate, and enhanced Low Income Seniors' Benefit and significant tax reductions.

Last June, we presented the first annual Seniors of Distinction Awards which recognize the lifelong contributions, achievements and diversity of Newfoundland and Labrador's seniors. It will be my pleasure to award five more deserving seniors with awards later this month.

We have made healthy aging a priority. We believe in supporting seniors efforts to live full, active and independent lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and we certainly want to recognize June as seniors' month as well, Mr. Speaker. We certainly feel that all seniors hold a position of distinction in our society for the contributions that they have made to building this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. More so than that, Mr. Speaker, we feel that society is often measured by how we look after our seniors and our elderly people.

Today, in this Province, we have 80,000 people who are seniors. By 2025, just fifteen years from now, we will have 130,000 seniors in this Province, an increase of 50,000 people. Our population is aging faster than anywhere else in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our seniors, 50 per cent of them in this Province earn less than $15,000 a year. I do not need to tell any member in this House of Assembly what it is like in Newfoundland and Labrador to live on $15,000 a year. It means that seniors every day are making difficult choices: choices between looking after their homes, providing for heating in their homes, looking after their medical expenses, choosing between home care services and home support services, at times, Mr. Speaker, when they have lost certain levels of independence.

We have to ensure that these services are always readily available for seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that over the next fifteen years there will be more demand put on, not only your government today but successive governments as well, to be able to meet the call to provide for the standards of living that seniors will need in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity –

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

MS JONES: – to recognize the seniors in this Province today and to congratulate them on the contributions they have made.

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

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

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

I am delighted to recognize June as seniors' month, along with all of us here in the House today, and in doing that recognize the group of seniors who are here with us in the House. Programs such as the one that the minister has outlined are certainly important programs because many seniors do experience barriers when it comes to isolation, recreation and social activities.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more to working with our seniors than offering these programs. The minister did make reference to things that the government has done, such as enhancing the Prescription Drug Program. I would like to point out to the minister that it is more than enhancing that needs to happen here. We should have a complete prescription drug program for all seniors in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Other areas where our seniors need support, that are very important to them, are access to transportation. It is very difficult for many of our seniors, especially in rural areas, to get around; chronic disease management, and of course I could not sit down without talking about the need for home care. I heard one of the members across the House, when the minister was speaking, reminding me, but I did not need a reminder, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because home care is one of the most essential needs for our senior citizens today.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that the Lower Churchill project is obviously years away from being developed. In government's Energy Plan it stated that the Holyrood generating facility would be replaced by 2015 by Lower Churchill power. If that did not happen, then scrubbers and precipitators would be installed at the Holyrood facility by 2013, which would reduce pollution.

I ask the Premier today: Now that the 2015 time frame for the Lower Churchill is not possible, will government live up to its commitments under the Energy Plan and immediately install the scrubbers and precipitators at Holyrood to address these environmental concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: We are currently undergoing EAs on the generation project, on the Newfoundland and Labrador link. We are talking with customers in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Speaker, and in the Northeastern United States, as well as New York and Ontario, Mr. Speaker. There is a very healthy interest in this project which, as the Premier said yesterday, is the cheapest hydroelectric project in North America.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of our relationship in acquiring transmission, either through Quebec or through Labrador or through New Brunswick, our issue has only been give us a level playing field. We are prepared to compete, and, Mr. Speaker, we will bring green energy solutions to the rest of the country and the Eastern United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is that there has been no sign off on the Lower Churchill by the 2009 deadline that government implemented. We know that there will be no project by 2015. We know that they have no capability to transmit power. We know that all the time frames that were in place are off the table and we know, Mr. Speaker, that there will no deal under the government members opposite.

So I ask you today, minister: What is the plan for Holyrood? Are you going to live up to the commitments you made in the Energy Plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we know on this side of the House is that under their Administration they tried to give it away twice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: That will not happen, Mr. Speaker. That will not happen with this Administration. She knows very little about this project and she demonstrates it, Mr. Speaker, every time she gets on her feet.

Mr. Speaker, we will know the run of this river. We understand the whole project, Mr. Speaker. So we are in the strongest possible position to negotiate the best benefits on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, everybody in this country and everybody in the Eastern United States knows that we hold the answer to many climate change issues in the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker. This project is online, it is on time, and it will get developed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister that in her mind she might think she holds the solution, but she obviously does not hold any deal in her hands, Mr. Speaker, on the Lower Churchill and nowhere near it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier confirmed yesterday that all the timelines are off the table. We know that their government will not do a deal on the Lower Churchill, and we know that any deal is at least ten to fifteen years out, if at all.

There were no giveaways on the Lower Churchill, I say to the members opposite. The only giveaway in this Province was AbitibiBowater, Mr. Speaker, given a free tab on the backs of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister again: What is the plan for Holyrood? We know Lower Churchill is off the table, are you going to put in the scrubbers on the Holyrood site or are you not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she hopes it is off the table. I have never seen anybody in my life, who professes to have the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart get up here day after day after day in this House of Assembly and almost pray for failure – for failure, for cheap political gain for the people across the House. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker, absolutely shameful.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Abitibi –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: - Mr. Speaker, we did not expropriate Botwood, we did not expropriate Stephenville, but we are going to be left with the cleanup costs. Thank goodness we had the foresight to expropriate the assets so we can clean up the mess that has been left behind by companies such as Abitibi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I may as well scrub that question, I would say, because I do not think the minister is going to answer it today, so obviously another commitment they are probably not going to meet.

Mr. Speaker, what I will tell the minister is that every time they get caught in this House of Assembly under questioning, they question the patronage of the Opposition members which is absolutely shameful.

Mr. Speaker, they have been caught in mistakes. They have been caught in hiding information. They have been caught now in blowing the Lower Churchill deal and they just cannot handle it.

I ask the minister this question: In light of the fact that Lower Churchill is off the table, in light of the fact that your government will not do this deal, will you commit to upgrading the transmission capacity on the Avalon Peninsula so that existing hydro resources can be used to full potential? Instead of spilling water in Bay d'Espoir, we could be using it to generate power on the Avalon Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it means to question your patronage, but I will say that I have not questioned her patriotism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: She is operating from a place of misinformation, Mr. Speaker, and she is putting out false propaganda –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: – that does not serve the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill will be developed and it will be developed in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In terms of commitments that we have made to the people of the Province, including the people who live in the area of the Holyrood generating facility, Mr. Speaker, we will live up to our commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will tell you what the facts are. The facts are the minister opposite hid the information on AbitibiBowater for ten months in this Province before she disclosed it to the people of the Province. Another fact, Mr. Speaker, they had to admit yesterday that their timelines on the Lower Churchill are all off. So, Minister, there are facts for you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday an environmental studies professor at York University raised concerns about the lack of openness and transparency surrounding the spill of 74,000 litres of drilling mud in the Orphan Basin in 2007. She says there are no details available to indicate what happened with the spill.

I ask the minister: If this process is truly open and transparent, why is it so difficult to get information once a spill occurs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there was a spill on January 28 of 74,000 litres of drilling mud. Drilling mud is the fluid that is used when drilling a well to compress anything that is in the well and keep it from coming to the surface. Mr. Speaker, there was a terrible storm on that day. The drill rig had to disconnect because it was at very high risk and there was a spill.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to environment and safety, these issues is posted immediately on the Web page of the C-NLOPB. There was quite a bit of media coverage around this event at the time. Anybody who was paying attention could have gotten all of the information off the Web, which I have here, and as well as in the media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is that the minister opposite, or the Minister of Environment, certainly made no disclosure or no statements around it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We also know that this spill, the comments from the C-NLOPB said that this spill was mud and not as bad as oil so they were not as concerned, Mr. Speaker. However, according to the story, drilling mud can harm fish and marine life as well.

I ask the minister: What detailed analysis was completed regarding this spill and the impacts that it had on the ocean environment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I going to try to simplify this as much as I can in hopes that the Leader of the Opposition is going to understand. Drilling mud is the fluid that is put down in a well to compress any oil or gas from escaping. By its very nature, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very heavy, heavier than water. It is made up mainly of vegetable oil.

When the marine riser was disconnected and the location of the spill, Mr. Speaker, the area was tens of metres within the vicinity of the hole. Mr. Speaker, it did not rise to the surface, it had no effect on fish, and it had no effect on birds and the only organisms that it would have impacted are those that were crawling on the sea floor and not able to get away (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: I understand very well, it is you people over there that do not have your act together. That was evident, Mr. Speaker, on the Abitibi mill. We had one minister out saying we had a German company coming, we had another minister out saying we do know if they are coming, and we had the other minister out saying we are ready to sell it, offload it and dismantle it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have raised the issue of placing independent monitors on oil rigs off our coast. In response to questioning, the Minister of Natural Resources has indicated the aerial surveillance works fine.

For the sake of transparency and accountability I ask the minister: Will she release all of the data collected on aerial performance surveillance and the detection of oil slicks at offshore platforms from 1997 when Hibernia started drilling to present, and whether the number of surveillance flights have decreased or increased over that time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be under the impression that I am the regulator for the offshore. I am not. I am the Minister of Natural Resources charged with responsibility for here in the Province. I share that responsibility with Minister Paradis, the federal Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is an independent agency arm's-length from both levels of government. Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to ask them to release the information and provide it to the Leader of the Opposition in the same way, Mr. Speaker, that I ask the C-NLOPB to come tomorrow and give the Opposition a briefing on what we are doing in terms of safety around drilling in the offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that you may not be the regulator but you certainly should have enough interest in what is happening to have that kind of information when you stand here everyday and defend the industry by saying that aerial surveillance is significant. Well, minister, you should know if our flights are going up or going down and how much surveillance is occurring offshore.

Mr. Speaker, we will meet with the C-NLOPB in the morning and we have called them, I say to the minister, and set up the meeting. The oil platforms off our coast operate in pretty severe weather conditions. We know that the only level of independent monitoring is done from 20,000 feet and that there are instances where weather conditions would prevent this surveillance from happening.

In light of this, I ask the minister: What backup plans are in place to detect oil spills in the absence of aerial surveillance? We do have fog out there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, most of the fog we are experiencing in this part of St. John's is on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. They are constantly in a fog bank.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not at any time in this House say that the only means of inspection was aerial surveillance. What I have stated time and time again to the Leader of the Opposition is that we do have independent monitors who visit those rigs on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker. While she has been asking for permanent people to be placed on those platforms my response to her has been, in terms of determining whether or not there has been a spill of oil at sea, the best way to determine that is through aerial surveillance and not having permanent inspectors on the platforms. That is a matter of science, Mr. Speaker. It is not a matter of opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister makes that defence, and she could not even tell us today how much aerial surveillance is occurring even offshore in the oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated that environmental officers do regular checks from the platforms but these people work for the oil company. So they are clearly not independent monitors. We were contacted by a health, safety and environmental technician who quit his job because the rig manager wanted him to sign off on environmental forms for tests that were not being completed.

I ask the minister: Why is this government so dead set against independent monitors who can demand proper industry regulations are being followed and potentially protect our Province from an environmental catastrophe?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the chief conservation officer works with the C-NLOPB. He has at least three other officers who work with him to do independent inspections on the rig. They do not work for the oil companies, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to point out with regard to safety on our oil rigs. Mr. Speaker, from the cook to the steward, to the person who is navigating the ship, to the oil push, to an oiler, any person on that platform who has any concerns about safety, Mr. Speaker, has the authority to stop drilling, to stop all activity until that issue is dealt with. That is a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As of this morning the residents of Bell Island are without a ferry service at all. The Flanders is receiving repairs and this morning the Nonia is out of service. The residents of Bell Island are stranded and frustrated.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: What is the nature of the problem with the Nonia and when will it be back in service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will start off by saying, I do not know if they built houses and mansions and that sort of thing, but one thing they did not build when they were in government was ferries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: That sir - my hon. colleague across the way. That is why we are in the shape we are in right now with no service to Bell Island, because of the nature of the fleet that we have and our inability, I guess, to deal with what was left to us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible) the people of Bell Island are frustrated, with a response like that from a minister who is looking after their services.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Bell Island are no strangers to complications and disruptions with the ferry services. These disruptions leave many people late for work, and the most important thing, I guess, is late for appointments for medical concerns. The fact that there is no ferry service at all today leaves many wondering what will be done in the meantime.

So I ask the minister: What course of action does your department have in place to immediately address this situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to manage the fleet, the legacy that was left to us from the previous Administration.

Again, to get up and talk about me not caring about the people on Bell Island, there is nothing further from the truth. We have been working diligently, Mr. Speaker, since we have had the difficulties – first the Flanders went down, now the Nonia is down. We have divers out in Long Pond right now trying to get a piece of rope or something out of the thruster so we can get that vessel back and get the people of Bell Island - the ferry that they need right now to get back and forth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this government has been in power for seven years. It is time to stop laying the blame on someone else when they had Budgets that increased as high as $6 billion and $7 billion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Bell Island have many questions and concerns about their ferry service. An open line of communication would no doubt be valued and appreciated by the people.

I ask the minister: Will you meet with the community of Bell Island to listen and to discuss their concerns as soon as possible?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am getting tired of people on that side telling this side what jobs we have and how we can do them. I can tell you right now that there is a meeting set up for the committee, the ferry committee on Bell Island, and as soon as possible we will be sitting down and dealing with this. Again, Mr. Speaker, this government inherited a fleet that is an embarrassment to any jurisdiction in North America, let alone in Canada, and I say to them, that this government has responded. This year alone, $55 million to try –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: – to try to make good on fifteen years of neglect on that side of the House. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am standing here today and saying to the people of Bell Island, to any of the people on the Island, that this government is acting and acting appropriately and it is going to take some time, but guess what? We will get the job done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Jackson's Arm were informed this past Friday that their shrimp plant will be closed, likely on a permanent basis. Naturally, the community is devastated by this news. There are 120 people who are now without work and are fearful for their livelihood and the long-term future of their community.

I ask the minister: When were you aware of this closure, and have you had a meeting with this community and our plant processor to see if this closure could have been prevented?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite said likely permanently closed. Mr. Speaker, that is misleading the people. I met with the company this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I met with the company this morning. They have cited that due to a cut in the quotas by DFO of 28 per cent, by the market exchange of the Canadian dollar, these factors are impacting upon their business, so they have to make a business decision. Mr. Speaker, in no way has the company come out and said that this is a permanent closure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, under this government's watch we have seen other communities lose their fish plants, like Englee and Fortune, and we have watched as the industry has gone. While the MOU process takes its dead time to unfold -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member that has been recognized by the Chair to ask a question.

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

MR. DEAN: Under this government's watch we have seen communities like Englee, for sure, that has been shut down with no industry to follow. While the MOU process takes its dead time to unfold we are fearful that this is the beginning of more plant closures across the Province.

So, I ask the minister: What is being done to create a long-term transitional plan for plant workers and communities that increasingly will find themselves at the mercy of this fishing restructuring?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a good chance he got to recover, because in his original statement he mentioned that Fortune was closed. I do not know who is doing the research, Mr. Speaker, but Fortune is up and doing quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, no one will be able to accuse this government of not stepping up for the plant workers of this Province. If there is one thing that we have done consistently - and it came under the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy, that there was a program called the Plant Workers Adjustment Program, and at any point we have done that. We have done that in Marystown, we have done it in Harbour Breton, we have done it in other plants across the Province and we will continue to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with being wrong if that is the case - not like this government - and admitting it.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about what you are doing for these communities and I can tell you that what you have done for Englee has not been much comfort to them. What is happening today, the workers are losing their income, they are losing their employment stability and we appreciate the make-work programs and other things as short-term answers, but we need more than a beefing up of job creations, we need longer term prospects for these people and for the communities. Even though three years has passed since Englee has been closed, I want to tell you today that these people see no new industry growth from your government.

