December

3, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 28

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. This week

the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council recommended closure of a number of

fisheries, particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and with that a 50 per cent

cut in the quota for redfish. It is most likely the federal minister will act on

those recommendations and not only continue the moratorium on Northern cod, but

the other fisheries as well, when he brings in his new groundfish management

plan. Does the minister have an estimate of the number of fishermen and plant

workers in the Province who will be put out of work as a result of those latest

closures? Does he have an estimate, or could he provide the House with that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is a meeting in Qubec

City on December 15th, at which time the federal minister and the provincial

Ministers of Fisheries in Atlantic Canada will be getting together to discuss

the recommendations of the FRCC. At that time, we expect the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans will unveil what his plans are for 1994.

It is quite likely that there will be a moratorium placed on

the Gulf fishery. It is quite likely that the redfish quotas will be drastically

reduced. There has been no firm estimate made at this date as to the impact it

will have on the employment picture in the Province. That is being worked on,

and as I said, we will know more as to what the minister's plans are around

December 15th.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I understand it, the minister met with the federal

minister last week, I believe it was, last Wednesday or Thursday. I am wondering

if the minister presented any proposals to the federal minister for payment of

compensation to fishermen and plant workers who will be affected by the recent

closures and reductions, and as well for those who will continue to need

financial support after the present package expires in May. Did the minister

make any proposals to the federal minister, and could he inform us of what they

were?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, just about every time we meet or

talk on the telephone, that is one of the topics we discuss, the need for

continuation of compensation and, as well, a need to harmonize the so-called

compensation package, where the recipients on the South, the Southwest and the

West coasts will be treated in a similar manner to fishermen affected by the

Northern cod moratorium on the Northeast Coast. I have every confidence that the

new minister is very sympathetic to the idea of harmonizing the program. Again,

that is something that will be discussed in Qubec City on December 15th.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, some

of my colleagues are saying there was a story that broke on it last night which

I didn't see, so I don't know what that was. A few days ago I heard the federal

minister say basically that the compensation for those put out of work by the

new closures and cutbacks or quota reductions will have to come from the

existing pool of benefits, from the existing pool of funds. In other words, it

seems that the federal minister is now indicating that there will be no new

money. So, help for hundreds or perhaps thousands of new compensation claimants

will have to come from the pockets, it seems, of those who are already now

benefiting from the compensation package. I want to ask the minister, does he

and the government support that or will he insist that the new claimants be

compensated fairly without cutting benefits from the existing claimants now?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I can't very well dictate to the

federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I suppose. I can only tell you that in

the course of my discussions with him, last Wednesday, I did not get that

impression. I got the impression that there would be additional money found to

provide some kind of a compensation package, certainly until the end of the

original moratorium period which would be in May of 1994. That was the

impression I got from the federal minister. I certainly don't think it makes

sense to talk about reducing the current compensation package, because contrary

to some of the things we hear, only 7 per cent of fishermen on the package, so

called, get the maximum benefit. One would think, hearing some people, that

every fisherman out there is rolling in riches, drawing down $406 a week and

that is not so. Like I said, 7 per cent of people get the maximum benefit and

the vast majority of them get quite a lot less than the $406 per week. So that

being the case, Mr. Speaker, I don't see how they could expect the fishermen and

fish plant workers to manage on less than what they are getting now.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, oh how the tune has changed, because

not too long ago, all members opposite would stand up in this House and dictate

certain things from the federal Minister of Fisheries and now that there is one

of their own stripe, it seems they have softened the back-paddle quite a bit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, what I detect from what the

federal minister is saying is that there will be no new monies and really there

will be redistribution of benefits. With more people coming onto a package,

whether it is going to be the NCARP Package or one equivalent to NCARP or one

for the South and Southwest Coast, there is going to be an adjustment. A lot of

the federal MPs that are now sitting in Ottawa refer to the South and Southwest

Coast Package as a second-class package, that they were treated as second-class

citizens. So it is going to be most interesting now to see if the NCARP

recipients will be brought down to second class citizens or if the South and

Southwest Coast will be brought up to the first-class citizens that are

receiving NCARP' but whatever way it goes, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the

minister - and perhaps it is a supplementary for the Minister of Finance - if we

are going to have, which we know we are, more people on some sort of package, a

compensation program - hundreds or thousands more, and then that is shared

throughout the Atlantic Provinces, the money is going to be shared throughout

the other provinces, it seems we will have more people out of work with less

money coming in to the Province. And I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries, or

the Minister of Finance if he so desires: Has government considered the broader

impacts on our economy and the revenues for the provincial government, if

indeed, the federal minister proceeds to redistribute those funds to a larger

number of people, which means we will have less money?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of

government on this side of the House are well aware of the impact that the

problems in the cod fishery and in the fishery generally are having on the

economy and on the Treasury, but I don't think the hon. member has a right to

assume that the current NCARP program will be redistributed all over the

Province. I don't think that is going to happen. I don't think it makes any

sense. I don't think the new federal minister would support that kind of

proposition and certainly, I can't see how the Province could.

Now, what happens after May of 1994 - I don't think even the

federal minister, at this point in time, knows what is going to happen. We hope

there will be a continuation of the current program. It might change, Mr.

Speaker, it might be restructured, but certainly, I don't see the federal

minister coming up with a program that will offer less to the fishermen of the

South Coast, for example, than what is now being paid to fishermen on the

Northeast Coast.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple questions for the Minister of Finance,

arising from his love-in with his federal counterpart in Halifax over the last

few days. Would the minister care to tell us what assurances, if any, the

federal minister has given to the minister relating to any reduction in transfer

payments to the Provinces this year, particularly, obviously, Newfoundland? We

heard the Premier recently say the Government of Newfoundland would do

everything they can to help the poor federal government, quite a switch from

what we were listening to a few months ago; it is amazing how the colours can

change the approach. Would the minister like to tell us, Mr. Speaker, exactly

what assurances we have on transfer payments, what cuts does he see for this

year? Does he see that having any impact on our deficit or what he had projected

as a deficit for next year, and do we expect any tax increases other than the 3

per cent on personal income tax that was announced last year, to take effect on

January 1st of this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose, if I had an hour I could deal with all the issues

in some detail. First of all, let me comment on the impression that the hon.

member has tried to create in his

preamble. I remind members opposite that this

government, perhaps, was one of the few, if not the only, government in Canada

to support the general thrust of Michael Wilson's budget and Don Mazankowski's

last budget, so we do not deal with these serious issues in a partisan way. I

would like to remind members opposite of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: That day is gone. That may have been the way

it was ten years ago, but that day is gone. We deal with the issues on the basis

of the issues, and we will continue to do that.

Now, in answer to his question, obviously we all, in this

country, have a serious problem, and the federal government has a serious

problem, and we are trying to deal with it, and the process that is in place, in

terms of an examination of transfers, is remarkably different from the process

that happened in previous years, before this government took over.

We have been very used to being notified at certain points in

the year that things are going to happen, that changes are going to be made,

that money is going to be reduced and so on. Well never again, Mr. Speaker, are

we going to be caught at the last minute like that.