So I ask the minister: Are you prepared to put investments in these communities to recruit new industry when the plants close like you did in towns such as Grand Falls-Windsor and other places where other industries have closed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House during Question Period on a number of occasions: The industry players that are involved in the MOU, those being the FFAW, the ASP and government, are instrumental in bringing about reform in this fishery. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition may not have full faith in that process, but I can tell you one thing that I, as minister, do and we, as a government, do. We hope that will bring about some long-term stability and a better livelihood for the people who are involved in this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in conclusion to the Budget Debate, government spoke of their plan for the Province and said that the Energy Plan is their vision for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador beyond the time of oil and gas revenues. Mr. Speaker, this government has based its Energy Plan on what it considers as its way forward around the Lower Churchill development for which the Premier has admitted there is no longer a firm timeline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can he ask the people of the Province to hang their hope for their future on a development plan for which the Premier cannot even give us a solid timeline?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of planning that needs to go into a project the size of the Lower Churchill to ensure that it is being done properly. There are applications for transmission through the Province of Quebec. There are applications for transmission through New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker. There is engineering that needs to be done. We need to understand the full run of the river and challenges that we need to deal with there. Mr. Speaker, we are talking to customers in this country and in the United States. All of these things are progressing around timelines in a very well, strategic plan.

While we cannot give a firm timeline to say that at such-and-such date in 2015 it will happen –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: – Mr. Speaker, that project is ongoing and will be finished in a reasonable and sensible time frame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to ask the minister: Are they building into their plan meeting all of the roadblocks that are coming their way that is putting them off their timeline? Let's admit it. The Premier has admitted it; let her admit it as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday that there is a plan in the Province, the plan that she is talking about for the future. This Energy Plan seems to have become the one and only focus, and it seems to be the reason why she is totally focusing on Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, this government must look to alternative ways of investing money in the future of this Province, at the same time as they try to resolve the Lower Churchill development. Mr. Speaker, sitting and waiting totally on Lower Churchill is not securing our future.

I ask the minister: Will she explain why this government is putting all its eggs in the Lower Churchill basket?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we are not putting our eggs in one basket. There is much more on the go here than the Lower Churchill. I point out to the Leader of the NDP that we have negotiated equity and royalties in three offshore projects that will see a return of $36 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the NDP from time to time wax poetically on energy development here in the Province, and what we should be doing in tidal, and what we should be doing in wind. Mr. Speaker, we have the best wind regime in North America. We have 5,000 megawatts of wind just in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, wind needs to be backed up by something. You cannot store wind energy. So, the development of the Lower Churchill and other hydro resources is very important in a complete and comprehensive (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister stood in the House in December of 2009 and released an update on the progress of the Energy Plan. She is making reference to things that sounds like there is stuff going on that I do not know about. She said at that time that there was going to be an Energy Plan progress report in March 2010.

I am asking the minister: Give us the details, give us the progress report that was promised for 2010 in which we have not gotten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I provide updates on the Energy Plan on a regular basis, particularly here in the House of Assembly. We are an energy warehouse. We have a comprehensive Strategic Plan that we are progressing, Mr. Speaker, to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 23, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 23, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 23 shall now be introduced and read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend the Securities Act", carried. (Bill 23)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 23)

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

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 24, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 24, and that Bill 24 be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security", carried. (Bill 24)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Court Security. (Bill 24)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, before we continue with the Order Paper, I would ask for leave so that we could return to Tabling of Documents, just so the Minister of Finance could table a document.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to subsection (4) of section 26 of the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to table pre-authorization authority with respect to the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Orders of the Day

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

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

From the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. (Bill 11)

Mr. Speaker, we had started that debate earlier and it had been adjourned, as indicated on the Order Paper.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with regard to this particular piece of legislation. Again, it is amending an already existing act, the Small Claims Act, of course, which came into being quite some years ago, a rather important piece of legislation. A lot of people, for example –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I think they are concerned about my time, Mr. Speaker, registering on the clock. I do not intend to take an hour; I rarely do. I rarely take an hour, but in any case you can deduct whatever time I did use in those twenty-seven seconds.

This particular piece of legislation is quite important, of course, to those in the Province who cannot afford always to engage their own lawyer. Usually it is administered, and it is administered through the Provincial Court system. I thought, actually, the Minister of Justice might have elaborated a bit more, when he spoke, as to not only what this amendment is about, but a bit more as to how the system works; because there are still people who do not understand fully how the small claims system does work.

This is a great opportunity, of course, to let people know something about what is small claims. Well, as the word obviously implies, it is for somebody who has a claim, and I guess the operative word here is: what is small? In our courts in this Province, for example, if someone owed you for a light bill, for example, or they owed you some money, up to $5,000, and they had not paid you, you could take them to court, and you did not have to get a lawyer. It is quite expensive in this Province, as in most jurisdictions, to engage a lawyer. The cost can sometimes outweigh the amount of the claim.

I understand for anyone in this city today who goes through a divorce, for example, a contested divorce, facing a bill of $25,000-plus is run-of-the-mill. God knows, when you get into corporate litigation it could be far greater than that. It can get into the thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars if you have a protracted litigation in a corporate setting.

We, of course, here in the House of Assembly know what it costs to engage lawyers. We have had several legal counsel engaged as a part of different issues that came up here in this House, involving this House, and it has cost thousands of dollars. It is all a public record now.

We know, for example, in the case involving Ms Neville, who was the Child and Youth Advocate, there were literally thousands of dollars spent trying to deal with that situation. We know, for example, that governments spend thousands of dollars on lawyers. We need only look at the recent case of Abitibi. We know, for example, that we lost two cases in this Province recently. We lost what we call the data room case, back in the fall. We do not have the bill on that. I asked the Minister of Justice about that some time ago, and that, of course, is going to be in the thousands again for the cost, not only for our lawyers, by the way, but when you lose a case, if the court awards cost against you, you also have to pay for the cost of the other lawyer. I guess the minister should know by now what it cost to get our lawyers, the Province's lawyers, in that case, but I understand he is still waiting, or at least he has not been forthcoming with the information as to what it cost us, as a Province, to pay for the lawyers for AbitibiBowater in that data room case that we lost in Quebec back last fall.

Of course, we lost the second case as well. We took the case of - our Minister of Environment and Conservation, of course, issued some orders under the Environmental Protection Act, according to the judge, anyway, in that case, all under the guise of trying to set up a claim. Of course, the bankruptcy proceedings, or the corporate restructuring group that were looking after it in the Province, said: No, no, you cannot get through the back door what you are not legally supposed to have through the front door.

So, they slammed the door. Of course, not only did they say that we lost the case, which left us on the hook for a lot of money, no doubt, for legal fees; we ended up again having cost awarded against us at that level. Then, of course, we went a step further. We said, we are going to seek leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal in Quebec. We lost that case and there were court costs again against us.

So just to give you an example, of course, we are here dealing with a small claims thing and that as a comparison gives you some idea as to the type of costs and legal fees you could have if you have to engage a counsel to fight a case for you. It is not much sense if someone owes you $200 - it hardly makes sense to go engage a lawyer who is going to probably cost you $200 an hour if you are going to be seeking $200 in recovery. That is why we have a Small Claims Court in the first place.

Now, I have not been personally involved in the system in some years. I would be remiss if I did not say that. It has been ten years or so now since I practiced in the Small Claims Courts. I have practiced up to even a couple of years ago in other courts, the Supreme Court and so on in this Province and the Family Courts. I have not done any small claims work for quite some time. What I do remember about it was that it was not as simple as the minister alluded to. I guess it might have been simple in the sense that you were not into Supreme Court documentation to the same level. As I recall back when I practiced, we used to see it quite often. For example, say 200 people in the municipality had not paid their bills for some time, they might bring them all into the law office and say: Look, would you collect these outstanding debts for us? So you had say 200 small claims, but there was a whole process which could be fairly complex in the sense of time consuming.

You started off with a statement of claim; an originating summons; you had to get it all mailed out to somebody; served; brought back; you had to get court dates. So it was not as simple. So I do not think we should mislead people to think that just because it says small claims, it does not mean that the claim is not important, number one. It does not mean that there is less paperwork. It does not mean necessarily that you get through the court system any faster. That has been my experience. Now, unless that has changed, that was my experience in the Small Claims Court. Yes, it was cheaper, because an individual could do it without a lawyer, but it was not necessarily faster, it was not necessarily any more efficient. There were still some problems in terms of accessing justice, but of course it was access to justice at a cheaper rate if you did manage to get there.

Now the problem we had back then when the Small Claims Act was first created - $5,000 might have seemed like a reasonable amount to let the judge deal with, up to and including $5,000. Of course, times change, and $5,000 now in terms of the maximum limit you could have on a claim is considered pretty small. Most people who have a credit card, for example, have at least $5,000 on your credit card.

So they realized that it was not practical any more. If you are going to let people access the system without having the need for a lawyer, you are going to have to increase the thresholds from $5,000 to another figure. That of course is what the minister is alluding to, as I understand it. It does not say that, by the way, in the document that we are looking at. It does not say what the new figure is going to be. That is going to be set by regulation by the minister. Now, the minister did say, I do believe, that it was $25,000 that was going to be the new regulated limit.

In fact, somebody obviously listens to the House of Assembly because I can report to the minister that someone in my district who is involved in a municipality – actually, two people came forward after hearing the minister's comments a few days ago, a few weeks ago now I guess, a couple of weeks ago – and said: When is this going to happen? Because they are sitting on a bunch of files and a bunch of claims, they want to know: How quick is this going to happen?

Maybe the minister in the course of when he concludes his discussions on this piece of legislation, of course – there are people out there, minister, who would like to know that. We know that we are here today to pass the amendment; we know that there is going to be a regulation after. Normally, most regulations have to be gazetted, and I explained that to the persons who called, but I did tell them as well, I will check with the minister and see. I cannot think of a better forum to do it in than right here on the floor of the House of Assembly to the minister who has that answer. I am sure he has that answer available and can give it to us. So that is number one. Apparently we are going to see an increase up to $25,000 in the limit. Now, it does not say that in this act. That is why I would like the confirmation that that will indeed be happening and some idea as to the timelines of when it might happen.

The other piece of course, besides the act being a do-it-yourself sort of thing that allows you to do-it-yourself, now we are going to have a more reasonable limit, I would suggest, in today's economy; $25,000 in terms of a claim is a far more reasonable limit than the former $5,000 was. So the minister, I am sure, can provide us with some of that information. The cost of litigation, as I alluded to, is quite, quite expensive, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that this amendment is going to do, which people ought to know, is that it is going to broaden the jurisdiction of the judge in what people can sue for. For example, if I had a claim before against someone and it was a monetary amount – I did something for you, you did not pay me, I sued you for $200 that you were supposed to pay me, I could go to court, go through the process, and file the appropriate forms. If you did not pay me, the judge would hear the case. He would listen to our evidence and he or she would make a decision as to what the decision would be and order you to pay.

There is a thing called specific performance, and that was not covered off by the act before. I will give you an example. For example, someone says: I am going to lend you my lawnmower. I lent my neighbour my lawnmower and he went off and he cut his grass and that was fine. We were good neighbours up to that point. Then I said bring back my lawnmower, and he said no. Now the lawnmower that he took from me might be worth $1,000. Actually, it was a ride on, and it was worth $1,000 or more. He did not bring back the lawnmower. I had no way to get it back under the Small Claims Act because it did not allow for specific performance. The judge was not authorized to say: I order you, Joe, to give Mr. Parsons back his lawnmower. He could not do that. All he could order was a monetary amount for Joe to give me in compensation for my lawnmower.

That was a fallacy here. That was a weakness in the act that existed. People appreciated that after a while and said: yeah, we have to be able to cover off for things like that, because that happens quite often. People take things from people, they do not deserve it, they are not supposed to have it, and you had to have a way to get it back. So the court under that example can order specific performance. I specifically order you Joe to perform the following act, for example, give the gentleman back his lawnmower. So, that is a case where it was not a monetary remedy that was required. It was some specific performance that was required and now we are going to be able to do that under this act. A lot of people did not know that before.

Also, of course, that would apply to personal property. There could be cases were somebody takes your personal property or has personal property belong to you that you want back, the same as my lawnmower, for example. That is a personal - that is a chattel, as we call it in law, and the judge would order you to give Joe back his shovel or give John back his water bottle or whatever it was that the person had belong to you that you could not do before. It was all based on money.

So, it is pretty straightforward. It is nice to see that we are catching up. I do believe the Small Claims Act is probably twenty years old. I am surprised that it took us this long to get there, to make these amendments. They have been floating around for a long time, but it takes time. Sometimes they have to come through the - well not through the Law Society in this case, because the Law Society do not usually deal with a lot of these issues of the more minor relevance. We will come to another one this afternoon and debate later on when we talk about the Fatal Accidents Act which is far more monumental, shall we say, and impacting on people in our Province than the Small Claims Act is. I will be dealing with that at some length when we do get to it because it is a very substantial and substantive issue, and I will have some more detailed comments on it.

I will not belabour the point on this one. It is a good amendment. We will be supporting it. It gives these judges more jurisdiction that they need when it comes to personal properties. I think the new threshold, assuming it is $25,000, is far more viable in today's society than the $5,000 cap that we had. Again, I just look forward to the minister confirming that amount, and giving some idea to the public as to when that new regulation might be passed and gazetted so that municipalities and individuals in our Province will know when this thing clicks in.

I would also suggest to the minister that putting it in the Gazette is not necessarily, I would think, the best PR that you can give to this. This impacts, and it will impact, a lot of people in this Province who have claims. Now, we know this government is famous for putting out press releases. Like I said, if you were to total it all up, we could keep Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor both going on the paper they use.

So, I would encourage the minister, when he gets this done, that not just leave it to somebody who happens to be watching TV to pick up on this, but he should actually put it on the airwaves and let people know the amendment has been made. Send out a letter to the municipalities in the Province, or tell the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities that this has happened so they can pass it on to their people and their municipalities and their members.

So thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say on this, and we look forward to the minister's comments in due course after he concludes the debate on this bill.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to stand this afternoon and to speak for a few minutes on Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, it changes the amount. Normally, when you went to Small Claims Court, any amount that you were suing for that was over $5,000, you actually could not go to Small Claims Court for. This act provides a mechanism for which that amount can be increased. My understanding, from talking to the minister, is that the plan is government will be supporting an amount to the tune of $25,000, so that in the future if you have a claim you want to go to Small Claims Court for, then anything up to and including $25,000. Beyond that, you would have to go through another mechanism which is the Supreme Court.

It also allows courts to grant non-monetary remedies. Non-monetary remedies provide the court with an opportunity to find a solution outside of money. For example, Mr. Speaker, a person with some carpentry skills might be ordered to build a fence for somebody who is aggrieved over a certain situation and that person does not have the capacity to pay, then the court can order some non-monetary remedies.

It also enables the court to order the recouping of something like maybe a family heirloom. There could be something that a person is aggrieved over. Maybe they are missing – it could be a family ring or something that is of significance that you cannot really put a price tag on. By being able to order a non-monetary remedy, then the court can say this item is to be returned and that may be of a lot more importance to the person who is aggrieved and a lot more important than the actual monetary value.

There are some advantages to this piece of legislation once it passes, Mr. Speaker. It is going to give greater access to the courts for the ordinary person because when you go to the Small Claims Court you do not need a lawyer. Of course, $5,000 is not a lot of money in today's society. It may have been a lot more significant when it was first brought in. Now, lengthening this up to somewhere around $25,000 will give greater access to the court for the ordinary person because even if you are looking for a settlement in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, if you have to go to Supreme Court to try to recoup that, as the member opposite just said, legal costs can be very significant and prohibitive. Sometimes, people make decisions not to proceed any further because of the exorbitant legal costs that are associated with hiring a lawyer to do the work for you.

Small Claims Court can hear common cases. Actions for damages arising from car accidents, for example; failure to pay for services or goods; a failure to repay loans; a failure to perform the services adequately such as roof repairs, car repairs, plumbing, carpentry.

Small Claims Court also can hear less common cases. For example, you can sue to get back property that has been wrongfully taken from you, or you indeed may have to cancel a contract. Perhaps someone has not done something that they agreed to do and you need to take them to court in order to get them to do it.

This piece of legislation again, once it is enacted, Mr. Speaker, will bring the regulations around small court cases more in tune with what is happening in the rest of Canada. We were the lowest in Canada prior to this. In fact, prior to 2005, the limit was $3,000. It is now $5,000. If you look across Canada in Small Claims Court in Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, these four provinces presently have limits of $25,000, and it varies from some other provinces. So we are not inventing the wheel here; we are not out on a limb. A $25,000 limit is within normal, acceptable limits, I guess, in today's terms.

Going to Small Claims Court tends to be a less adversarial process. It tends to be, through the nature of the way things are laid out, there is more negotiation. It uses a process of mediation which can oftentimes, not always, but it can oftentimes lead to a settlement more easily.

I am not a lawyer, but I have done some research in looking at this piece of legislation and I am going to sort of lay out some of the process of the way someone would proceed through small court for the interests of the House and of people who maybe have not been a part of it and have not used this process.

The process starts out when someone has been aggrieved. You feel like a wrong has been done and you want to try to right that wrong or you want some justice. So, the first thing you do is you file a Statement of Claim and you go ahead and pay the associated fee with filing that statement. In a Statement of Claim – and the statement is available from the department. It is available actually on the Web site. It asks you to give personal demographic information of yourself and the person replying to the claim. You have to give a brief description there in this Statement of Claim of what has happened. It could be, for example, maybe your car was struck by a cyclist and there is certain damage done. Maybe it is not enough to hire a lawyer and to go after that damage. It could be a couple of thousand dollars, it could be $8,000 or $10,000 after this piece of legislation goes through. You do not want to hire a lawyer and pay half the money away for legal fees. So you can file a claim in a Small Claims Court. An example, I know of somebody who went through Small Claims Court, their dog was attacked by a neighbour's dog and it ended up costing them a fair bit of money in veterinarian bills and they were trying to find a way to recoup the cost.

When completed, the Statement of Claim then has to be filed with the court. Once your claim has been checked and has been signed off by a Justice of the Peace, the clerk will return the claim to you. In the process, if you are filing the claim you are called the plaintiff and the person you are suing is called the defendant. I apologize to people who have great legal knowledge for the simplicity of this but for a lot of us who do not, these terms, sometimes we are not sure what they mean.

Once your claim is filed, the defendant has ten days to file a reply. If the defendant is outside of the Province, actually he or she has thirty days. It is important to note that is straight days. It is straight calendar days, not just work days. The only exception is if the last day falls on a holiday then you get one extra day of grace. Following the ten days, if there is no reply filed then the plaintiff - which is you, the person filing the claim - can file for a default judgement. If a reply is filed by a defendant the court will set a date for a settlement conference and both parties will be notified of that date by certified mail.

Now, what is a settlement conference? Well, before the case is set for trial our rules require that the plaintiff and the defendant both attend a settlement conference to see at that point, is there any hope of settling the case before it actually goes to trial. Even if the parties do not agree at the settlement conference, the conference is useful and it allows the parties to kind of isolate the issues in question and oftentimes shorten the length of the trial. It is a good, intermediary process; to sit down, talk, and lay it all out beforehand. Maybe that is far enough, maybe it gets settled there. Maybe rational heads prevail and there is no need to go any further.

Many of the things that we are talking about, you see, involve oral contracts, and oral contracts are enforceable in law but the difficulty is trying to determine what the actual terms of the contract are. If I make a deal with somebody and we do not have anything on paper and my remembrance of the deal differs from his or her remembrance of the deal, then the first thing to do is try and come to terms and get someone to agree as to what the actual terms of the contract are.

There are certain forms and procedures associated with Small Claims Court. They are designed to assist self-represented litigants to present the case on their own. The cost of legal representation often exceeds the amount of a claim if the case goes to trial – that is if you are using a lawyer. So judges are cognizant of that fact. Many self-represented litigants are not familiar with the legal rules and procedures and judges will make allowances within the limits of the law. So, these forms kind of help you out; however, neither the judge nor the court staff are allowed to offer us legal advice if we are going to a Small Claims Court. The forms will help us, but the judge or the court staff are not going to be there to give us any type of legal advice about how to proceed.

Once the case concludes – so you have gone through and now you are at the Small Claims Court and you have presented your case and the defendant has presented their arguments. So once it concludes, a lot of times a judge will listen to both sides and he or she right there and then can render what is called an oral decision. They can just say: yeah, here is my decision, here is my judgment, and this is the way it will happen. However, the judge may reserve the decision and file a written ruling at a later time. In such a case, the judge usually sees the need to research a point of law and when the decision is filed with the court clerk, they will notify the parties and each party will be given a copy of the decision. So your decision might happen right away, but if it is a bit complicated the judge may need some time to actually research and give you a written decision. If any party is dissatisfied with the result there is still the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Trial Division, and subsequently to the Court of Appeal, and if necessary you can go right to the Supreme Court of Canada. So even though you start off in Small Claims, you still have all the rights of appeal that you would normally have.

There are a few things to keep in mind if you are going to Small Claims Court for the first time and you are not familiar with the procedure. There are a few points that I just want to bring out. One, as I said, you can go yourself or you can have a lawyer or a paralegal represent you but the whole notion of taking a lawyer to Small Claims Court I guess in some way can defeat it, because depending on how much you are looking for. Anyone age eighteen years and over can use the Small Claims Court but if you are under eighteen and you want to make a small claim you have to find somebody who is over eighteen, who is prepared to take responsibility for your claim and to accept responsibility for all the small court claim fees. That person is referred to as the next friend. They are responsible for filing the forms and seeing the claim through the court. So, there is a process for somebody under eighteen to actually move through. All they have to do is get what is called a next friend to do the paperwork for them, to accept responsibility for them.

A few other points if you are going to Small Claims Court for the first time, you want to make sure you file the claim against the correct person or business. That might sound a bit humorous but in actual fact you need to make sure that the spelling is correct, the name of the business is correct, and that you have the right person or business name on the Statement of Claim. You do not have to limit your claim to just one individual or company. There may be multiple people who are involved there. You may have been aggrieved from different sources for the same purpose and therefore you may indeed want to sue several people.

If the company you are suing is unincorporated, then you must sue the company in the full name of the owner. You can put the company name next to the owner's name in order to avoid confusion. So these are things to watch out for if you are going to court for the first time. I know I have never been there to sue anybody for a purpose, and these are some things that I have come across in the research to watch out for, because any little technicality and misspelling or something and you may end up, in actual fact, the defendant may have an argument against you when you go to court, and it is something you need to avoid before going.

Now, in answering the question, should a person go to Small Claims Court, my advice, Mr. Speaker, after doing some of the reading on this, is that you should always try to settle things first. If you are aggrieved and there is an argument, maybe just involving a friend or a neighbour or something to sit down and to bring some level of independence or impartiality to the whole situation, maybe a little bit of rational thought, things can be settled before you ever go to court.

These are some things to put in place; but, if these do not work, Small Claims Court seems to be a reasonable way to do things. By raising the limit to $25,000 it is now going to make the Small Claims Court more available. It is making the justice system more available to ordinary people. I think there is a number of people who have been asking for the limit to be raised for some time. I applaud the Minister of Justice and the department for bringing in this amendment at this time. I certainly think it is warranted. I think it is profitable. I think it is a good time, and it is a good piece of legislation. I will certainly be supporting the piece of legislation, and I look forward to its passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am quite pleased to be able to stand and take part in the discussion on Bill 11. It is a small amendment, but an important amendment, to the act, the Small Claims Act. We, of course, started this discussion on May 13, when the minister made his presentation with regard to the bill. I did take time to go over what the minister said back on May 13, in speaking to the bill and preparing us for the discussion.

As has been pointed out, the minister mentioned in his remarks on May 13 that, as we know, the limit for claims in the Small Claims Court is $5,000. It used to be $3,000 and it was put up to $5,000. That is where it stands at the moment, but the minister said and pointed out that the amount is to go up. Now, what he said was that the purpose of this amendment would be to increase the amount to $25,000. I do not think that is quite correct, because the amendment itself does not have to do with money; the amendment has to do with what is covered in the Small Claims Court.

What I think is significant in the amendment is that people now will be able to make claim for the recovery of personal property. That was not possible before. I suspect what the minister was speaking to - because of the Small Claims Court now going to be able to allow for the claim of recovery of personal property, it is absolutely essential that the amount of money go up that one may be able to claim. I presume, then, that the minister is going to be making changes to the regulations that accompany the act, and the change to the regulation, which does not have to happen here on the floor of the House, will be to change the amount of money that may be claimed for in Small Claims Court to $25,000.

While it is not the purpose of the amendment itself, the purpose of the amendment is to allow for the personal property claims, that change is the one that definitely is demanding that the amount in Small Claims Court go up. It was a small enough amount anyway, even without the personal property in there, but, with personal property now introduced, it is absolutely essential.

I think the minister did point out, when he spoke on May 13, that the $25,000 now is becoming more common in other jurisdictions in the country. There were discussions between the Department of Justice and the Provincial Court officials. It was through those consultations that the decision was made to change the amount to $25,000. I suspect - and the minister, of course, will confirm this for us - that once this bill is passed and enacted, that the regulation will be changing.

Obviously, it is an important change because when people go to Small Claims Court, very often there is damage to personal property. I think the fact that this could not be covered before in Small Claims Court made life more difficult for people who have had damage done to their property. The court currently has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon a claim for a debt, whether payable in money or otherwise, and for damages. Now, to be able to claim for the actual recovery of the cost of personal property is going to make things much better for people who find themselves in Small Claims Court.

My colleagues have done a good job of going through what the Small Claims Court is all about, and I do not think there is going to be much served by my going through everything all over again, but probably a couple of points. If somebody wants to go to Small Claims Court, and I think it has been referred to, they must make an application. They must actually do that in writing. There is a Statement of Claim, a form that one can get online actually - it would be under the Department of Justice - and one can make their claim, their Statement of Claim, in writing. Then a decision is made whether or not the claim will go forward. That has been pointed out. A lot of attempts are made to try to keep things out of court and to try to have things dealt with out of court if possible. It certainly makes it more efficient for the court system, and uses less time of court officials. So, one of the things that will happen when somebody puts in a Statement of Claim is that there will be a meeting – that has already been referred to – called the settlement conference. The person who is putting in the claim must attend this conference, and so must the defendant. The purpose of the conference is to make sure that disputes can be settled without a costly trial; because, even though it is the Small Claims Court, a trial still costs money, the money for all the officials taking part. So, it is very effective if we can have small claims, and crimes actually, not just small claims, dealt with outside of the trial system where possible.

To be able to get together, to hold a conference, to try to isolate the issues, to make things clear, maybe even deal with them outside of court, is the goal of the settlement conference. The thing that is important, though, whether it happens in settlement conference or whether it goes to court, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to be able to prove their Statement of Claim. It is incumbent upon them to do so, whether they do it themselves or whether they have somebody else do it for them. That can be an articled clerk or an agent, or even a solicitor, though a lot of people will represent themselves.

I can remember somebody I know who once had to go into Small Claims Court and put a tremendous amount of work into her presentation, and was complimented by the judge on the tremendous job that she did, so it can be a really great learning experience for somebody, actually. She became quite encouraged by the job that she did in the Small Claims Court and actually though about: Maybe it is law that I should be going into. So, being involved yourself in the Small Claims Court can have a lot of spinoffs.

In the Small Claims Court, when the judge makes a decision when it has been in the court and there has been a trial, the judge can choose either to provide an oral decision, which will be a decision made there from the bench without delay, or a judge may reserve decisions and file written rulings at a later date. I suspect that whether it is an oral decision or a written decision is dependent upon the circumstances and the details and the complications that may be involved in the case. I would imagine that a complicated case would benefit from a written ruling rather than an oral ruling so that the judge can totally explain why he or she has made the ruling.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I want to say. I am happy to have been able to speak to the bill. I obviously will be voting for it. It is going to be for the good of the people of the Province. I look forward to hearing the minister make his final comments in second reading when he does with regard to the point about the regulatory change and when that will happen.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great pleasure to stand in this hon. House and take my place as the MHA to represent the constituents of the District of Bellevue.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me also a great pleasure to speak on Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. Again, I would also like to remind hon. members of this House that I am not a lawyer nor do I have any legal background, but what I am about to say on this bill is from a layman's perspective.

I do have experience with Small Claims Court. I have experienced first-hand, Mr. Speaker, and if I may, I would like to share a story with my colleagues in this House about an experience that I had personally back a few years ago in the early 1990s when I was partnered with another gentlemen. We were building lawn furniture and we had sold lawn furniture on consignment in St. John's. At that time, shortly after, we came to St. John's and we picked up the cheque for the lawn furniture. We went back to our hometown and changed the money. My wife and I went shopping. Three days later, we get a call from a nearby grocery store saying that the cheque was not good, the cheque had bounced and we had to go back to the person that wrote the cheque to find out what went wrong.

At the time, there were some arguments about what happened with regard to the furniture. So, we had to proceed to the Small Claims Court to be reinstated for the cheque. We filed a claim with the Small Claims Court. I had to travel from Norman's Cove right into Placentia to be able to file a claim and then, Mr. Speaker, we had to serve the papers on this company, had to travel to St. John's to serve papers. So, we put in some extra claims for the claims that we had to go through in order to be able to collect this money. Mr. Speaker, it did not get to court. The company agreed to settle out of court. He replied back to the court saying that he was going to settle out of court. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we did get awarded the money, the cheque was reinstated but not for the amount that it started out to be. He had to pay an extra $170 some-odd because of the costs involved for us to be going to the Small Claims Court.