There is a process in place now where Finance Ministers - we

have some work to do, and we are going to get together in January. Before that

January meeting, the way that the federal government intends to deal with this

problem will be obvious to us. We will have their proposal a couple of weeks in

advance of that meeting so we can prepare, and we will know well ahead of time

what their plans are. We will have lots of opportunity to debate their plans,

and to make changes in their plans, before they actually finalize their budget.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are in a process now that is a

co-operative process involving the provinces, and I would like to say to the

member that certainly we are discussing, and we will be discussing in January,

leading up to the federal budget, all aspects of federal and provincial

expenditures, jointly, as a group.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, years ago `Rocket' Richard used

to say: My brother Henri, he not play tonight, but he cheer well. Now we have

the minister here saying: My brother George, he not minister, but he shout well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

minister, in the proposal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for

Gander - Twillingate is delighted that he has a brother in office, because when

we did a poll prior to the election, 50 per cent of the people in Gander -

Twillingate did not know who their MP was. If the Minister of Finance was not

out there to boost his image, they still would not know who he was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Would the minister like to tell us what this

government proposes to have in the package they are going to put to the federal

government prior to that meeting he just referred to? Specifically, does the

minister propose to put anything in there relating to co-pay and the health care

system, or this new term we are hearing the `workfare' where people have to work

in order to gain their welfare. Is this government proposing to be involved in

those type of programs?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose members of the

Opposition always run the risk of trying to prepare cute lines and then having

to use them in a situation where they do not fit.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the poll the member refers to I

would ask that he provide me with a copy of that poll because I have seen polls

done at the time that are in direct opposition to what the member says. I would

like to see a copy of his poll and I will show him a copy of mine. I suppose the

results of that poll are what made the member back out. He had to come up with

his former leader to try to improve the position but that did not work either,

Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, the gist of the question, I believe, had to do with

the Province's presentations to the federal government and the presentations we

are going to be making at the finance minister's meeting in January. I would

like to point out to the hon. member that our position essentially is that there

is nothing to be gained. If the objective of looking at federal government

payments - the federal government pays 25 per cent of its budget in terms of

transfers to the Province, another 25 per cent in terms of transfers to

individuals, another 25 per cent or more in terms of debt servicing, and what is

left goes into the general running of the federal government, so obviously these

are big chunks and they are going to be discussed.

It is useless, from a debt perspective in the country, to

take $10 million off the federal government's debt and add $10 million to the

Province's debt. That exercise is a futile exercise and just cannot be gone

through. So it is a much more complex situation than that. We are going to

discuss the situation and hopefully come up with a solution, but simple transfer

of debt is not in the books.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. Member for Mount

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to

hear the minister say that because we've been saying that for some time. Would

the minister like to tell us then how does he propose to participate in the

federal Prime Minister's great plan to create jobs by building infrastructure -

roads and bridges - a great $6 billion plan that he says will cost the federal

government $2 billion, provincial governments $2 billion, municipalities $2

billion?

Where is this government going to get its share of that

program? Where are municipalities going to get their share of that program? What

is this great job creation initiative we finally hear coming from the side

opposite? We've been screaming for years to ask this government: start spending

some money to create some jobs. Not sitting back, as the Premier says, waiting

for the private sector to be the engine of the economy. The engine is there.

This government has to put some gas in their tank.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When you are sitting

in the Opposition I suppose you can afford to have simplistic points of view.

The fact that we must tackle deficit and debt reduction, the fact that we must

do that, then doesn't automatically preclude the other side of it, which we must

be always conscious of, and that is the Canadian economy and job development

within the Canadian economy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Mr. Speaker, although we haven't got to the stage yet in

terms of the infrastructure program, where we've made specific representations

in the process - and there is a process ongoing now where the federal minister

is going to be carrying on bilateral talks with the provinces in terms of that

program - I can say to you that we will take maximum advantage of the program in

spite of the fact that we're in difficult financial circumstances.

Across Canada the recognition is that that amount of money is

going to be spent in the system and at the same time we're going to tackle debt

reduction. Now it may seem an impossible situation to members opposite, but that

is what the next few months are all about, to come up with that desirable mix in

terms of fiscal policies.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. What is the policy of the

Minister's Department in terms of how people to the Workers' Compensation Board

of Directors or other boards are appointed, and in the final analysis, how are

those people selected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question from the hon. member. With respect to the direct question relating to

Workers' Compensation, the legislation spells out what the make-up of the Board

is to be in terms of worker representation, employer representation, and some

representation from the public generally. The practice that we have followed,

while Cabinet always retains the right to make the appointments in the final

instance, we have on the employer side made a practice in the last three or four

years of making sure that we got input from the representatives of the business

community for the employers and representatives of the labour movement for the

employee representatives.

Then the public representatives, with respect to Workers'

Compensation, since the changes this year effective in 1993, in the information

that the Cabinet and government dealt with, with respect to those public

appointees, it was felt that it was in the best interest of that Board, because

of the expertise needed, to have public members who had expertise in either the

medical profession, the accounting profession, or the legal profession. So we

sought out names of people who would have expertise in those particular areas to

fill the public representation roles. Then we tried, as we do in all boards, to

make sure that there was some kind of balance on a gender basis as well, as long

as the people had the qualifications to fulfil the task required by the board.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about input

from employers and from the general public at large. I would like to table a

letter here this morning which was written by the minister to all Liberal caucus

members - not to members of the House of Assembly, but to all Liberal caucus

members - dealing specifically with the appointment, due to a recent

resignation, requesting that members of the Liberal caucus submit names to the

minister.

This begs a larger question, in my opinion, in terms of

government appointments to government boards. It gives, I believe, all

politicians, and all members of this House, this sort of action - it smacks of

patronage, so I ask the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I can say to the Member for St. John's

South that the politics of my generation is much different than the politics of

his generation; I can assure you of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: So I ask the minister: Will he undertake a

review of how people are appointed to government boards? Will he open up the

process to the general public, through an independent body like the Public

Service Commission, so that people in general can apply for such boards, and

that even the perception of patronage may be eliminated, and those who are

actually qualified will get appointed to such boards?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it is a fact that - I am not sure what practice all of

my colleagues in the Cabinet and government use, but one of the things that I

have done, and would expect to continue to do, because I value the opinion of

the colleagues on this side of the House, as with my friends opposite, that one

of letters that I have written, as a matter of course, with every appointment

that comes up, along with letters to the Federation of Labour, the Board of

Trade, the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council and other groups.

Every time there is an appointment, as well, by the way, I

get, as a matter of course, because their office keeps track of it, a submission

from the Women's Policy Office, putting forward a group of qualified women who

might be considered for board appointments. After all of that has come into

consideration - and I have received, on most occasions, I might add, because

members opposite are good at doing their homework, and they do keep track of

when board appointments are due and so on - most members do; I am not sure if

every member does - but unsolicited as well, because there are people who have a

great interest in these things. We often get representations from members

opposite who would ask that certain people be considered for board appointments

as they come due, because I believe one of the functions in the opposition

office is that some people are keeping track of board appointments.

Despite what happens by myself, as any one minister, or

anyone else, the process that we have had in place for some time now is that

then the minister's recommendations, at the end of that process, are forwarded

to a committee of the Cabinet that go through the whole process. They have been

given one mandate, because I served on that committee for a period of time, and

that is to make sure that the number one priority is exactly as the hon. member

opposite states it - that we will make sure that the boards that serve the

different agencies, and provide advice to the government, are first and foremost

supplied with people who have the expertise and qualifications required for the

work of that board. That has always been the number one priority. I do not know

what it was like prior to 1989, but that has been the basis on which the boards

have been filled since 1989.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this

House, that half of my colleagues here do not know what it was like before 1989.