In my capacity as Mayor of Norman's Cove-Long Cove for the ten years that I was the Mayor of Norman's Cove-Long Cove, Mr. Speaker, I also had several experiences with Small Claims Court with regard to delinquent taxpayers. A lot of our small towns, not only the small towns but large towns as well out there, experience this every year with regard to the Small Claims Court. They file claims - it costs a lot of time for the towns to file these claims. You have to travel from Norman's Cove to Placentia to file a claim, get back to Norman's Cove and then have to serve - you can either serve the papers on your own, you can go knock on the person's door and serve the papers individually, or you can file the papers into registered mail to the individual, or you can have a sheriff deliver the papers for you. Either way, Mr. Speaker, there is some cost involved.

In most cases, though, we found that when we did go to the Small Claims Court, when we did file the papers, a lot of people just did not want to go through the agony of going to the Small Claims Court. Some of them did not want to go to Small Claims Court and then end up in the credit bureau. Most of them ended up paying their bills before we went to the Small Claims Court and settled out of court.

So, that was an experience that I had with the towns.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the harbour supervisor in Long Cove, we had similar experiences where we were charging people for services to the harbour. At the end of the year, people would not have paid up and some of them went in arrears. When you go in arrears over two years, there was a collection agency or Small Claims Court that you would go to. We ended up going to Small Claims Court in several incidents of that as well.

I just want to touch on some of the procedures when filing a claim at the Small Claims Court that is very important for people to know. When taking a case to the Small Claims Court it is very important that the rules of the court be followed. A copy of the small claims rules can be obtained from the Queen's Printer.

To start a small claim in Small Claims Court, Form 1 - Statement of Claim must first be completed. When completing a Statement of Claim, it must be filed with the court. The cost of filing a claim in the amount of $500 to $5000 is $100; for a claim less than $500, it is $50.

When your claim has been checked and signed by a Justice of the Peace, the clerk will return the claim form to you, the plaintiff, to be served on the party you are suing, the defendant. Service can also be affected by serving the claim by personal service, registered mail, as I said earlier, or through the process of a sheriff.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also, I think it was on May 27 that the Justice Department announced that you can now file on-line. You can file your claim on-line as of May 27.

Once the defendant has been served the defendant's copy of the Statement of Claim, the copy marked service must be returned to the court, with proof of service. It is important to note that the defendant has ten days – thirty days if a resident is outside the Province - to file a reply. This is straight days but if the last day falls on a holiday or weekend it is the next working day.

You can file your reply on-line as well. With the new system that has been announced, you can file your reply on-line, but I think that you still may have to go back to the same items of serving the person for the claims through the mail, or by the sheriff, or also delivering it yourself.

Mr. Speaker, another important note is that under certain circumstances, the Small Claims Act and rules permit a defendant to make application on Form 14 to cancel a default judgment. A defendant has twelve months from the date of judgment to make such application and if a judge grants the application, a date will be set for a settlement conference.

Some of the common cases in Small Claims Court are for damages arising from car accidents, failure to pay for services or goods, failure to repay loans, and failure to perform services adequately. A lot of the examples in that case, to provide services adequately, roof repairs is one of the big ones that comes up through carpentry, construction – any construction work, really. Car repairs is another one; car repairs is quite a – in the Small Claims Court, under this amendment now - before you could go in and you could be awarded for monetary damages, but you can also now be awarded a new fender or take it to the garage and get it done or what have you. The difficulty with these cases, Mr. Speaker, has always been determining what the actual terms of the contract were.

Mr. Speaker, as one of my other colleagues mentioned, and I think the Leader of the NDP mentioned, right now in the Small Claims Court, if you went to Small Claims Court you could claim up to $5,000 damage, but there is going to be an increase up to $25,000. The Provincial Court of Newfoundland has also come up with a new – it might not be relevant to this case but there is also another new jurisdiction as well from the court that I just want to touch on briefly. Just a second I get my thoughts together, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, also I wanted to touch on the fees that are also for a Statement of Claim, and there are several other fees and costs that are associated with the Small Claims Court. Some of which are for searches, photocopies, CD copies or recording procedures, transcript procedures, and they are repayable to the clerk but are not recoverable. Other fees, such as issuing Statements of Claim, application to reopen a default judgement, fees to conduct search by and registry maintained by the Province, these fees are also payable to the clerk of the court which may be payable between parties but are not recoverable. I would like to point out that these fees range anywhere from $10, some $40, up to $100.

Also, Mr. Speaker, announced just shortly was the Family Violence Intervention Court dealing with family violence. This one is not quite the same as the Small Claims Court, it is probably not relevant but I just want to mention that this is also a great announcement that our Justice Department has made as well. This is a new initiative of Justice. The ultimate goal of the Family Violence Intervention Court is to break the cycle of family violence which the families have experienced, and victim safety and offender accountability are paramount, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think I pretty much went through the act, what I wanted to say on this today. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that standing here I certainly am going to support the amendment to the act for the Small Claims Court and I want to thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues and the hon. members across the way for their comments with respect to this bill. I made some notes as I listened, to some of the questions that were asked but I concur, and at the point of being redundant, to reiterate that this is in fact a good amendment, a good bill. A bill long sought after by members of the legal fraternity. As a matter of fact, I think I might have mentioned in my opening remarks, one of the first calls I received from lawyer friends downtown was to do something with the Small Claims Act. I think this will be an amendment that will be welcomed throughout the legal fraternity.

Mr. Speaker, of course the highlights of this act, again, is not only are we raising the - and the Leader of the NDP is quite right, in that the act does not speak to the raising of the amount to $25,000 but under the current act the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can make regulations with respect to setting maximum amounts of the claims under this act, and that does not change. The only thing is, the new regulation will be, instead of $5,000 it will be $25,000.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the non-monetary remedies, which are also an important part of this bill, the recovery of personal property and the specific performance of contracts, as long, of course, as the amounts, the value of the property or the performance of the contract does not exceed the monetary jurisdiction.

Also, I want to repeat something that my colleague from Bellevue just mentioned, that the announcement was made only last week with regard to electronic filing, with respect to the Small Claims Court. I made that announcement in conjunction with Chief Judge Pike, that any person in the Province now wishing to file a small claims application in Provincial Court now has the option to file the claim and pay the related fees on-line. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, if you are served with a claim electronically, then you can register your defence on-line.

So this is all an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to improve access to the courts and access to justice, and this is important. As a matter of fact, e-filing in the Provincial Court is the Provincial Court's first experience with an alternative method of service delivery. As a result of that, individuals can now file applications from anywhere that they have access to the Internet.

It demonstrates, I think, the ingenuity of the Provincial Court and supports the strategic direction that the court is giving and that the government supports improving access to justice by alternative service models. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia are the only provinces in Canada which provide on-line filing now for Small Claims Court. I might point out as well, that the on-line service provides many help boxes throughout the e-filing process. There is an e-mail address and a toll-free helpline that is available also to users during normal business hours. The public can access the e-filing process. So those people who might be watching and might want to copy this down, the public can access the e-filing process at www.court.nl.ca/provincial/smallclaims

Anyway, so much for that, Mr. Speaker. In response to – before I get to that, one of the other things, of course, the important things about this bill, is that in improving access to the court services, anything over $5,000 in the past or under the current act, Mr. Speaker, in order to satisfy a claim, has to go to the Supreme Court Trial Division. The Supreme Court Trial Division, as was pointed out before, is somewhat of an intimidating experience for most people. It is an adversarial court, it is quite costly. Subsequently, people may not pursue the claims, and as a result of that, may be denied access to justice. That is the whole purpose of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, in that it improves public access to the court services, which is something that this government solidly supports is greater access to the justice system.

With respect to the question raised by the NDP Leader, I think I already referenced that. The $25 will be made by regulation.

With respect to the question from the Opposition House Leader, the act will come into effect upon Royal Assent. When it is signed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the act comes into effect, and at that time the regulations are ready to be gazetted as soon as the bill is given Royal Assent. So we plan to move on this fairly quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think that concludes my comments. Again, I thank all the members for their co-operation, for their response and their contribution and I now move this bill to second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act. (Bill 11)

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

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 11)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 15)

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

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

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act". (Bill 15)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, proposes two amendments to the current act. It poses to amend section 6, which is the most significant amendment of the Fatal Accidents Act, to allow for the award of damages for the loss of care, guidance and companionship suffered by a loved one by the death of a family member. That is the most significant amendment that we are going to be referring to in this particular bill. The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, is updating the language of section 6 to replace the word "jury" with the more inclusive term "court", and to revise the word "verdict".

Mr. Speaker, if I might refer the House briefly to the current act in section 6, which will be the section that we will be referring to today, section 6 of the act deals with damages. In the debate that we had on the Fatal Accidents Act back in December, there was quite a lot of discussion around damages. As I pointed out at that point in time, for the ordinary person damages means something that happens to your car or something that is damaged which is caused by some outside force, but damages in law, Mr. Speaker, are monies or compensation for injuries that are done to an individual.

Section 6 of the current act deals with damages, and it states as follows, (1) "In an action brought under this Act the jury may award the damages that they think are proportional to the injury resulting from the death to the parties for whose benefit the action was brought, and the amount so recovered shall be divided among those parties, in the shares that the jury by their verdict finds and directs."

That is the only reference, Mr. Speaker, in this to the type of damages that can be awarded. That has been interpreted to mean pecuniary damages only and does not include non-pecuniary damages.

Subsection (2), "Where the defendant is advised to pay money into court, the defendant may pay in compensation a lump sump to all persons entitled under this Act for his or her wrongful act, neglect or default, without specifying the shares into which it is to be divided by the jury. (3) Where the sum is not accepted and an issue is taken by the plaintiff as to its sufficiency, and the jury considers it sufficient, the defendant shall be entitled to the verdict upon that issue." So you can see the language in there, Mr. Speaker, that we are looking to change.

Subsection (4), "One action only may be taken for and in respect of the same subject matter of complaint." Now most of these, Mr. Speaker, will not change except for the language, but we will be adding a significant addition to that section dealing with loss for non-pecuniary damages.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, during the last sitting of the House of Assembly in December 2009, this House debated a private member's motion which dealt with a review of two pieces of legislation actually, not only the Fatal Accidents Act, which we are talking about today, but also the Survival of Actions Act. In particular, the real issue, Mr. Speaker, involve damages which are recovered under the Fatal Accidents Act. I will refer briefly to the Survival of Actions Act later on.

Mr. Speaker, the object and the purpose of this legislation is to create a right of action which is not possible under common law. Mr. Speaker, our laws come from two sources, there are codified laws, written laws such as the ones we are talking about here today, and laws that evolve from court decisions over the years. That is what is called laws under the common law.

Our common law has not evolved, Mr. Speaker, to the point where we have a right of action that we are looking for under this act. In our jurisdiction, as a matter of fact, the opposite has occurred, in that the only seminal case involving this issue, the case of McLean v. Carr, which we will reference later on, does just the opposite. It allows us only, under our Fatal Accidents Act to give pecuniary damages as opposed to non-pecuniary damages. The Fatal Accidents Act allows eligible family members to bring an action for damages when the death of their loved one is caused by the wrongful act, neglect or the fault of another.

Mr. Speaker, the death of a loved one is an incredibly difficult event, as was decided and discussed earlier on in this debate in December. It can permanently alter a person's life. The purpose of the Fatal Accidents Act is legislation that is intended to minimize the effect, especially economic effect on the lives of people who were financially dependent on a family member that has been wrongfully killed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to reemphasize that. The member is wrongfully killed. A lawsuit can only be brought under the Fatal Accidents Act if the deceased, had he lived, could have sued the other side, the wrongdoer. He had lived, if he had an action against the wrongdoer, then the lawsuit can be brought under the Fatal Accidents Act, but only if there was a case in the first place. I think that is important to remember.

Now, under the Fatal Accidents Act, section 6, that I just read, the damages may be awarded to address the financial loss, known as pecuniary losses. Pecuniary damages, Mr. Speaker, again, for the purpose of those people who may not be familiar. Pecuniary damages are damages that can be quantified. You can put a dollar figure on them as opposed to non-pecuniary damages. Section 6 addresses pecuniary damages suffered by loved ones, by the death of a family member. It is compensatory, and those making a claim under this section may be awarded damages for such things as the loss of the deceased's income, loss of care and loss of guidance.

Now, we can question: Why loss of care and loss of guidance? We can understand that we can be compensated for the loss of the deceased's income, because that can be quantified, but loss of care and loss of guidance, these are two different issues. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the spouse or the deceased person had to survive, and we can assume the other spouse can rely on the caring support of that spouse or that family member for the rest or for a certain period of his life. That is something that can be quantified, because we can get the same kind of care, the same kind of guidance, perhaps, from a private nurse or a counselor, so a figure can be put on it. We can equate a figure of that nature. So, while they seem somewhat vague in assigning damages for loss of care and loss of guidance, they can be quantified by comparison to services offered in other areas.

In reviewing, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we did as a result of – not necessarily as a result of the debate that happened in December because a review by our department was ongoing long before that, but on reviewing the fatal accidents legislation and the practices and the case law of other provinces and territories, it is sufficient to say that we in this Province are limited to what we can recover for damages pursuant to section 6 of this act because we can only recover, to repeat, pecuniary expenses. There is no recovery under our act for damages for the loss of companionship suffered by a loved one by the death of a family member and our common law has not evolved to the point where we can make a claim there either.

Mr. Speaker, for example, if a husband is wrongfully killed in a motor vehicle accident, a surviving wife currently cannot claim for the lost of companionship she would have received from her husband if he was not killed. Previously, there was no ability for the wife to recover damages for emotional loss. With the introduction of this bill, this government is amending the legislation so that the wife is entitled to recover damages for loss of companionship and it would up to the courts, Mr. Speaker, to assess the value of this loss.

Now, we had a full debate on this in December 2009 and it was resolved that the House of Assembly call on the government to move forward with the review of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act with respect to limitations on those recoverable damages and to examine the practices and legislation of other jurisdictions. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition at the time wanted an all-party review for this but one of the duties of the Minister of Justice includes the supervision, control and direction of all of the matters relating to the administration of the acts for which the minister is responsible. Mr. Speaker, in my department, the Department of Justice, we are responsible for 100 pieces of legislation that falls under the responsibility of our department. The Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act are two of these.

In every session of the House, the minister brings forth amendments or legislation to the House that might amend one or several of these acts, might modify it or modernize legislation. That is the role of the Minister of Justice and that is what we are doing today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we did a complete review of both of these acts and recognized the deficiency in the Fatal Accidents Act. It was not rocket science to recognize the deficiency in that act. It has been an ongoing concern of our legal fraternity for many, many years. Government after government has neglected to amend this act. For some reason that escapes me, because it has certainly been a concern of the people in the legal fraternity, for a long time.

The act - I think I mentioned in the debate - goes back to the 1800s and very little has been done with it. I think the Province passed the Fatal Accidents Act in 1916 and that developed from the Fatal Accidents Act, United Kingdom, which was developed in 1846. It remains substantially in the same form today. It is difficult to understand why we have not moved on this before because there have been so many transformations in our society, in our country. The Fatal Accidents Act, obviously, has not kept up with it and has not reflected these changes.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, a case law, the case of McLean v. Carr Estate and that is a seminal case of this Province dealing with the Fatal Accidents Act. Justice Barry at the time, the Supreme Court Trial Division, he discovered or he identified that the Fatal Accidents Act did not address emotional loss or non-pecuniary damage such as an award for the loss of companionship. He recognized that back in 1994, but obviously, Mr. Speaker, we never went with it until today.

The (inaudible) case, McLean v. Carr Estate - Mr. McLean in that case suffered fatal injuries as a result of a fall from an all-terrain vehicle. He left his wife surviving him, of fourteen years, and three children aged nine, ten and eleven. In that case, Mr. Speaker, Justice Barry determined that a child's loss of a parent's care and guidance is considered to a loss of a pecuniary nature, so as to be recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act.

In other words, the good judge said at that time, a quote from paragraph 28 of his decision: I am satisfied McLean was a father who did spend and would have continued to spend most of his free time with his wife and children. He helped his children with their homework and generally was a good father. In these circumstances I conclude that appropriate awards, as of the date of death, including all contingencies, for the children's loss of their father's care, guidance and companionship are: $9,000 in the case of the nine-year-old; $7,000 in the case of the eleven-year-old; and $6,000 in the case of the twelve-year-old.

He also went on, Mr. Speaker, to state that the wife, Jeanette McLean, was also entitled to compensation for her loss. He said: This was not awarded as solace. Rather, her award should be to compensate her for the loss of care and counsel she would have received over the years from her husband, which is not included in the loss of household services that we had dealt with previously in the case. For example, if the spouse becomes ill, he or she can expect the other will provide care, or if a difficult personal decision must be taken, one can expect one's spouse to provide advice. Judge Barry attributed a pecuniary value to these services in that they could be purchased by retaining a private nurse, for example, or a counsellor. So, he was able to put a value on them.

At the same time, he said: I do not believe, however, that one can properly find a pecuniary value for the lost companionship of a spouse, so as to make that a legitimate head of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act. He said: That is a deficiency in our act, which other provinces have seen fit to correct by amending their legislation to permit the awarding of damages for non-pecuniary loss.

He did give an award to Mrs. McLean of $3,000 for loss of care and counsel, considering all the contingencies, but he could not give her an award for loss of companionship.

Accordingly, it is recognized by this government, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to award damages for the non-financial impact of the loss of a loved one and the Fatal Accidents Act is deficient in this regard.

I will refer to some other jurisdictions. Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Prince Edward Island have amended their fatal accidents legislation to include a discrete legislative provision directing that damages be awarded for the non-pecuniary loss of the family of the deceased. There is no uniformity in terms of the wording of provisions, but for cost of care, guidance and companionship are covered in most of them.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, for example, in Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia legislation says that damages mean pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and without restricting the generality of this definition, includes an amount to compensate for the loss of guidance, care and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive.

Under New Brunswick, applies an amount to compensate for the loss of companionship that the deceased might reasonably have been expected to give to the parents. In Prince Edward Island, where a proceeding has been brought under this act, there may be included in the damage an amount to compensate for the loss of guidance, care and companionship that the claimant may reasonably have expected to receive, and on it goes. In Alberta, it is a little bit different. They award damages for grief and loss of the guidance, care and companionship. So, the different jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, have awarded damages for companionship.

Now, amongst the other Canadian jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, two approaches for the assessment and the awarding of damages for the loss of care, guidance and companionship have been identified. One approach taken by Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, is to allow for a fixed monetary award for the loss. This means that eligible family members do not have to provide evidence of their loss at trial because they are awarded a set sum of money despite differing circumstances. So, the amount is legislated - the amount is legislated in these jurisdictions - that sets out specific amounts that can be claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act.

In Manitoba, for example, the amount is $30,000 to each of the spouse of the deceased, the common-law partner of the deceased, and the support recipient of the deceased, and to each parent and child, and $10,000 to each family member of the deceased. In Saskatchewan: $60,000 to the spouse of the deceased person, $30,000 to each parent, and $30,000 to each child. In Alberta, subject to other provisions of the act, $75,000 is granted to the spouse or adult interdependent partner or partner of the deceased person, and $75,000 to the parent or parents, and $45,000 to each child. So, the amounts are substantial and set out specifically in the legislation.

I point that out for a specific reason, Mr. Speaker, because the bill will deal with that. There are two ways to grant the amount of claims, and in these jurisdictions a specific amount is set aside. There is no need to argue the merits or the individual circumstances of each claim; the amounts are set. That is the first way.

Now the second approach, Mr. Speaker, is taken by Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. What they do, they do not set the particular amount. What they do is they provide a specific provision allowing for the award of damages for the loss of companionship to be determined by the courts. For example, Nova Scotia, I read already: amount to compensate for the loss of guidance, care and companionship that a person might be reasonably expected to receive.

New Brunswick, the same thing: amount to compensate for the loss of companionship - but amounts are not specified. The same thing for Prince Edward Island and Ontario, the amounts are not specified. In other words, it is up to the courts, Mr. Speaker, to make that decision, and the amount of the damages is left to the discretion of the courts. So the benefit of that approach is that each person is assessed on his or her own merits, and the damages are ordered by the court based on the individual circumstances. That, Mr. Speaker, is the approach taken by this amendment.

The other jurisdictions, British Columbia, Northwest Territories and the Yukon, have not amended their legislation yet, so they are in the same boat as we are. Their common law has evolved much further than ours in this. The common law gives them some protection for companionship and for claims of loss of care and guidance under the heads of pecuniary damages. They look to the common law for that direction; our common law has not evolved to that stage.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 15 proposes, the amendment proposes, to amend the Fatal Accidents Act to provide a specific provision allowing for the award of damages for the loss of companionship to be determined by the courts.

This provision, Mr. Speaker, would allow a family member who has lost a loved one to be assessed and awarded damages by a court based on their individual circumstances. The amount of damages will be left to the discretion of the courts who, in our opinion, Mr. Speaker, are best equipped to assess and award these damages, taking into consideration that the case law will evolve over time and allow the courts to decide damages. That is a time-specific issue, Mr. Speaker, and over time case law will evolve and give the courts further direction in making their decisions.

I believe that what we are doing is ensuring that these damages are appropriate and in step with what is occurring in the case law, and what is appropriate and acceptable for our society. We will leave that discretion, Mr. Speaker, to the courts after, of course, the appropriate argumentation is provided by the parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, these are the two basic amendments: to allow for a claim of guidance, care and companionship – for companionship specifically - and also that the court, in its discretion, will make the decisions.

Mr. Speaker, we also reviewed the Survival of Actions Act in respect to a family member's claim for loss of companionship with respect to the deceased. The general purpose, Mr. Speaker, of the Survival of Actions Act is to put the deceased's estate in the same position as the deceased would have been had he or she not died. That is only with respect to causes of action that are by or against the deceased. It does not create any new rights of action. It just preserves, without interruption, whatever rights were vested in the deceased at the time of his or her death. The executor can step into his shoes or her shoes and continue the action as it stands, whether it is for or against the deceased.

We have concluded, Mr. Speaker - my department officials - that amendments to the Survival of Actions Act are not necessary at this time in order to facilitate the award of non-pecuniary damages to the family members. That said, my department is still reviewing, continuing its in-depth review of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act with respect to potential limitations and recoverable damage, but at this stage, Mr. Speaker, the priority is the Fatal Accidents Act and getting these amendments through.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Bill 15 addresses the deficiency that was identified among others by Justice Barry in 1994 to include loss of care, guidance and companionship as an additional head of damages where an eligible family member can claim. If the eligible family member makes a claim for this loss then the amount to be awarded will be assessed by the courts based on the family member's individual circumstances, and we feel the courts are best equipped to do this.

We further recognize, Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned earlier, briefly, that the language in section 6 needed to be modernized. Therefore, it was decided to replace the word "jury" with the more inclusive term "court", and to replace the words "jury by their verdict finds and directs" with "court directs" instead of "jury directs".

Mr. Speaker, this will bring our Province's legislation up to date with that of our provincial and territorial counterparts across the Dominion with the respect to the recovery of damages for loss of companionship. I believe these proposed amendments are necessary and they reflect the change in our society since the Fatal Accidents Act was first passed in this Province back in 1904, I think it was. It recognizes the value of a family member to their loved ones, for more than just quantifiable losses.

No quantifiable amount can put a figure on the loss of a family member, but this attempts to put the situation right. Family members are important for their companionship and emotional support that helps us through life's up and downs, and subsequently should be awarded for such in the event of a wrongful death.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 15. I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and I look forward to the comments from the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this bill. I guess it is with mixed emotions that we see it coming forward as an Opposition. We are happy to see it on the floor of the House of Assembly because we feel that government has finally made a move to amend the Fatal Accidents Act, which certainly needed to be amended, but bittersweet, I guess, in the sense that it does not go far enough. We started out on this issue some time ago to strive for some change in the Fatal Accidents Act, but also some certainty in the Fatal Accidents Act. If we are going to be having the Department of Justice look at pieces of legislation with a view to catching up with society and how they exist today, we may as well – if we know at the time we bring those amendments into the House, we may as well take them far enough to accomplish what it is we all know we need to accomplish and to remove any uncertainty.

I am not making these comments just to be contrary to what the minister has brought forward. Hopefully, in my comments I will make it clear that I say this not because of any personal interests that this member or the Opposition has in this piece of legislation, but because of the background to why we are here today with this Fatal Accidents Act and what has happened in our Province. It is smarter heads than mind who have made these comments and who have had these thoughts as to why this piece of legislation does not go far enough and why we will make a suggested amendment to the minister as to where we ought to go with it.

Now, that is not to say it is not appreciated that you have done this, it is. The Opposition parties brought it to the attention of government some time ago. We had a private member's motion debate here in the House of Assembly about this, calling upon government to amend the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act. The government of the day agreed. The minister of today spoke in the House of Assembly in regard to that bill. I can quote him, and I have some of his comments here and I will be referring to them as I make my comments.

That motion at that time, the private member's motion, dealt with two pieces of legislation that go hand in hand and need to be looked at, we feel, together. That is the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act. We think we are remiss and we are being short sighted if today we are not dealing with them together. There is no reason they could not have been. We have not been given a reason why the minister – I do not think a valid reason by the minister, with all due respect – as to why we do not have it here today. If we are going to take the time and effort, which we have done, to amend one – the minister himself with his own words, which I will cite, said back then we needed to look at both of these together. When we look at both together, we know that the change is necessary to both. We ought to be making a change together.

I would like to make it quite clear that this Opposition is not opposed to changing the Fatal Accidents Act and we are appreciative of the attempts that the minister in this piece of legislation is making toward that change, but we feel, in all sincerity, that it does not go far enough. We feel that because you have simply left out the word "non-pecuniary". That is what this was all about.

There are two ways to change the laws in our Province. One is the common law, which we call judge-made law. You start off in a circumstance back in whenever, the 1800s, 1900s, things happen. Judges deal with cases and as cases go on they listen to one case and they say: well, we have to reflect today's circumstances and so on, and they will make a ruling, a judgment. The next judge who hears that case says: yeah, we are going to follow that precedent that was already set a few years ago. Over time this changes, the courts change the law. It is called common law, judge-made law.

Another way to change the law, of course, is simply come into the House of Assembly because you want to do it faster, you think it is more efficient, you cannot wait for the judges to make it and you actually change the law. That is what we are doing here. We are making a legislative change to change the law. Now I think we all know from the very wording in our Fatal Accidents Act today that judge-made law or common law just have not kept pace with what we need. It has not kept pace. So we finally recognize, after years and years and decades of court-made judgments, when it comes to fatal accident incidents and survival of accidents incidents, that it is not sufficient. So there has finally been recognition of that and we find ourselves on the floor of the House of Assembly trying to legislatively change one of those laws, the Fatal Accidents Act. So that is a good step. We finally recognize that we cannot wait for the courts any more.

By the way, what prompted this in the last couple of years, everyone in this Province is well aware of, is the Cameron inquiry. That is what brought all this about. That is the impetus, I should say, for why we are discussing the Fatal Accidents Act and Survival of Accidents Act today. We know we had a terrible tragic incident in our Province in recent years concerning the ER-PR testing when things went wrong, people got wrong test results. People were given wrong treatments or not given treatments that they ought to have had and people died, unfortunately. Then the question became somebody was negligent. If somebody died because of a wrong test result, for example, somebody said: How do we deal with that? How do we compensate those families?

Now, it is simple if you are driving down the street and somebody is negligent or backs into your car, or slams into your car because they come through a stop sign and they are negligent. You go to court, and the judge can easily say - the guy might argue, oh no, no, I did not go through the stop sign, I did not do this, not my fault. Anyway, the judge would listen to the case and he would say at the end of the day: yes, you did go through the stop sign. He would make a finding of fact, and he would say: yes, you have to pay the damages for that gentleman or that lady's car that you ran into because you were negligent.

Now, you can easily figure out what the cost of the car was. That is called a pecuniary damage. It is something you can quantify, you can put a value on it. You might have to go to some car dealership to say: look, this guy ran into a 2007 Ford Escape, what are they worth in today's value, or the day that you had the accident? You can get three or four different opinions and they can tell you pretty well what the value of that vehicle would have been. So that is a monetary value that you put on the damaged product and the person who was negligent has to pay the damages. That is easy enough to do.

For example, you might be injured in an accident and never be able to work again. The court can even get down, bring in the necessary medical people, bring in the necessary actuarial people and figure out that this individual cannot work any more. So what do we have to pay him or her in terms of a dollar value so that they will be in the position they were in before they got injured? The court can put a value on all of that. The person, for example, might be wheelchair bound for the rest of their life. You can determine that. What does it cost to feed the person? What does it cost to replace their wages that they would have had if they never got injured? That is all pecuniary damages. Easily quantified – and by the way, quantified under both acts, Fatal Accidents and Survival of Actions Act. In fact, the Survival of Actions Act is pretty specific and says you can only claim for pecuniary damages.

There is another big area of damages that was not addressed by these laws, the Fatal Accidents Act and Survival of Actions, and that is the non-pecuniary. That is not the car that got beat up that you can put a value on, that is not the lost wages that you can easily determine the person would have made if they worked for another fifteen, twenty years or whatever and so on, and add it to Consumer Price Index, wage increases, you can factor all that stuff in. It is what about when you lose the companionship of someone. What if, in the same accident that beat your car up and demolished your car, you lost your wife? How do you put a value on the care, the emotional support, the companionship that your deceased spouse would have given to you? Somebody was negligent and caused her death. The courts, under our act, used to say fine, we will let you claim for the cost of your funeral expenses, for example. We can put a price on the cost of a funeral, but they never put a value on the cost of the loss of the care, the companionship and that you felt, the non-pecuniary items.

Justice Barry in the Carr Estate case - as alluded to by the minister - tried to find a way around that. He went as far as he could under the law. Under the law he was not allowed to do it. Him, as a judge, he tried to gently nudge the law along and allow something. He did allow something for the kids. When it came to the wife in that case who had lost her husband, he could not do it; he could not put a value on it. The law did not permit him to put a value on it. That was back in 1994.

We find ourselves - we fast-forward to this decade. We had the Cameron inquiry; hundreds of people impacted, some died, many died. A practitioner of the law in this Province named Mr. Ches Crosbie, well-known as a person who does a lot of civil litigation, particularly class actions in this Province. He got involved on behalf of a lot of these persons who had gotten the wrong testing during the ER-PR episode; the Cameron inquiry we call it.