We were not part of any previous government.

I want to submit to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations the question again: Will he undertake a review? Will he discuss with

Cabinet? Will he undertake a review to open up all board appointments to greater

public scrutiny? Will he open it up through an independent body, upon review,

and bring back his findings, or bring back his suggestions to this House, so

that the public, in general, can have greater input into the selection not only

of the Workers' Compensation Board of Directors, but other government boards as

well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I tried to state in the last answer - maybe I did not make

it myself clear - one of the things we did in 1989, was to have a look at the

board appointments. This government did not dismiss people who were on boards

because we took, under the Premier's leadership, the view that the Opposition,

the current Opposition, the previous Administration, had placed people on boards

because they were capable, qualified people, and we left them in place until

their terms of office expired and then we made new appointments, which we do

now.

The process is completely open. Anybody can ask at any time

for the listings of anybody on any of the boards appointed by this government.

It is readily available, open to the public, and we would be very glad to

demonstrate that the boards that have been put in place by this Administration

are filled on the basis of qualifications to do the job, as the number one

criteria. And we don't feel the need to be any more open other than to show

exactly what has been done and let the record stand for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the hon. the Minister of Social Services.

The new welfare police as they have become known, have been

on the job now for approximately three months. I assume the minister has been

carefully monitoring the work and results of these investigators. I wonder if he

can tell the House how much fraud has been uncovered and how much money has been

reclaimed by his department up until this time?

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

MR. LUSH: The member makes an erroneous assumption in his

statement that the minister is closely monitoring the investigators. We have

gone through a professional process in setting up the investigators and as the

member says, they have been there for three months, which is not a long time;

three months is not a long time, but we are monitoring to the extent that we

know they are all situated in their offices, located strategically throughout

the Province, doing the job for which they are mandated, and from what I can

understand, doing an excellent job for the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that those

people have been well-trained and I can't argue with that, but my understanding

is that they had two weeks training and that is not a long time, in my books,

when you go out to deal with the problem we are being faced with today. However,

I would like to ask the minister, how far back in time, those investigators are

going. If the minister will recall, last spring, this caucus brought up a case

where one elderly couple was forced to pay back overpayments that occurred over

twenty years ago - over twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker - of which they had not

been made aware. I would like to ask the minister: Are you still digging back

into the past? Are those investigators still digging back into the past, and are

you really uncovering fraud or is it the result of inaccurate assessment by

overworked welfare officers?

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

MR. LUSH: I suggest to the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South, if the latter part of his question is correct that the uncovering of

overpayment is related to an overload, then the overload has existed for some

time; because I dealt with that question of people having overpayments when I

was in the Opposition many, many years ago. I say to the hon. member that an

overpayment - the two are not related. The one that he relates of the couple

having to pay back an overpayment has nothing to do with the investigators. It

might so happen that it was brought to the attention of an investigator but

these things are found out in the natural process by workers, themselves, and

monies owed to the Crown are always there, unless there are some circumstances

by which the Crown agrees to cancel the overpayment. So I can't answer the

member as to how far you are going back. I don't expect we are going back to

pre-Confederation days or anything like that, but within reason, monies owed the

Crown are always owed the Crown, and I suggest to the Member for Bonavista

South, that is not the kind of activity for which investigators are solely hired

to investigate, but monies owed to the Crown are always owed to the Crown until

they are paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, under the previous heading, I

would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Minister of Finance. I believe the

hon. minister wants to present a report.

MR. BAKER: Under the heading, Presenting Reports, I would

like to table a Special Warrant relating to pre-commitment of funds for the

Department of Forestry and Agriculture. I would also like to table, Mr. Speaker,

copies of a Special Warrant relating to the $6 million Emergency Response

Program in terms of employment in the Province. I would like to table both of

these today.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would first ask that we deal

with motions 5 and 6. I understand there is agreement in the House to adopt

motions 7 and 8 without further debate at this stage. If that is so, I would ask

that they be called, and if they are to be debated then we will do it at another

time. But, if we could do first, Nos. 5 and 6, which is simply first reading,

Sir.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act (No. 2),"

carried. (Bill No. 54).

On motion, Bill No. 54 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Colleges Act, 1991," carried. (Bill No. 55)

On motion, Bill No. 55 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: If we agree - if we could pursue No. 7 and

No. 8 without debate. I am not trying to foreclose debate, but if this agreement

will put them forward, let's just adopt them now and let these people get on

with their work, because each motion simply asks committees of the House to get

on and address an issue for us. If that is agreed, I would ask that we call No.

7. I should make a declaration under the House of Assembly Act, just so it is on

the record, that many years ago, at the Bar, I represented the Certified General

Accountants Association. So let it be recorded that I take no

part in the

discussion, debate or this decision, with respect to motion No. 7.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We agree, Mr. Speaker, we have no

problem whatsoever with that. I don't know about the Member for St. John's East,

but we don't have any problem with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Member for St. John's East in

agreement as well? Yes, okay.

Motion 7: Rather than read the motion, it is on the Order

Paper. The Premier read it yesterday.

Motion 7, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 8 again, I gather there is a

consensus - it is simply a procedural motion to enable the Public Accounts

Committee to report upon evidence and hearings which they held before the

election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed, as well.

Motion 8, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we now deal with some of

the bills which stand in my name - they start with Order No. 23, which is Bill

No. 43, "An Act To Amend The Judgment Interest Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Judgement Interest Act". (Bill No. 43)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very

straightforward amendment to the Judgement Interest Act and I trust it will not

require a lot of time in the House, but that is for members to decide, of

course.

The Judgement Interest Act came into effect in 1984, and

before it came into effect, no interest was payable in respect of a judgement

rendered by the courts, except in very unique circumstances which did not apply

in almost every instance, or, in almost every instance, did not apply, to be

precise. Once the Judgement Interest Act came into force, as of, I think, April

2, 1984, if I recall my days at the private Bar, interest was payable but the

Act did not specify the rate at which interest was payable, for the obvious and

proper reason that interest rates go up and down. They were fixed by a fairly

cumbersome practice which involved the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

In real life what happened was the interest rate was set at 9

per cent, in 1984, which was a reasonable rate, and it stayed there for many

years because interest rates didn't change. Then we came into the era of rapidly

dropping interest rates and they are now well below 9 per cent. I have no idea

what prime is today but it is, what, 5 or 6 per cent, 4 per cent? It is quite

low.

That really uncovered a flaw in the mechanism of the act,

which is that it is really quite a cumbersome and complicated procedure to

change the interest rate. That is what leads us now to come to the House and

simply ask the House to authorize the amendments to be made by the Minister of

Justice. The proposal is that we would amend it from time to time as required by

the changes in the prime rate. It is related to the prime rate and it simply

gives the authority to the minister to make the change. That is all the act

seeks to do. I will sit down and let my friend for Humber East and other members

address the issue and see how we proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is, as the minister indicated, a simple amendment. The

minister says the purpose of the change is to provide for a more efficient

setting of the judgement interest rate to track prime, which has fluctuated

rapidly from time to time. My colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, who is not

a member of the legal profession and who has the benefit of perhaps greater

objectivity than do members of the Bar, asked, Why doesn't the legislation

simply peg the judgement interest rate to prime? A sensible question. Perhaps

the minister will address that when he rises to conclude the debate.