With regard to those people who had died, he was hamstrung because the longer - for example, you have to remember now, the money was going to be paid to these families, these children, these spouses, the surviving spouses by the insurers of the Eastern Health Corporation who had done the testing. As you can imagine, if he represented 100 people, for example, by the time he took this through the court process and got to the end of the day, people were dying. Their estates and their families who were trying to seek compensation were not getting the money that they were entitled to or ought to have gotten entitled to because of these two acts, the Fatal Accidents Act and Survival of Actions Act, because they did not deal with non-pecuniary losses when it came to then compensating the surviving spouse and the children.

That is when Mr. Crosbie said, this is not right. He was the person who, being the spokesperson for these people, said this is not right in this day and age. Of course, he did not have to look too far to figure out that we were behind the times. I believe the minister said Yukon maybe, and ourselves and one other today have not kept abreast of the law. Just about every other jurisdiction in Canada has made changes to reflect these non-pecuniary losses. Some of them are different. This one that I see before me today appears to be patterned after the Ontario Fatal Accidents Act.

The Nova Scotia one seems to be a bit broader and specifically uses non-pecuniary. Some put limits on them. Some say you can go for non-pecuniary but you have a limit of $75,000. There are all kinds of variations. The problem I would suggest we have here, Mr. Speaker, is that it does not use the word "non-pecuniary". If we are going to bring certainty to this, and after what we have gone through on the Cameron inquiry, and after taking this master step of saying we are going to amend the act, why don't we get rid of any uncertainty about whether it is non-pecuniary that we are talking about here and put the word in there? What is so scary about putting the word in here, "non-pecuniary"?

For example, the major piece we are talking about here in this amendment is in section 6.(2) that is being changed. We are saying, "The damages awarded under subsection (1) may include an amount to compensate for the loss of care, guidance and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive from the deceased if the death had not occurred."

Now, what is wrong, before the word "loss", putting in "non-pecuniary"? Absolutely nothing wrong with doing that, but if we do not do it, if we do not put the word "non-pecuniary" in here we have still left it to interpretation when we get into a courtroom. A gentleman loses his spouse again, or a lady loses her husband, we end up in a courtroom again in a battle and some lawyer stands up and says, it does not say "non-pecuniary". It does not say that. It just says here that you can be compensated for loss of care, guidance and companionship but you had to be able to take those items, put them into a monetary or pecuniary value to get compensated. Again, why the uncertainty? Why don't we just use the word "non-pecuniary" loss including care, guidance and companionship? Then there is no question about it, minister, none whatsoever as to what the person would be entitled to. The judges can read it quite clearly; the lawyers can read it quite clearly. End of case. End of argument. That is what it is all about is taking the uncertainty out of this, absolutely no justification for not putting it in there.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read – and I think it is educational as well and informative. This is not just the thoughts of this individual being put forward here, and that is what Mr. Crosbie who brought this forward himself said. By the way, this gentleman has been around practicing law in this Province for some thirty-odd years and he has had his hand in some pretty major cases. For example, the class action law that we now have in this Province came about as a result of his pushing, because there were classes of people who had good, legal justifications for lawsuits but we did not permit it. Now fortunately - and I must say, that was one of the things I had the benefit of doing as the minister, was to see the implementation of the class action legislation. That is what this Cameron case took place under. It ended up being mediated but that is how he represented it. He is very well known.

This is a comment that came off his blog. Now we all talk about bloggers and newspapers and media reports and whatever, but this is what he said, and I think it is informative. I can certainly provide and will provide the minister with a copy of this because I think it is informative as to where this person, who was probably closest to the people in the Cameron inquiry, who led to us being here on the floor of the House today anyway to have this discussion. He calls this amendment today that we are dealing with the Donna Howell amendment. I think that is a very appropriate name, the Donna Howell amendment. He also suggests that it does not go far enough. If we are going to pay the proper respect we ought to, to that particular individual and what led to us being here today, we may as well do it in a proper fashion. Let's remove any uncertainty that we have.

This is what he said, "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has introduced a bill to implement much needed reform…" - hats off to the Government of Newfoundland - "…in the wrongful death laws of the province. The need for reform became obvious to all in the course of the Breast Cancer Testing class action which reached a mediated settlement in October last year.

"The amendment to the Fatal Accidents Act is aimed at allowing a court to make an award of damages which "may include an amount to compensate for the loss of care, guidance and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive from the deceased if the death had not occurred." In other words, the intent is to reform the common law or judge-made law, to allow courts to make awards for intangible losses of an emotional, pain and suffering nature to close family members of a person who becomes deceased through the fault of another.

"These intangible losses are known as non-pecuniary losses, as distinct from pecuniary losses such as lost wages, which can be measured in monetary terms.

"I call this the Donna Howell amendment. Donna Howell will be remembered by many as a courageous breast cancer survivor who succumbed to her disease a month before the mediated settlement in the Breast Cancer Testing class action. She was a compelling public spokesperson for many in the class. Her husband Darryl Howell served on the negotiating committee at the mediation. We were able to negotiate a settlement which treated all class members, whether living or deceased, on an equal footing in terms of damages awards, but this might not have been the outcome had we gone to court on the existing law. With this new bill, the unjust laws of wrongful death will be brought into step with modern conceptions of justice and loss."

So, there is no doubt that this amendment being here is much appreciated, even by people like Mr. Crosbie – certainly by people like Mr. Crosbie, who represent people involved in wrongful deaths – and he is much appreciative of the fact that it is here and that we finally are going to deal with it.

Then he went on to say, in conclusion, "But will the courts actually make non-pecuniary awards to family members of the deceased? I am sure it is what the legislature intends. However, courts are conservative, and I predict as a certainty that defence lawyers will argue that if the legislature had intended the new awards for loss of care, guidance and companionship to be non-pecuniary awards rather than awards for pecuniary losses, then the legislature would have said so."

A very telling comment; no disrespect to our courts but Mr. Crosbie, I think, read it straight. The courts are not going to interpret something in a law that we pass here unless it is very clear, black and white. What he is saying is we can say yes, we can compensate someone for these items, but unless we say that it is non-pecuniary they are not going to make it compensable.

He went on to say, "To remove any uncertainty, it would be a simple precaution for the government to add the words ‘non-pecuniary' before the word ‘loss'." His final sentence was, "Surely the Donna Howell amendment deserves this much extra care."

Mr. Speaker, I think that says it all. We know why we are here; we are trying to update a piece of legislation. We applaud the government for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I think it is a gigantic step forward, but we have to put both feet on the ground. We just cannot take the one step forward and not know where the other step is going to land. There is no reason in the world that we cannot have the word "non-pecuniary" in this particular piece of legislation. We strongly recommend to the minister that amendment be made. We will be making it at the committee stage.

We feel this is a great opportunity to bring our Province in line with the rest of the country. Those in the rest of this country who are not in line with us when it comes to wrongful death and compensation to the family members, they can stay out of step, but that is no reason why we should stay out of step. We have acknowledged that there is an issue; we acknowledge that we want to fix it. We may as well fix it, and should fix it, and have an obligation to fix it, in the proper manner. This does not take away anything from government's agenda. It does not give anybody any unnecessary rights that they should not have. This is all about clarity; this is all about certainty, so that never again should anybody in this Province who loses a family member have to worry about what it means or does not mean.

Very rarely do we get an opportunity in this House of Assembly to know and appreciate a circumstance as to why we are changing a law, and what happened. There is never probably going to be a more vivid, real circumstance than we faced with the Cameron inquiry, and the suffering and anguish that those family members went through.

We applaud the government for what you did, and I do not want to take away from anything that the government is doing by politicizing. This is not a political issue. This is about doing what is right, and we have an opportunity here to do something very magnanimous for a lot of people in this Province on a go-forward basis in this Province – family members.

As the minister himself said, you cannot put a price on human life and you cannot really put a price on if you lose a spouse or a family member. Leave that to the courts; we have no problem with that. That is what this legislation is doing: leave the amounts to the judges to decide. That is one issue.

Now, some people have a different view. Some people in other Provinces think that you can cap it. Some provinces have used $75,000 as a cap. Personally, the Opposition is not concerned about this Legislature putting caps on - leave that to the judges - but we should not leave it to be uncertain as to what is or is not included in compensation. By simply inserting the word "non-pecuniary" before the word "loss" in section 6.(2) we will have accomplished that certainty.

That is all I have to say on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. As I say, it is very rare that we get an opportunity to deal with a substantial piece of legislation that has had such an impact on the people in this Province, and has affected literally hundreds and hundreds of people in this Province. I think we have an opportunity here to do something that is certainly right and proper, and we will be proposing that amendment. We leave it open to the minister, of course, to offer the amendment himself. We think that would be right and proper as well. If not, we will certainly be proposing the amendment in the committee stage. We will be supportive of the government, of course, if they – we would appreciate it if they could accept that amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, which is the certainty, so nobody will ever doubt again in this Province what is included when it comes to compensation to the families of people who die wrongfully in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak during the discussion of Bill 15, which is an extremely important bill in our Province, as has been pointed out both by the minister and by the Opposition House Leader. I am very glad to see this bill coming to the floor of the House, and I am glad that we have had the bill in a timely fashion so that we have had time to read it carefully and to get advice on the bill. It is a short amendment that is being made to the Fatal Accidents Act, but it is an extremely important amendment.

As the minister pointed out, the whole of section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act is being repealed, and what we have in front of us is rewriting of section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act. Some of it is just rewriting that makes language more modern and clearer, but the important thing, as has been pointed out by the minister and the Opposition House Leader, is the addition of the recognition of the need for us to compensate when somebody dies through accidental death - whatever the accidental death is - that there needs to be, to the families of the deceased, compensation for the loss of the care, the guidance and companionship that the person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive from the deceased. So the person obviously who is being compensated is not the deceased; it is those who are left behind. It is partners, whatever the relationship of that partnership is, are recognized by our government, it is parents, and it is children. It is extremely important that we recognize that when somebody is torn away from them, family members, whatever definition of family we use, that family members are suffering because of that and there is a way in which they need to be compensated.

I think the key issue of the amendment is the issue that has been raised by the Opposition House Leader, and it is the key issue I want to raise. I actually want to raise two issues with regard to this bill. The first one I want to raise is the issue that has been raised by the Opposition House Leader, and that is the issue regarding the fact that the word "non-pecuniary" is anywhere found in the amendment. Even though the minister did stand and was very clear, in his presentation the minister made it very clear that one of the main reasons for this amendment was to include the notion of non-pecuniary loss. I was really glad that he said that but, in actual fact, the word "non-pecuniary" is not in the amendment. I think it would be an extremely simple thing to do. If this is the intent of the minister that this is covering non-pecuniary loss, then it makes all the sense in the world in subsection (2) that we include the word "non-pecuniary" before the word "loss", so that we would be compensating for the non-pecuniary loss of care, guidance and companionship.

It has been pointed out by the Opposition House Leader and I was going to be doing it, so I am going to do it as well because it does firm up the discussion. We have talked and spoken with a number of people with regard to this amendment. We, too, have gone to the blog of Ches Crosbie who has, as we know, a long history with regard to this issue. His legal opinion, and it is a legal opinion of others as well, is that without putting in the word "non-pecuniary", there are defence lawyers out there who could look at the words "loss of care, guidance and companionship" and argue that because the word "non-pecuniary" is not there that it actually is only pecuniary loss. Then, you would get into a real problem when it comes to the issue of guidance and companionship because that is the part, in particular, you can probably put a dollar sign, and you can probably look at the loss of care and call that in some ways pecuniary. You cannot do it with guidance and companionship, and if the word "non-pecuniary" is not put in, you could have cases being fought for a long time without that clarity.

So, I did not know that the Official Opposition was going to be proposing actually making a motion. I will be supporting that, but I would hope that the minister would actually see the need for putting in the word "non-pecuniary". He is on record here in the House saying that it means non-pecuniary damages. So if it means it, if subsection (2) is referring to non-pecuniary, and the minister has said it and he is on record saying it, it is now in the official record that the government means non-pecuniary, then I believe the minister has an obligation to put non-pecuniary into the piece of legislation. Unfortunately, if it is not in there, and somebody, a defence lawyer decides to fight this in court, based on the legislation as it stands, they are not going to go to Hansard and say, well really, this is what the minister meant, because really, what is meant is what is in legislation.

We have an example of that right now with – and I am not saying this from a political perspective, but with what happened by accident with regard to the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. No matter what was meant, what is in reality is what is on paper, and that is the same way with this. What is in reality is what is on paper, and if non-pecuniary is not there, even though the minister said in the House that he means this as non-pecuniary loss, then it is not going to mean a thing if it is not on paper, if a defence lawyer can argue his way around that.

So that is my first point, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is an extremely important one. Since we are doing it, since we are putting in a piece that is dealing with non-pecuniary compensation, then I think we really have to make it very clear and put the word in. I think the arguments are fairly straightforward. I am sure that the minister understands the need for having it in, and I am really hoping that he is going to stand in this House and say that he agrees that non-pecuniary will go in there, because if it does not, we are really putting people in a difficult situation – potentially putting people in a difficult situation. Believe me, and I am sure he knows that as a lawyer himself, that there will defence lawyers out there ready to jump on it if that word is not in there. So, I really urge the minister to make sure that this amendment to the wording happens. If it does not, I will not be able to vote for the amendment. I feel that strongly about it that it has to be in there. I am really delighted to vote for this amendment to the Fatal Accidents Act, but the word "non-pecuniary" has to be in subsection (2) in order for me to be able to do that. I think it will be a flawed piece of legislation if the word "non-pecuniary" is not inserted.

The other issue I would like to speak to is the issue of whether or not we should legislate the amount of money that would be recognized under non-pecuniary recompense, or recompense for a non-pecuniary loss. The minister, obviously, has given thought to the issue and he quoted the figures of provinces who do legislate an amount of money. He quoted the figures from Manitoba, from Saskatchewan and from Alberta which are three provinces who do legislate the amount of money. He said that his department had looked at it and had decided not to take that route and gave some reasons for making that decision. One of the reasons, I think, was: Will people have different circumstances?

I am not convinced by the argument, especially when I look at, for example, what was said in Manitoba in 2000. In the year 2000, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission reviewed their legislation on this matter. The Manitoba Law Reform Commission suggested that claimants should not be subjected to the indignity of establishing the quality and intensity of the relationships with the deceased. The court should not be required to make invidious and distasteful assessment of the same. So, it was actually the Manitoba Law Reform Commission who recommended to the Government of Manitoba the use of conventional sums to compensate for the loss of guidance, care and companionship.

I have to say that I find the argument that was presented by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission back in 2000 very convincing because no amount of money can compensate family members for what they have lost; we know that. An award of money cannot evaluate the worth of a person's life. If a figure is not legislated, then families are going to be in court and they are going to have to go through the whole thing of argument in court about what their loved one's life has meant to them and what the worth is to them. Whereas the bottom line is everybody, if they have lost a loved one, you have lost, everybody has lost.

I think there is a very strong argument to be made for having the amount of money legislated. It is an indignity for somebody to have to say: Well, I really think this is how much it is worth to me. If a court is saying $30,000 or $40,000 or the defendant is fighting against the claimant and are saying $30,000, $40,000 and the claimant is there saying no, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, it is not something that they should have to go through. Families, loved ones, should not have to go through that process. Even though I recognize that there are provinces that have not moved in that direction, that three provinces have. One of them at least has had this in place for a fairly long time.

I am disappointed that we have chosen not to look at legislating. At this moment, that is the position that government has taken. As I said, I am not convinced by the argument, and it was not much of an argument that was presented by the minister to maintain that position. I am much more convinced by the argument that I read, as I have pointed out, from the Manitoba Law Reform Commission for, in actual fact, doing that. In actual fact, naming an amount of money and having a fixed amount of money. I am asking the minister to open that discussion with us. Can we talk further about that and have this government reconsider the whole thing of naming an amount of money?

The two main things, Mr. Speaker, then that I am putting forward; one, is saying that yes, the term "non-pecuniary" should and needs to go into the piece of legislation so that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the loss we are talking about is non-pecuniary loss. I am really asking the minister to reconsider his position with regard to not fixing an amount of money, so that families do not have to go into court and have to go through the whole indignity of trying to prove what the loved one was worth to them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made all the points that are important. I look forward to an ongoing discussion on this issue to hear what the minister will have to say, and to see if we cannot work this through when we come to a Committee of the Whole.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a privilege to stand here in my hon. place today as we make a few comments about Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation and a very important change for the people of the Province. This bill would amend the Fatal Accidents Act to allow for the award of damages for the loss of care, guidance and companionship. I will spend a few minutes now, Mr. Speaker, to talk about this particular act, and I commend the Minister of Justice and his department for bringing this forward.

As the minister said earlier, and certainly our hon. colleagues across the way also mentioned, there is no amount of money that will replace the life of a loved one – no amount of money, Mr. Speaker. Having a reality check is a reality check, and there will be times and have been times in the past and will be times probably in the future in which we will have accidents, fatalities, and I believe this a very important bill for our government and for those affected by a fatal accident, Mr. Speaker.

I want to just take a minute, Mr. Speaker, and talk about section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act which is repealed and the following is going to be substituted. I want to, just for the record, read what the changes we are looking at:

Section 6.(1) In an action brought under this act, the court may award the damages it considers proportional to the injury resulting from the death to the parties for whose benefit the action was brought, and the amount so recovered shall be divided among those parties in the shares that the court directs.

(2) The damages awarded under subsection (1) may include an amount to compensate for the loss of care, guidance and companionship that a person for whose benefit the action is brought might reasonably have expected to receive from the deceased if the death had not occurred.

(3) Where the defendant is advised to pay money into court, the defendant may pay in compensation a lump sum to all persons entitled under this act for his or her wrongful act, neglect or default, without specifying the shares into which it is to be divided by the court.

(4) Where the sum is not accepted and an issue is taken by the plaintiff as to its sufficiency, and the court considers it sufficient, the defendant shall be entitled to a judgment on that issue.

(5) One action only may be taken for and in respect of the same subject matter of a complaint.

Mr. Speaker, as we move through this particular bill, our government has taken action in response of a need to update important legislation in order to modernize and to bring into line with the current practice throughout this country. This legislation has changed very little since 1916, and it is important that it be made contemporary and meets the values of our society today. By permitting compensation for the loss of companionship, guidance and care in the unfortunate circumstance of the death of a loved one, we are recognizing the importance of a loved one to a family outstanding one cannot truly compensate of such a loss.

Currently, a loved one can only claim for a financial loss, such as the loss of income, loss of guidance, and the loss of care. However, now we are allowing the courts to take into consideration loss of companionship in the unfortunate event of the death of a loved one, an award compensation for the emotional loss. We believe that as the courts are most aware of current and evolving case law of these matters that they are the most appropriate forum to assess and award damages for loss of companionship, care and guidance. It has been recognized, certainly by the minister and the Department of Justice, that is important to award damages for the non-financial impact of the loss of a loved one and that the Fatal Accidents Act is deficient, certainly in this regard.

The Department of Justice has also reviewed the Survival of Actions Act in relation to the family members' claim for the loss of care, guidance and companionship with respect to the deceased. It was concluded that amendments to the Survival of Actions Act were not necessary to facilitate an award on non-pecuniary damages to the family members. However, the Department of Justice will continue to review the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act with respect to other potential limitations on recoverable damages, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 15, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act, and this bill proposes: one, certainly to amend section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act to allow for the award of damages for the loss of care, guidance and companionship suffered by a loved one by the death of a family member; and, two, to update the language in section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act to replace "jury" with the more inclusive term, "court", and to revise the word "verdict".

Mr. Speaker, the object and purpose of the Fatal Accidents legislation is to create the right of action, which is not possible under the common law. The Fatal Accidents Act allows eligible family members to bring an action for damages when the death of their loved one is caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default of another. The death of a loved one is an incredible, difficult event which can permanently alter the direction of a person's life. The Fatal Accidents Act is legislation intended to minimize the economic impact on the lives of people who were financially dependent on a family member that has been wrongfully killed.

In accordance with section 6, Mr. Speaker, of the Fatal Accidents Act, damages may be awarded to address the financial loss, known as pecuniary damages, suffered by loved ones by the death of a family member. Section 6 is compensatory to those making a claim under this section - may be awarded damages for such things as the loss of a deceased's income, loss of care, and loss of guidance.

Mr. Speaker, upon reviewing the fatal accidents legislation practices and case law in other provinces and territories, it is suffice it to say that we in this Province are limited as to what we can recover for damages pursuant to section 6 of this act, as we may only recover pecuniary expenses. There is no recovery for damages for the loss of companionship suffered by a loved one by the death of a family member.

Mr. Speaker, if a husband is wrongfully killed in a motor vehicle accident, a surviving wife currently cannot claim for the loss of the companionship she would have received from her husband if he had not been killed. Previously, there was no ability for the wife to recover damages for emotional loss. With the bill introduction, this bill and this government is amending the legislation so that the wife is entitled to recover damages for loss of companionship and it will be up to the courts, Mr. Speaker, to assess the value of this loss.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice and minister initiated a review of the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act and recognized a deficiency in the Fatal Accidents Act. In fact, this review has been ongoing before the private member's motion was brought to the House of Assembly pursuant to section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Act and damages may be awarded to address the financial loss or pecuniary damage suffered by a loved one by the death of a family member. However, there is no provision in the Fatal Accidents Act which addresses emotional loss, Mr. Speaker, or non-pecuniary damages which as an award for the loss of companionship.

The Minister of Justice mentioned in this House before, Mr. Speaker, this Province first passed the Fatal Accidents Act in 1916. At the time Fatal Accidents Act was developed, United Kingdom's Fatal Accidents Act of 1846, and remains substantially in the same form today. While there have been many transformations in our country, Mr. Speaker, in our Province and our society since the Fatal Accidents Act was created, it has been recognized that the current Fatal Accidents Act does not fully reflect these changes.

As the minister said earlier, in 1994 it was identified by then Justice Barry of the Supreme Court Trial Division that the Fatal Accidents Act did not address emotional loss or non-pecuniary damage which as an award for the loss of companionship. Justice Barry recognized that this was a deficiency certainly in our act, and indeed our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there was a case, and I think the minister alluded to it earlier, the case of McLean v. Carr Estate, Newfoundland. In his submission he said, "I am satisfied that Keith McLean was a father who did spend and would have continued to spend most of his free time with his wife and children. He helped his children with their homework and generally was a good father. In these circumstances I conclude that appropriate awards, as of the date of death, considering all contingencies, for the children's loss of their father's care, guidance and companionship."

He went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that Ms McLean, the wife, "…is also entitled to compensation for her loss in this regard. This is not awarded as solace. Rather, her award should be to compensate her for the loss of care and counsel she would have received over the years from her husband, which is not included in…" this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McLean, in that particular case, suffered fatal injuries as the result of a fall from an all-terrain vehicle. He left his wife of fourteen years, and three children, aged nine, eleven and twelve. In that case, Justice Barry determined that a child's loss of a parent's care and guidance is considered to be a loss of a pecuniary nature, so as to be recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act. Accordingly, the court awarded all three children $1,000 for every year until they reach the age of eighteen. This resulted in awards of $9,000 for the nine-year-old, $7,000 for the eleven-year-old, and $6,000 for the twelve-year-old. With respect to the claim for loss of care, guidance and companionship under the Fatal Accidents Act, Justice Barry further stated the following paragraph thirty, and I just went through that.

I will state this, he said, "I do not believe, however, that one can properly find a pecuniary value for the lost companionship of a spouse, so as to make this a legitimate head of damages under our Fatal Accidents Act. This is a deficiency in our Act, which other provinces have seen fit to correct by amending their legislation to permit the awarding of damages for nonpecuniary loss." Accordingly, it is recognized by this government, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to award damages for the non-financial impact of the loss of a loved one, and that the Fatal Accident Act is deficient in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 15 proposes to amend the Fatal Accidents Act to provide a specific provision allowing for the award of damages for the loss of companionship to be determined by the courts. This provision would allow a family member, Mr. Speaker, who has lost a loved one, to be assessed and awarded damages by a court based on their individual circumstances. The amount of damages awarded would be left to the discretion of the courts who are best equipped to assess and award damages taking into consideration the evolving case law in this area. Every situation is indeed different. Case law will evolve over time, and by allowing the courts to decide damages, I believe we are ensuring that these damages are appropriate and in step with what are occurring in case law and what is apparent and acceptable in our society.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Bill 15 addresses the identified deficiency by amending the Fatal Accidents Act to include the loss of care, guidance and companionship as an additional head of damages which an eligible family member can claim for. If an eligible family member makes a claim for this loss, then the amount to be awarded is assessed by our courts based on the family member's individual circumstances. Certainly, the courts are best equipped to assist and award damages taking into consideration the evolving case law in this area.

In reviewing the Fatal Accidents Act, it was further recognized by the Justice Department and the Minister of Justice that the language in section 6 needed to be modernized. Therefore, it was decided to replace the word "jury" with a more inclusive term "court" and to replace the words "jury by their verdict finds and directs" with "court directs".

Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring our Province's legislation up-to-date with our provincial and territorial counterparts with respect to the recovery of damages for loss of companionship. I believe that proposed amendments are necessary and reflect changes in our society, such as the Fatal Accidents Act, which was first passed in this Province.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the value of a family member to their loved ones for more than just quantifiable losses. Family members are important for their companionship and emotional support that help us through life's ups, and certainly life's downs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today as we discuss an amendment to the Fatal Accidents Act. It should be noted that the Fatal Accidents Act is actually a short title. The full title of the bill is, An Act Respecting Compensation To Families Of Deceased Persons When Death Occurs Through Negligence. That is the full of the act; however, the short title is called the Fatal Accidents Act.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment that we are considering here today is certainly, as the Opposition House Leader has described it as substantive. When we look at it in terms of the size of the actual act itself versus some of the other things we have considered, it is actually not all that long, but certainly when we look at the subject matter that it deals with, this is fairly weighty stuff that we are dealing with here.

Common law, as those of us who are familiar with it at all, really represents the evolution of issues that have been brought forward to the courts and successive judges make rulings on it. Sometimes, it just takes very a broad approach, and as more and more situations are presented to the court, the rulings and the way that judgements are given are fine-tuned. That forms the basis upon which succeeding judgements are made. Now, sometimes there are situations in society, sometimes there are areas where a real shift has taken place, the circumstances under which previous judgements have been made change dramatically, and it consequently requires the courts to go off in new directions. For the most part, the human condition being what it is, things follow along a fairly straightforward course.

So the common law that currently exists, as has been pointed out already, is that the first order of business is to take care of the financial loss that comes by when someone passes away. Certainly, we all understand that anyone who passes away does make a contribution to the family unit. Oftentimes, the person who is the main income earner, if that is taken out of the equation, in terms of how you run your household, then it certainly is good cause for the courts to award damages to make sure that the remaining family unit is not left in a situation that is detrimental to their future because of somebody's negligence.

As part of the common law, we have also proceeded forward and talked about things like the loss of guidance and the loss of care, now it is very easy to talk about the loss of income. I can, in my former profession as a teacher, one could look at what my salary was every year, you could project what it would be down the road, you may define what it is very definitely upfront or you may say this is a floating issue that will change depending on what this person's salary level would have been had he stayed in the profession, had the accident which caused death not happened.

When we get into the issue of the loss of guidance and the loss of care, this is something that has been taken under consideration by the courts and it is a very difficult thing to quantify and say here is exactly what the removal of this person's guidance will cost. How do we put a cost on that? It is extremely difficult to do. It really comes back to, I guess, even some very fundamental questions. How much is a life worth? Nonetheless, the courts do try to assign a certain amount of value and keep the persons who are most directly affected by the death in some sort of a financial situation that will allow them to proceed in a reasonable manner. Also, the quantification of loss of care, now again, how do you put a value on that?

The real heart of this, which I think really comes home, is certainly if you have a parent that is lost. You can take the individual skills that a parent brings to a family, but I think it is fairly safe to say that when two parents are put together they, in fact, become more than the sum of their parts. What they are able to do, how they complement each other, how they cover off for each other in certain situations. So together, that parenting unit becomes more than just the sum of two individuals. I think this is what you get at when you talk about the compensation for companionship. How do you cover off the times when that additional area is not there? So this is, I think, what we are getting at right here.

Now, the question becomes when you talk about - and again, you will have to excuse my sort of lack of deep legal knowledge in referring to the word "non-pecuniary". I suggest we will probably go back to the minister and to the officials. Does this particular term, does this throw the door too wide open?

I understand the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wanting it there because it does cover quite a lot of things, but the question may become: Does it cover too many things, or can it be misconstrued to cover too many things? So I just put it out there, not so much as any kind of a statement as to what should happen but more as a question that I have as to what could happen here.

Do we perhaps run the risk of opening the doors too wide? Is it probably a more prudent approach right now to define the type of things, under this legislation, as loss of companionship, loss of care, loss of guidance and then allow the law to evolve a little bit more beyond that? Again, these are questions I leave to people with a lot more experience.

In terms of setting amounts, a fine question. How do we quantify a relationship? How do we quantify the intensity of a relationship? I suggest, perhaps the Wisdom of Solomon might be needed here to determine those amounts. To say it is a set amount, I really have a problem with that. How do you say: Look, no matter what your relationship was like, no matter what your dynamic was like in your relationship, no matter what goes on, here is a set amount. There it is, case closed, walk out the door. On the other side, I think there is place for courts and their wisdom, whether it be by a judge alone or by jury, to take on those questions, to ask the questions in a tactful, respectful way and come up with some determination.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the issues that I have here. The opportunity to take some of the common law that has been in place and as the term is, to codify it to make it part of the actual legislated law, I think that is a good opportunity. As we advance along I think we will see more – how would you put it? There is more opportunity to codify the whole business of loss of companionship perhaps down the road as this situation evolves within the Newfoundland courts.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my leave and I look forward to further comments. I think the Minister of Justice will bring it from here. Again, we will go down that road.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the 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.

I thank my hon. colleagues, the members of the Opposition and the NDP, for their comments on this bill.

Just a few comments in wrapping up, closing the debate in response to the comments of the NDP Leader with respect to the intention of the bill to have the courts use their discretion in deciding on claims, and that is the position we have taken in this bill as opposed to having specific amounts set in the legislation. We did that after much consideration and decided that was the best way to go and we have good reason for doing that, Mr. Speaker. The NDP Leader did not think that we gave enough justification for it in the initial presentation.