MR. WINDSOR: Why not simply set it at prime plus two and

let it go?

MR. ROBERTS: I can give an answer now or later if the

hon. gentleman wishes. There is a reason.

MS. VERGE: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. member would yield?

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

MR. ROBERTS: The reason is a practical one. Prime goes up

and down week by week. Simply as a matter of calculating, remember, you get a

judgement rendered, and then the lawyers - my hon. and learned friends will

concur - the lawyer is probably not capable of calculating it because the prime

is expressed in bases points, two decimal points.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply a matter of being able to take a

number to work with. The prime going up and down week by week would make it very

complicated, because you would have to make a calculation for the interest due

in respect to the judgement in each week, or for each week, between the time the

judgement was entered - I shouldn't say entered, the time the judgement was

given, in fact, because it may have been entered a week or two, or a little

period later. And you would end up with quite a complicated calculation. If

there was $100,000 owed, you would have to sit down and say: now, for the first

week the judgement was effective -

AN HON. MEMBER: It goes back to the tort.

MR. ROBERTS: It goes back to the date the cause of action

arises, in fact, not simply the tort. In a case of fire insurance, that is

different from the day of the act itself

The answer, without going into detail and trying to dazzle

everybody with my knowledge of these erudite matters, is quite simply a

practical concern for the calculation process, that is all.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. it may well be that

lawyers are not so learned after all. It may be that people other than lawyers

may be more learned, especially when it comes to doing sums. My colleague for

Mount Pearl is going to have a few words to say about this when I sit down. As

between having the Cabinet set the judgement interest rate and the minister

setting the judgement interest rate, I would have no hesitation agreeing with

the latter, with the change put forward by the minister. I can't see why the

Cabinet decision-making process was so cumbersome, but apparently, in the new

regime, Cabinet decisions are not made all that expeditiously; nevertheless, I

have no problem agreeing with the minister's suggestion to delegate to the

minister the setting of the judgement interest rate. But now I will wait for my

friend for Mount Pearl to question why the act should designate anyone in the

government to set the judgement interest rate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly to respond to

the comments of the Minister of Justice. I understand where he is coming from,

but I say to him, it is not such an onerous task and it could be very

significant, not if we are talking a judgement of $1,000 or $2,000, but presume

for a moment we were talking a judgement of $1 million, which is not impossible,

and if the legal work took a month, which is certainly not unusual, I can tell

you, from my experience with the legal profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is would be unusual to do anything in

a month.

MR. WINDSOR: I agree with my hon. friend, it would be

unusual to do it in a month. Let us just assume it were a month and if the

interest rate changed by 1 per cent, then 1 per cent on $1 million for a month

is about $1,000. It becomes a significant amount and there could be larger

judgements. I say to my friend it is not so onerous, prime doesn't change daily,

not normally.

AN HON. MEMBER: Weekly though.

MR. WINDSOR: Perhaps, weekly and perhaps not, but it is

not such an onerous job. In this day of computers it would be a very simple

matter to plug in the time period we are talking about. Banks do it every day

for anybody who goes in with any kind of a demand loan and says, I want to make

a payment on my loan. What is my interest for the last thirty days? A clerk

there will very quickly figure out what the interest has been for the last month

so you can pay your interest plus whatever principle you might want to pay. It

is a very simple procedure, I say to my hon. friend. I hear where he is coming

from, but I don't accept his argument that it would be so difficult to do. I see

no reason in the world why we cannot simply say that the rate will prime or

prime plus one, prime plus two, or whatever might be deemed appropriate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak briefly on this matter. First I thought this

was a power grab by the Minister of Justice to take power for himself from the

Cabinet but, seriously, I agree with the decision to let the minister make the

ruling from time to time, but I do question really the suggestion that it is

tied to the prime interest rate.

When the rate was set at 9 per cent in 1984 the prime rate

was significantly higher than that. It was changed only once in the period from

1984 and that was a year ago or something, back last February or March, when it

was changed to 3.5 per cent, or something. I am not even sure what it was

changed to. The prime at that time was something like 6 or 7 per cent. If it is

tied somehow vaguely to prime, would the minister explain how it is tied to

prime, how often he intends to change it, and by what sorts of policy guidelines

would guide his decisions in that matter? Surely, I wouldn't expect the minister

to change it willy-nilly. Perhaps the minister has it in the act that the

relationship to prime would be important. Perhaps it is less, more, or something

like that.

It is a significant issue for people who are seeking

judgements because until the coming into force of the Judgement Interest Act, it

was a great advantage to defendants to delay a case as long as they could,

because the longer they delayed, of course, the more they had to deal with their

own money, and insurance companies and others who might have a lot of litigation

could make a significant amount of money that way by merely delaying trials and

actions. With the Judgement Interest Act, of course, you now see insurance

companies very anxious to settle clams because they see the interest rising.

So, I think it is a beneficial piece of legislation, although

a bit obscure. A number of members have asked me: What is this Judgement

Interest Act about anyway? It is really about making the playing field level

between plaintiffs and defendants when it comes to pursuing actions.

I do support the legislation and I ask the minister, in his

reply, to tell us the relationship between prime and the judgement interest rate

and how often he would propose, or what variation would he expect to see before

he would make a change?

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will conclude

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. friends

for their comments. I think there were two points raised, by my friend from

Mount Pearl and my learned friend from Humber East. We used to have an hon.

learned and gallant member in the House. We now have hon. and learned members,

and then the rest of us. Let me address that issue first.

It would be possible, I assume, to do as the banks do. There

is certainly no difficulty. The bank is able to calculate both one's loan

interest to the day, and one's savings account, or earned interest. There is a

daily interest savings account and what have you.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) lawyers do, too, when they are

putting a mortgage through (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that calculation normally comes from

the bank, or from the lender - from the mortgage company. There is an adjustment

factor that is given to the solicitor.

I guess the answer would be one, or both, of two points: the

first is that the banks and financial institutions do have much more

sophisticated computer programs than the lawyers do. That is not to say that

lawyers couldn't get them. Secondly, one comes down to the fact that across

Canada this is the universal method, and every province has legislation similar

to this. So I am not saying it couldn't be changed. Perhaps it is the sort of

thing I could talk about with the Law Society.

MR. WINDSOR: It is time for us to lead the way.

MR. ROBERTS: I believe in that. I sponsored

an act in the

House, on behalf of the government a year ago, with respect to leading the way

in some matters affecting lawyers, and there hasn't been overwhelming acceptance

among my friend at the Bar. I think there has been overwhelming acceptance

elsewhere.

MR. WINDSOR: That means you are probably right.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I hear what my friend says. There will

be another day and we will have a discussion.

The point raised by my friend from St. John's East, I can

only address by saying that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is empowered by

section 8 of the act to make regulations. I don't have the regulations here.

They haven't changed in their essence since 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are regulations?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, there are regulations. I don't have

them with me. The regulations do peg at the prime. I would propose that we set

the rate quarterly, but if there is a major variation in prime I think we would

have to look at it. There is an advantage in having a degree of certainty so

that people know.

My friend from St. John's East is right when he says that for

a long time it was the advantage of the defendant. Usually an insurance company,

in most tort actions, delayed resolving the matter because the defendant had the

use of the money until the judgement was made. It swung the other way when the

interest rate went well below the 9 per cent. Then plaintiffs gained by delaying

because they were being paid 9 per cent of whatever they were due, and they

couldn't make anything like that in any comparable investment.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I hear the points made by my hon.

friends. I will undertake to have a look at them, but I am going to say, it is

not a matter we are going to address with a great deal of priority.

With that said, I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgment Interest

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 43)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we call Order 24, please,

Bill No. 31.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 24.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Statutes Act". (Bill No. 31)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief again.

The effect of the amendment is more than adequately set out

in the explanatory note and the amendment itself. All that I will add is that

this is an interesting historical anachronism.

The Table officers in the House, Mr. Speaker, came to me and

pointed out that the law, as it stands, obliges the Registrar General of the

Province, who is now my friend for Carbonear, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, who was also the custodian of the Great Seal of the

Province. I am not sure I have ever seen the Great Seal, but there is a Great

Seal of the Province. In fact, I guess it is placed on ministerial commissions,

if I could find the number that - with the ministerial commissions I have had

over the years, maybe I could see one.

Anyway, the Registrar General is responsible for safe custody

of the assented bills because, as Your Honour knows, and as members know, when

His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, comes and gives assent to a bill, which is

an essential part of making law, until a bill is assented to, it does not become

law. We can pass all we want in this House, but until the Crown gives its

assent, the bill is not law. His Honour actually signs each bill to signify his

- or in some future day, her - consent. The signed copy then becomes the

official record that a statute has been enacted, and it has been held in the

custody of the Registrar General.

Now, the Registrar General, it turns out, has no proper place

for that, so we are asking the House to provide that the Clerk of the House, our

Table officer, will be responsible for the custody of the bills for forty years,

and thereafter they will go into the archives and be held as historical

mementos, which I guess, in forty years, is what any given statute would become.

The other point I would make, the historical anomaly, is that

I asked, "Why the Registrar General - this rather unknown official, this unknown

capacity?" The answer I was given, as far as we can find out, is that the

Registrar General is the successor, in this context, to the Colonial Secretary.

Years ago, when we were a colony, one of the most important

officials in the then colony was the Colonial Secretary who was charged with all

sorts of very important duties, among them holding on to the assented statutes

which, of course, in those days were subject to a much greater degree of control

by the Crown than today. In any event, if this bill is adopted, we will finally

put to an end that last vestige of colonialism, and will instead have our own

Clerk holding our bills for forty years.

I move second reading of the bill, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had no idea until I just listened to the learned Minister

of Justice, that `Art Reid' is the last vestige of colonialism.

This bill would remove from the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the privilege of being the custodian of the

original assented bills between the time that assent is given until they are

deposited in the Provincial Archives. Now, I am wondering why the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not here to speak up for himself in this

weighty debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in our Clerk as being a

worthy successor to the Registrar General. I am sure the Clerk will be able to

ensure safe-keeping of the original assented bills and make sure that they find

their way to the Provincial Archives. I have more concern, however, for the

condition of the Provincial Archives. Now, the minister responsible for the

Provincial Archives, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, is also absent, and I

am wondering if this is part of a conspiracy.

The Minister of Tourism and Culture has publicly acknowledged

that the Colonial Building, which now houses the Provincial Archives, is not

large enough and not adequate to serve the purpose of a Provincial Archives and

he has talked about the need for a new Provincial Archives facility.

During the election campaign in the spring, the minister went

as far as to say that in 1997, the year of the 500th anniversary of Cabot's

discovery, that he anticipates a grand, new complex in St. John's to house the

Provincial Archives, as well as a new Provincial Art Gallery and a new museum.

Now, when a few months later, he and his colleague, my good friend, the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation, said that the government cannot afford to

rent space at Murray Premises for the museum, we have to wonder how the Province

is ever going to be able to afford to staff and operate the grand complex that

the Minister of Tourism and Culture talked about.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I will wait for

one of the ministers involved in the weighty matter of safe-keeping of the

original assented bills to have a word to say about this.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister now speaks, he will conclude

the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice, the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I should think, Mr. Speaker, that if I

conclude the debate I would be expressing the wish of the House.

All I can say to my hon. and learned friend from Humber East

is to make two points: The first is that my colleagues with direct

responsibility for the Archives and particularly my friend from Mount Scio -

Bell Island, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, would be delighted to address

this issue either here in the House or during the Estimates discussions; the

second, is to say that I concur with her concern. I am one of those who believes

we must preserve our history and that includes the written and the artifact

record of our history.

It is a matter of regret to me that over the years we have

not done enough in this Province. I hope we can do a great deal more and

certainly, within our means, that phrase which must apply on everything we do.

Within our means, this administration will do what we can. We believe that we

must preserve our history and cherish it; it is a record of the men and women

who have gone before and built what we have in this Province today.

I move second reading, Sir.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Statutes Act", read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No.31)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Could we have Order 25, Sir, the Residential

Tenancies Bill?

MS. VERGE: We don't have that.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I am sorry. If it is not circulated then

we won't do it. Bill No. 29, Order 26, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act? I

apologize, there is a copy in my book but if it was not circulated we won't do

it.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act." (Bill No. 29).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the statutory

implementation of a decision the government took two years ago or a

year-and-a-half ago that - it was a budgetary decision announced in the Budget

Speech by my friend, the Minister of Finance, who I believe was then, as now,

the Member for Gander.

I wonder if I could ask my colleagues in the backbenches,

including my colleague the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture - I am sorry, I

can speak as loudly as any member of this House, Mr. Speaker, but the

conversations are awfully loud and it is difficult. If we could, I would

appreciate the relatively lower level of hubbub.

In the 1993 Budget, we ended the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Board, and this act would repeal the legislation under which that

board and that scheme operated. Mr. Speaker, we can have a debate here, if we

wish, on the wisdom or not of it and that is for hon. members to decide. Let me

simply state, one; that we came to this decision very reluctantly, because I

think the criminal injuries compensation scheme had merit. My colleagues

believed, too, that it had merit but nonetheless, when we came to look at the

financial resources available to us and the demands which we had to meet, we had

to make decisions with respect to priorities and the decision was that the

criminal injuries compensation scheme could not take priority. The limited

amount of money that we had available, we decided instead to put into another

scheme, another plan called the Victim Counselling Plan, and there we have made

considerable progress with substantial support from the government's substantial

financial assistance. The applications that were outstanding under the criminal

injuries compensation scheme have been dealt with, they are being processed

through the system.

The late Adrian Battcock, a distinguished member of the Bar

and a magnificent person in his own right, who as we all know, coped in a

magnificent way with a handicap that most people would find absolutely crushing

- Adrian Battcock was Chair of the Board and they worked their way through the

outstanding applications. There were 180, in fact, outstanding at the time the

plan was brought to an end. They were dealt with and have gone on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what else I can say except

perhaps to add a note to the House, or to bring to the attention of the House

that this scheme is an example of something that happens far too often in

Canada. We, by which I mean the Government of the Province - and I believe it

was probably during the time that my friend for Humber East was Minister of

Justice - got into this plan, the compensation plan, at the instance of the

50/50 funding. Somebody in Ottawa had the idea and said, Let's have a plan to

compensate the victims of crime, to help people who are injured by the acts of

criminals. Now, a person injured by a criminal act still has the right to sue

the perpetrator of that act but, in most cases, that is an empty gesture. In

most cases the criminals would not have any resources.

So somebody in Ottawa dreamed up the idea and said: let's do

it. They went to the provinces. We had a federal-provincial scheme, 50/50 money.