In the case of any personal injury matter before the court, if it gets to litigation, both parties will have to argue the merits of their claim. The plaintiff would argue the merits of the claim and he would use whatever information that he has, whether it be medical opinions or expert opinions or documentation, whatever, in order to justify his claim for his or her client. The defence, of course, will try their best and use argument to mitigate the plaintiffs claim. That is the normal procedure in litigation of these sorts of things. All parties will use available case law or common law to convince the court. The court, at the end of the day, will make a decision and will base the decision on the merits that are put forth; on the arguments put forth and on the common law.

So far in this Province, Mr. Speaker, the common law has not evolved to any great extent, but now with non-pecuniary claims allowed, courts will have access to the common law of other jurisdictions and will make their decisions. The common law will evolve from that over the years so that they can give proper direction to the courts in making the decisions.

Mr. Speaker, that is the position that we have taken and we will let that position evolve. We have recognized the fact that litigation can be painful and plaintiffs going into court having already experienced the trauma of losing a loved one have to go through the process again. Unfortunately, that is a part of normal procedure as far as litigation is concerned.

With respect to the proposed amendment as put forward by the Opposition House Leader, if that matter arises in committee, Mr. Speaker, we will address it then.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I now move this bill to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 15 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 15 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 15 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 15)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper, I would like to call Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act". (Bill 16)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to get up in the House. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act, now be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, before I will actually get into the actual amendment that I am proposing on the floor of this hon. House today, I would like to bring ourselves back in time in regard to what this government has done respecting insurance and the cost of insurance to consumers; and which has been a big part of our government in regard to protecting our consumers and making sure that they are actually getting the right product for the right dollar, so on and so forth.

Back in 2004, this government took it upon itself to do an analysis of the auto insurance industry and the types of insurance that were being sold in Newfoundland and Labrador and the rates thereof. During that process, Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment that was brought before this House and passed before this House in regard to the Insurance Companies Act that enabled the Department of Government Services to regulate auto insurance.

During that process, and during the rollout of that actual amendment, it enabled this government - with the help of the industry itself. I cannot say that they did not actually come to the table as well and we all worked together. Anyways, over that process we saw insurance rates decrease in Newfoundland and Labrador pertaining to auto insurance by about 20 per cent on the overall. That has been maintained over the last number of years in regard to auto insurance. Although, we have had some variances there in recent years and recent months that has given me some thought. Also, I am being very cognizant in keeping an eye on that type of insurance.

What this amendment does today, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this piece and Bill 16, it will give this department, me as the minister responsible, the opportunity to regulate homeowners insurance. During the process back in 2004, we did not bring that amendment forward. We only brought the amendment forward in regard to auto insurance. Now, I am proposing to this House to extend that privilege to regulate homeowner insurance by amending the Insurance Companies Act.

The current practice in Newfoundland and Labrador and other jurisdictions across Canada, for some property and casualty insurance companies, is to charge higher rates of home and auto insurance for people with low credit scores. This rationale came to my attention over the last number of months. I have been following it very, very closely over the last, probably eight months or so – probably closer to a year, I guess. Actually, I have great concern in regard to using credit scoring as a means to determine how much one would pay for insurance, not only in homeowner insurance but also in auto insurance.

I add that too, as well, Mr. Speaker, because I have had a number of the insurance associations come into Newfoundland and Labrador from Toronto, Montreal and various other centres to lobby me and make their views known in regard to the use of credit scoring to rate in homeowners insurance and auto insurance. I told them point blank, in regard to some of the phone calls that we had, that I wanted to see the correlating data that would prove to me that there would be a connection between a person's credit score and making a claim. I told them I wanted that from an independent body. I did not want data that was generated within themselves because that is self-serving in my opinion. I can say to this date, I have not seen that data. I have not seen anything that would correlate a claim to a person's credit score.

Just to explain to the hon. members in the House in regard to credit scoring, each and every one of us here in this House of Assembly and in Newfoundland and Labrador, adults who are doing business in this Province in regard to mortgages or buying vehicles or whatever else you might be doing out there on a daily basis, we are subject to credit scoring. Banks use it, various other industries use it in regard to determining if they were to extend a loan to a particular person in Newfoundland and Labrador and it is rated in regard to their credit score.

Now, I can see the correlation between that in regard to if you have the ability to pay back a loan or whatever, but in the use of that credit score being used to determine the amount that you pay for insurance because you are suspected of having a poor credit score, I cannot see the relationship that you are going to have a claim just because you have had some type of misfortune. You may have had a failure in a marriage; you may have the loss of a job for a short period of time. You have been able to make your payments in regard to your insurance policies each and every year that you have had it, but then all of a sudden just because you had a misfortune, you had a credit scoring company that follows your finances, which they do, and they have access to it. Certain things they have access to, and they provide information to, like I said before, banks and all those types of companies that would use that credit score to determine if you were going to be able to make your payments with regard to your request of a loan or something of that sort. They do that all the time. So, then they are going to use that credit score to determine your rate.

I have had various people who phoned the department, phoned me personally, phoned my Superintendent of Insurance as well, giving examples of how they had an insurance cost of $600 or $500 or $700 and when they went to renew, and just because their credit scoring had fallen, then all of a sudden it tripled in regard to the cost or doubled in cost. I think that is wrong. I really do think that is wrong. In my opinion it is.

I think if I have a comparable house as the Minister of Finance would have in Corner Brook on a piece of property, which you do not insure the actual land itself, but our houses are basically the same, basically valued the same, well I think that each one of us should have the same rate. That is my opinion. That applies to any person who is out there working the hard life in regard to being a carpenter or being a welder or being whatever it is that they do for a living, working for a company slugging it out on a five, six, seven-day basis, eight hours a day, ten hours a day and they are making themselves $25,000, or $30,000 or $50,000 a year and they have a comparable house to any member in this House of Assembly, well then I firmly believe they should be paying the same rate. If that is a comparable house and it is valued at the same value, which that is done through a professional process as well in regard to valuing your household, well then they should have the same rate.

I cannot see any correlation between a credit score and then having a claim. You having to pay $1,000 for a comparable house of $250,000 value as I would, then I will probably have a $600 bill. I just cannot see it. So I expressed that to the insurance industry. I told them exactly where I was with it. We are not the first in regard to this as well.

I know that Ontario and Alberta actually prohibits credit scoring on rating automobile insurance. I am not positively sure if anyone in Canada right now actually prohibits credit scoring when it comes to home insurance. As a matter of fact, I am searching my memory here now but I think it is before the Legislature in New Brunswick but not actually passed at this particular time. I believe I heard the Finance Minister of Ontario, Mr. Duncan, express a concern about it and said that the Ontario government would be actually reviewing it and looking into it, but I do not think they actually tabled any legislation pertaining to, to prohibit regulating homeowner insurance, particularly in the credit scoring area. So I think maybe, other than New Brunswick, we will probably be one of the first in the country in regard to this piece of legislation and the regulations pertaining to the amendment that I have before the House.

I think that is another example of this government in regard to the leadership that it shows each and every day to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as the governing body at this particular time in the history of the Province, that we take our jobs very, very serious. We take the concerns of the constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador very, very serious and we want to protect them. Yes, absolutely!

I might say too, and I want this registered, I have said it before, I have no problem with a business making a profit, absolutely no problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I am there front and foremost. I was in business for thirty-odd years before I got into politics. Certainly, yes, absolutely I strived to make a profit each and every year. That pertains to the insurance as well, we have to have insurance. We have to have insurance. It is there for a reason, it is to protect you. Hopefully, you will never have to use it, you will never have to make a claim, but in the meantime when it is there you absolutely need it. In order to have it a company has to make a profit. I have no problem with that.

I said that as well in regard to the insurance agencies and associations that came in, the brokers in Newfoundland and Labrador, I met with them, too. I might say, there is going to be some insurance companies that are not going to like this amendment today and the regulations that will be coming thereafter. They will not like that, but there are other insurance companies actually that agree, that credit scoring should not be used in regard to rating insurance either in auto and home.

I also can say in this House very honestly, that the broker's association, the Insurance Broker's Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, they would say that they can see some merit in regard to the use of credit scores if they would analyze the data that is generated. I have not seen, in regard to the third party stuff - I think there was some type of third party study that was done in Texas some time ago, but I have not seen anything in Canada that proves that. The Insurance Brokers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador would prefer that the credit score and the use of credit scoring would not be used, not in the best interest of the consumer in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I applaud them in regard to that.

There are other issues as well in regard to the setting of an insurance rate that concerns me too. I will say, as the minister responsible, the Minister of Government Services right now that we are certainly looking at prohibiting, under the regulations, the use of credit score. I am also saying that we will be actually looking at other things as well.

In saying that, my door is open as the minister to the insurance industry. I like to work with the industries first to see if they can correct the problems without regulations. You do not want to be out there regulating everything, and regulating everything to death. I like to work with the industry itself to see if these things can be corrected as well. There are certain things that I have become aware of in regard to some of the people who have approached, or called the office, or called the superintendent of insurance, certain things such as denying insurance for no reason, a cancellation of policies if cheques are provided with insufficient funds, tied selling and that kind of thing. This concerns me as well, but in the meantime, as I said before, the insurance industry itself has to make a profit; the brokers have to make a profit.

So, if you are going to have insurance, then you have to pay for it. If you are going to provide postdated cheques or whatever it is, well then you cannot them being bounced for insufficient funds at any particular time because your insurance brokers, the particular company that you deal with out there in Newfoundland and Labrador has to have cash flow and all that kind of stuff, and that is fine. Then, I do not like certain instances - as happened in the past – that has come to my attention that a cheque came back to a company in regard to insufficient funds due to a simple thing as moving places of residence, forgetting to notify the bank that you moved and that kind of thing, and then the cheque came back.

I recently spoke at the Newfoundland and Labrador brokers association there about a week or two ago. When I spoke I took questions and answers afterwards and interacted with the association, the owners themselves, and the brokers themselves. Some of the things that I threw out there that I was concerned about, that I would regulate if I had to regulate. They assured me, through the process, that they would probably work it through, that they did not see any need to regulate in certain areas and I could see the merits in what they were saying.

In the meantime, as the minister, I am going to keep an eye on the industry in regard to the subject matter and the issue because I firmly believe it is my responsibility, as the Minister of Government Services, at this particular time in this government to protect the consumer. So that is my mandate, I guess, in regard to some of the legislation that we have in Government Services. We will be taking that very, very seriously. In the meantime, we are going to be working closely with the industry itself to make sure that we exhaust every avenue – every avenue – in regard to addressing the issue, solving the issue, before we ever, ever have to regulate.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is actually the foundation in regard to this amendment. Certainly, what we are looking at today, to be very, very clear to this House of Assembly, is that we are proposing an amendment to the Insurance Companies Act under Bill 16 in this session of the House of Assembly which enables me, as the minister, and the superintendent of insurance to regulate homeowners' insurance. We have the ability to regulate auto insurance. The main issue that I am looking at today in regard to regulation is the use of credit scoring to determine the rate of both auto and home insurance. Certainly, then we will be having a look at that, Mr. Speaker, and then we will also have a look at any other regulatory issues that we may consider in the future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. I will certainly welcome any of the comments, support, from my hon. colleagues in this House of Assembly, particularly my hon. colleagues across the House.

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.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand in my place to make a few comments with regard to Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act. I know I am not going to be too long and hopefully I will have it done before the clock runs out.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, it is good to know that this is not something the minister is just bringing forward. He stated very clearly that he consulted with the members in the industry and that is always a good thing to know.

One of the key components under the proposed amendments is sections 95.1, 95.2 and 95.3 which do not exist in the present legislation. It goes on to apply to all classes of insurance except automobile insurance.

Also under section 107, there are two sections there now but there are three additional sections being added for clarification. They are prescribing the grounds an insurer is prohibited from using under section 95.2 to decline to issue, to refuse to renew or to terminate a contract. As the minister mentioned, this is one of the very important components because this is all about consumer protection and making sure that the grounds that are laid forward are followed to everyone's satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the proposed sections 95.1 to 95.3, these sections appears to be a mirror of the existing legislation, 96.1 and 96.2, which relate to automobile insurance only. That is very evident in the explanatory note. It is also worth noting that the only regulations which currently exist under the Insurance Companies Act, the Automobile Insurance Prohibited Underwriting Regulations. So, new regulations will be needed to set out the grounds referred to in the proposed sections 95.2, 95.3.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the proposed sections 107, these sections authorize the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make new regulations referred to above. One of the key issues as I just stated, the proposed amendments are therefore ultimately targeted at the consumer protection by limiting the grounds on which the insurance companies may refuse to insure a person other than just to do with automobile insurance.

People have been refused for various reasons; we hear stories. I am sure in the twenty-one years that I have been involved now dealing with constituents, we hear issues of various types of insurance that have been refused for such issues as age, sex and marital status. We hear talk of past accidents or claims that the person was not at fault for. There have been issues that had to be dealt with, with insurance companies.

Also, many times people may not meet the deadline for their payments on their insurance; probably not paid within the thirty-day time frame. There have been issues that have been brought forward where insurance companies come back to the individual and it has been a problem for them and many of them had their insurance declined over that. Some of them probably go beyond the thirty-day time frame - past lapse in coverage in certain situations.

One of the ones that really stand out to me is not having any other insurance policies with the insurance company to which the person is applying. I can give you a first-hand example of that. At one time, I had insurance on my vehicles with a company, I had my homeowner's policy with a company, and when the time came to get insurance on an RV, I found that there was another who had a better policy, was just called an RV policy. When I went to them they more or less refused me in the beginning saying you do not have your other insurance with us. This piece of legislation, I think, will take care of that because I think it is unfair if you have insurance with a company for a couple of reasons, a homeowners and on your regular vehicles, why should you be refused if you are prepared to pay what they are asking for. That has happened. That is not anything negative against the insurance companies, but I do not think that it is proper to refuse people for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments are also targeted at consumer protection by limiting the types of risk classifications that insurance companies may use to discriminate against individuals. For example, the insurance company should not be allowed to use those same elements listed that I went through a few minutes ago. Our position, Mr. Speaker, on this legislation is that it is a positive piece of legislation. I will be voting for it in that it further protects individuals seeking insurance and their ability to obtain insurance and they are not being denied in an unreasonable manner.

Mr. Speaker, I also remember one time this family had their homeowner's policy with this particular company for thirty-plus years. Unfortunately, during the winter months, they had radiation heat and they had a leak in their pipes at the house and caused just minor damage. They did go to their insurance company and they were told that it was better if they would cover the cost themselves. Lo and behold, once they knew that there was an issue there that family received a letter over the next two or three months saying that we will not be renewing your homeowner's policy next year because they knew there were problems there and they were concerned that there would be a major case put forward.

It ensures fairness, Mr. Speaker, and consistency in the process of insurance companies dealing with applicants for insurance. It expands on the protection that we already have which, at present, only exists with regard to automobile insurance.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments with regard to this bill - and I have to say this: The Minister of Government Services has two or three pieces of legislation coming and when you are reading them, unless you are a Philadelphia lawyer, they all seem a like to me because –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: You have to read everything.

The two pieces of legislation next week that will be coming, not next week, probably on Thursday, they deal with basically the same issues only it is expanded over a greater period of time.

Mr. Speaker, many of the comments that I could make on this bill it can very easily be applicable to the bills that will be coming forward on Thursday.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, and the time on the clock, I just want to say that yes, we will be supporting Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act and we look forward to debating the other issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this point we will adjourn the debate on Bill 16.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources 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 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Wednesday, Private Members' Day.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.