Terrific. We got it up and running. We created the appetite in people. We

acknowledged the need. The need began to be recognized, the plan began to grow,

and then the feds decided to pull out of the scheme. The 50/50 money came to an

end, and so we were left with a choice of either financing a much larger

expenditure and a rapidly growing expenditure, or of ending the scheme. We took

the decision to end it. We did so reluctantly, as I've said, but we did so

because we believed it was the right one. I must say, nothing that has happened

in the year or two since then has shown me to the contrary.

Mr. Speaker, with that said I shall move second reading and

await comments from other members. We will deal with whatever points they want

to make.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act". (Bill No. 29)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the government

announced in the Budget Speech of March 1992 that they were not going to take

any more applications for criminal injuries compensation I condemned the

decision at the time. I regarded that move as extremely regrettable, especially

in the face of the sharp rise in reports of personal injury crimes, particularly

of sexual assaults against children.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation program was designed to

provide a measure of financial compensation for victims of personal injury

crimes. Personal injury crimes include physical assaults and sexual assaults. As

the minister indicated, the program originated several years ago - I believe

more than twenty years ago, around the time of the downfall of the Smallwood

regime - at the initiative of the federal government of the day. The minister

correctly said that the program was supported by the federal government. He

suggested a ratio of 50/50 funding. Actually, I think the federal share was much

higher than 50 per cent.

For reasons unknown to me, for the first many years of the

existence of the program, Ministers of Justice, Justice officials, Crown

attorneys, and defence lawyers either were oblivious of the existence of the

program or made little or no effort to inform eligible victims of their

entitlement to compensation. When I became Minister of Justice in 1985 I was

amazed when I checked the record to see that very few applications had been

made. I set about changing that by having a Province-wide publicity program and

by having in-house education sessions for the Justice officials who deal with

victims of crime, particularly the police and Crown attorneys. That publicity

effort coincided with the beginning of the increase in reports of sexual

assaults. During the late '80s and early '90s the number of applications to the

Criminal Injuries Compensation program increased.

The nature of compensation provided under the program

involved reimbursement for out of pocket expenses resulting from criminal

injury, out of pocket....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having a little trouble hearing the hon. member. If we

could keep the noise level down a bit in the House, please. I'm having trouble

hearing the hon. member.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Out of pocket expenses

which were reimbursed through the program ranged from ambulance bills, expenses

for prescription drugs or over the counter medication, loss of wages, to

reimbursement for costs of counselling needed for recovery. Counselling and

assisting victims to deal with the trauma resulting from the criminal injury.

The program also provided financial awards for what is referred to in the law as

`pain and suffering', arbitrary awards of money to demonstrate in a token way an

atonement by the state on behalf of all citizens for the injury resulting from

criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the essential part of that program

was the reimbursement of out of pocket expenses, and particularly the

reimbursement of the cost of counselling. Through the publicity of child sexual

assault cases, particularly the televising of the Hughes Enquiry hearings,

members by now should be aware of the long lasting damage resulting from child

sexual assault, trauma that victims deal with and recover from very slowly,

typically, and where there is recovery usually only with counselling. Members

should also be aware of the difficulty people in this Province have in accessing

counselling. For most people there is no counselling provided through hospitals

funded by the government. The majority of citizens can receive counselling only

on a fee-for-service basis from private counsellors, psychologists, or

therapists, and that fee for service counselling is concentrated in the urban

centres. For people in rural areas to receive counselling there is not only the

fee but also the cost of transportation from home to the counsellors office.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and his predecessor talked about

substituting a victim/worker program or a victim counselling program for the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. All they have in fact done is put in

place a few victim workers in the urban centres with responsibility for urban

areas only. For example, in Western Newfoundland the Department of Justice has

one victim counsellor, or victim worker, based in Corner Brook, whose formal

responsibility is to serve people in only a thirty mile radius of Corner Brook.

That victim worker has no responsibility for helping victims of crime who live

on the Port au Port Peninsula, who live in Stephenville, who live in Bay St.

George, who live in the Codroy Valley, who live in Port aux Basques, who live in

Burgeo. That Corner Brook based victim worker has no responsibility for

assisting victims of crime who live in Howley, who live in Bonne Bay, who live

in Port Saunders, who live in Roddickton, or who live in St. Anthony. Mr.

Speaker, what a pathetic substitute. The minister did say that he personally saw

the merit of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. In my opinion, Mr.

Speaker, given the increase in reports of sexual assault crimes, given society's

appreciation of the nature of the damage done by child sexual assault not to

mention other personal injury crimes, there is absolutely no excuse for the

government's cancellation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. The

government showed no sign of having taken care in reaching this decision. There

was no consultation with victims' groups, or advocates for victims. Apparently

there was no effort to continue a program at a lower cost. Now, Mr. Speaker,

that was an option.

The Province of Nova Scotia eliminated the provision for

awards for pain and suffering, but continued provision for reimbursement for

out-of-pocket expenses, including covering the cost of counselling. Now the

minister did not even acknowledge that approach to cutting costs.

Now the minister correctly pointed out the pressure put on

provinces with the withdrawal of federal support. As I mentioned earlier, my

recollection is that federal cost-sharing started at considerably higher than 50

per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: My recollection, actually, Mr. Speaker, is

that the Province was responsible for the cost of administering the program, for

having a board and paying board members, and covering the cost of board members

holding hearings, but that the federal government shared perhaps as much as on a

90\10 basis the cost of actual awards.

Now until the mid-eighties, when I became Minister of Justice

and tried to ensure that eligible victims accessed the program, what was

actually happening is that a disproportionate amount of what was being spent

went for the operation of the board, which prior to that time was composed of

members of the private Bar. Relatively little of what was spent in total

actually went to compensate victims. I regarded that as a ridiculous situation.

Not only did I attempt to rectify that by the measures I

described, the publicity and the in-house education for police and Crown

attorneys, but I also arranged to have an in-house board. I had the Cabinet

appoint lawyers who were already working for the provincial government

departments or agencies, who served on the board without additional

remuneration. So that dramatically brought down the cost of operating the

program, and once the publicity had a chance to work, it resulted in more of

what was being spent actually benefitting victims, but the real benefit did not

start to occur until the end of the eighties and the early nineties, and that

was just about the time that the need arose with more awareness of child sexual

assaults and more reporting, and it was just about the time that the federal

government began to withdraw its support.

Mr. Speaker, there is a new federal government in office in

Ottawa today, and I am disappointed that the minister did not even talk about

trying to persuade his counterpart, the new Minister of Justice, Mr. Rock, to

re-institute cost-sharing for criminal injuries compensation.

Now I realize the economic realities are different today, or

at least our appreciation of them has changed from what was the case twenty

years ago, or twenty-five years ago when this program started, but there are

definite needs to ensure that victims of crime get reimbursed for expenses that

result from the criminal injury, and in particular to ensure that victims of

personal injury crimes get counselling and support to enable them to recover

from the criminal injury and get on with more normal, productive lives. Society

pays in other ways for lingering criminal injury and for prolonged suffering

resulting from crime. Members, the same as others in our society, should

understand better than ever now the profound damage done to victims of sexual

assaults and domestic violence.

Mr. Speaker, the reports done of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Social Services Child Welfare system, the reports that the government

withheld from the public for over a year, illustrate the shocking increase in

reports of child abuse. Many of those reports of child abuse involve criminal

activity. The victims should be able to access some kind of financial

compensation so that they can get counselling. The Minister of Social Services

would have to admit to the findings of the covered up report, the findings that

indicate a major staff shortage, an inability on the part of the Social Services

personnel to cope with the current child abuse caseload. The reality is that

most of the professionals working for the minister's department are pre-occupied

with the financial assistance program, that badly strained welfare program.

Relatively little time of the Social Services social workers is free to do

actual social work. To do counselling to deal with child welfare or youth

corrections' problems.

So victims of crime - children who are abused, dysfunctional

families - have to look elsewhere for counselling. Those who were the victims of

criminal injury, and that would be a significant number of the child abuse

caseload, formerly could access the Criminal Injuries Compensation program and

get money to cover the costs of counselling - travelling to counsellors, and

counsellors' fees.

I've already pointed out that the minister's substitute, the

Victim Worker program, is pathetically inadequate, for a start because it

doesn't cover most of the Province. There are eleven provincial districts in

Western Newfoundland from St. Anthony to Ramea. For those eleven districts the

minister has provided one worker who covers three and a half districts. In the

areas that are not covered there are few if any counsellors available to people

for a fee or not. It is the people in the rural parts of our Province who are

most disadvantaged by the abolition of the Criminal Injuries Compensation

program.

When the minister speaks to conclude the debate I would like

him to address the question of reinstating a Criminal Injuries Compensation

program, at least to cover out of pocket expenses, at least to fund needed

counselling for victims to recover, and I would like for him to indicate his

willingness to take this up with his new federal counterpart.

Next, I would like to ask the minister: If he claims that the

Victim Worker Program is a substitute for the Criminal Injuries Compensation

Program, why hasn't he provided workers for the rural parts of the Province? Why

aren't there workers for the majority of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and why are the workers who are there, in the urban centres, which

already are the best-served by hospital social workers and psychologists, which

already are the best-served with private fee-for-service counsellors? It is the

people in the rural areas who have the most difficulty accessing counselling and

who have to incur the greatest cost to see a counsellor. Why isn't there

anything at all for them?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, contrary to the minister's

intimation, that there was no thought or care involved in the Budget decision to

scrap the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program. I would suggest to the

minister that he was brand new in his position at the time, and that the

Treasury Board analyst, basically, struck the Criminal Injuries Compensation

Program from the books without even allowing the Minister of Justice or his

officials to have any involvement in the exercise. Because, in the current

set-up, it is Junior Budget analyst with Treasury Board, fresh out of Memorial

with Bachelor of Business Administration degrees, who have the real say in

Budget decisions; it isn't the ministers, it isn't the deputy ministers, it is

the Junior Budget analyst. I would submit that the decision to scrap the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Program was essentially made in the bowels of

Treasury Board and the minister didn't fully understand what was at stake until

he heard his colleague, the Minister of Finance, make the announcement in the

Budget Speech.

MR. ROBERTS: Is the hon. lady saying -

MS. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - there might be an excuse for the minister's

failure at that time, after all, he was brand new, he didn't even have a seat in

the House of Assembly at the time. But the minister is well-ensconced in the

Justice Department now, the minister is well-read; the minister should have a

keen appreciation of the need for victim support and victim counselling,

especially for victims of personal injury crimes, sexual assaults, physical

assaults, domestic violence crimes, and the minister should act immediately to

co-operate with the Minister of Social Services and the minister responsible for

the Status of Women - who seems to find this whole issue amusing - in putting

back an adequate compensation program for victims of personal injury crimes, at

least, a program that will allow victims to access counselling.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has a role to play as

well, but the minister's whole approach to dealing with victims of crime is

quite shameful. This Administration made a great to-do about the Royal

Commission inquiry into Mount Cashel. The government spent millions of dollars

for that inquiry. The process served the purpose of educating people about the

profound damage, the long-lasting damage done when a child is sexually

assaulted. Having gained that knowledge and understanding, the government has

done precious little about it. People were encouraged to disclose abuse and come

forward to the authorities; some have been damaged worse by the criminal justice

process, arguably, than they were damaged by the initial crime, because proper

supports have not been put in place to assist victims through the criminal

justice process or to see that they get needed counselling during and after that

process.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the minister responsible

for the Status of Women and the Minister of Social Services comment on this bill

- this bill that legally abolishes the criminal injuries compensation program.

Now, this legal measure is being put forward almost two years after the budget

decision to cut off applications. Now, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that victims

were eligible to apply ever since, but this bill, typical of so many other

shoddy measures of the Wells Administration, purports to retroactively wipe out

that right. The bill would repeal the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act

altogether, totally wipe it out, not even allow a reduced lower cost version of

the program, and not take the Nova Scotia approach of continuing to allow awards

to reimburse victims for out-of-pocket expenses or to provide compensation for

counselling.

Then, the bill goes on to say, where a person who believed

that he/she had a right to receive compensation under the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Act failed to make an application for compensation before March 27,

1992, a right that that person may have had, is extinguished. And finally,

subsection (1) is considered to have come into force on March 26, 1992. What a

way to treat victims of crime! What a way for the government to make

legislation!

Mr. Speaker, what infuriates me about all of this is that

members of the government don't even show any reluctance or regret at cancelling

this program. They glibly, blithely say that another program has been put in its

place. That is no substitute - a few victim workers in urban centres. Who is

serving victims in the Port de Grave district?

MR. EFFORD: I am looking after them. There are no

problems in Port de Grave.

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation may be good, but he can't even say with a straight face that he

has the ability to counsel victims of personal injury crimes, and he is a former

Minister of Social Services, a former defender of young people in trouble with

the law. How times change! Where is the social conscience now? Why isn't the

minister speaking up on behalf of -

MR. EFFORD: I am.

MS. VERGE: - youth and adults who are victims of personal

injury crimes? What is the minister doing to ensure provision of counselling for

victims in rural areas such as his district? Does the minister realize that all

that his colleague, the Minister of Justice, has put in place is workers in the

urban centres? In Western Newfoundland, I say to the minister, where there are

eleven provincial electoral districts, there is one worker based in Corner

Brook, whose formal responsibility is to cover an area with a 30-mile radius of

Corner Brook. That worker formally is directed to serve victims only in

three-and-a-half electoral districts. That worker can't help victims - of

course, the workload would be impossible in any case - but that worker is not

mandated to help victims in most of the Humber Valley district, in the St. Barbe

district, in the Strait of Bell Isle district, in Stephenville district, in Port

au Port district, in St. George's district, in LaPoile district or in Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir. Now, where is the minister's substitute for all of those

districts?

MR. EFFORD: How many did you put there when you were

Minister of Justice?

MS. VERGE: When I was Minister of Justice, I say to the

minister, we had a Criminal Injuries Compensation Program which provided

financial compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and also awards for pain and

suffering. Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for the government to cancel that

program, to wipe it out totally, to not even continue compensation for

counselling, not even make a provision for a victim of a child sexual assault

who lives in Bay Roberts to get to a counsellor in St. John's, to cover the

costs of transportation or the counselling fees - nothing at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Social Services

can't say with a straight face that that problem doesn't exist in his district.

I challenge the minister to discuss in this debate the findings of the American

Child Welfare League on the grave problems in the Child Welfare division of the

Department of Social Services, with a caseload that has increased, what -

twelvefold, fourteenfold, in the last few years?

MR. EFFORD: I brought in fifty new workers when I was

minister.

MS. VERGE: The minister brought in fifty new workers, but

that increase did not keep pace with the rise in reports of child abuse, and

that has been conclusively established by independent experts. Even the former

Director of Child Welfare, Mr. Stapleton, who was conveniently moved to another

job, wrote in his assessment that major improvements and increases of resources

were needed to cope adequately at all with the child welfare problems.

Now, the minister is nodding his head in agreement. Mr.

Speaker, all those child welfare problems require counselling. A majority, or

many, at any rate, of the child welfare cases, involve criminal activity,

involve incest, involve other types of sexual abuse of children, involve

physical mistreatment of children, which constitute criminal activity.

The criminal process, in itself, is traumatic. Some victims

have said that that experience, going through the criminal justice system, was

as bad as, or maybe worse than the damage from the criminal activity, itself.

Who is there to support people through that process? There are a few workers in

place in the urban centres. There is nobody in Bonavista North, I say to the

Minister of Social Services, there is nobody in Port de Grave, there is nobody

in Terra Nova district. The Department of Justice doesn't have victim workers

for the rural parts of the Province, and in the rural areas there aren't the

hospital personnel who are available to people in some other parts of the

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in Corner Brook there are some hospital

personnel, but not as many as there used to be. Unfortunately, the child therapy

people at the hospital in Corner Brook are no longer dealing with people on an

out-patient basis. Because of personnel reductions, they now are only helping

in-patients. So that is another source of help for victims of crime which has

been cut back.

MR. EFFORD: What would you suggest?

MS. VERGE: What I would suggest, I say to the minister,

is a reinstatement of a Criminal Injuries Compensation program to the extent the

Province can afford covering, at the very least, reimbursement of out-of-pocket

expenses, particularly costs associated with counselling. Mr. Speaker, I see the

greatest need for that program being a need of victims in rural parts of the

Province.

I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

does he realize that his colleague, the Minister of Justice, is justifying the

cancellation of the compensation program by the substitution of workers, yet he

has put the workers only in a few rural areas? There is one in his own district,

in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, there is one in my district, in Corner Brook -

MR. EFFORD: There are three in my district.

MS. VERGE: - there is one in Central Newfoundland, maybe

two, perhaps one in Grand Falls and one in Gander, and there are a couple here

in St. John's. There is nobody for Bay Roberts or Coley's Point, nobody for

Badger's Quay, nobody for Victoria. There is nobody for Doyles, I say to the

Member for St. George's.

MR. EFFORD: What did you do about it?

MS. VERGE: There is nobody for Holyrood, I say to the

Member for Harbour Main, nobody for Piccadilly, I say to the Member for Port au

Port -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: nobody for Ramea or Burgeo, I say to the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, nobody for Lethbridge, I say to the Member for

Terra Nova. Is Lethbridge in Terra Nova district? Somebody can correct me if I

am wrong. And there is nobody for Eagle River district; nobody for Forteau.

What does a victim of a personal injury crime in Forteau do

for counselling? The person does without. Now, there might be fee-for-service

counselling available in St. Anthony, but how does the person in Forteau get

over to St. Anthony for the counselling?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I can't say enough about the

regressive nature of this bill wiping out the Criminal Injuries Compensation

Program. It is regressive at a time when members should be more conscious than

ever before about the need to help and support and assist victims of personal

injury crimes.

What was the point of the Hughes Inquiry? What did we really

learn from the Hughes Inquiry? To look at what we have done - precious little.

What difference did the Hughes Inquiry really make? It cost some money. Are we

really responding any better to the plight of child sexual assault? It is not

obvious to me. I don't know if the Minister of Social Services wants to have

something to say about this; he should. The loss of the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Program is a great detriment to the individual children and

families on his child abuse caseload.

The former Minister of Social Services, the former

night-crawler champion of youth in trouble with the law should be concerned

about this. Perhaps if he weren't back in Cabinet he would be speaking out about

it.

MR. EFFORD: Now, be nice!

MS. VERGE: He displayed some independence of thought when

he was a backbencher. He didn't often do that by rising and speaking in debate,

but he frequently did it through his heckling and facial gestures.

What about the minister responsible for the Status of Women,

who is absent for the moment? Does she have any concern about wiping out the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Program?

Do any of the members opposite have any influence on the

Minister of Justice? Does the Minister of Justice talk to members sitting on

government benches about important justice decisions such as cancelling the

Criminal Injuries Compensation Program? Have members opposite talked to the

minister about the need for programs of assistance to victims of crime?

Now, the Member for Port au Port represents a district where

there has been community action, through the Bay St. George Status of Women

Council and others, to provide some response and help and support to victims of

child abuse. Does the Member for Port au Port have any views about the effect of

wiping out entirely financial assistance for victims of crime? Does the Member

for Port au Port believe that with financial assistance some of his constituents

who need counselling, but cannot now access it, could get it and benefit from

it?

Does anyone on the opposite side have any idea about what we

should be doing to support victims of crime and help them get over the damage

done as a result of the crime?

It seems as though the Minister of Justice intended to simply

ram this measure through the House of Assembly today. It appears as though he

has muzzled members opposite. None of the members opposite are taking

part in

discussion of bills, and I say to Your Honour and members of the House, this is

the most important bill that we have dealt with in this sitting of the House of

Assembly. This is the most important measure that we have had before us. It has

to do with assistance to victims of crime. Surprisingly, it is not a measure to

give even a small amount of additional assistance. It is a measure to take away

assistance that formerly was available.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the withdrawal of federal

funding put a strain on the provincial government. I condemned the federal

withdrawal when the Mulroney government made that decision. But I think we

should all unite now in calling on the new government to resume cost-sharing

with provinces, financial compensation for victims of crime. I haven't heard the

Minister of Justice even hint that he has that thought in his mind. Perhaps he

has, and perhaps he will enlighten us when he speaks to conclude the debate.

Perhaps members opposite have been considering measures to assist victims of

crime. Perhaps later in the debate we will hear from the Member for Port au

Port, perhaps we will hear from the Member for Terra Nova. Those new members may

have some useful fresh ideas for the consideration of the House of Assembly

about how the provincial government can assist and support victims of crime.

Remember, this financial compensation program that is being

abolished was specifically to assist victims of personal injury crimes. Most

personal injury crimes are sexual assaults, and many victims, sadly, are

children. Many victims of personal injury crimes are also women who are abused

in a domestic setting. The losers through this bill are the most vulnerable

people in our society, children and women who have been beaten and sexually

violated. The losers are not powerful. The losers have very little power in our

society. They are not even aware that we are talking about this here this

morning.

MR. EFFORD: I am.

MS. VERGE: The Member for Port de Grave is listening, and

I appreciate that. I am hoping that later in the debate he will participate in

this discussion. Because I would say that if he and his seat-mate, the Minister

of Social Services, put their heads together, they could come up with a new

program, perhaps a modified program, but nevertheless, some program that will

help victims of crime throughout the Province, the victims in the rural areas

who really have nothing now.

Mr. Speaker, with those remarks -

MR. ROBERTS: Those few remarks.

MS. VERGE: - those few remarks, I will repeat my

challenge to members opposite, new members as well as experienced members,

back-benchers as well as Cabinet ministers, to speak up here this morning, speak

up in private discussions with the Minister of Justice, speak out publicly,

reach out to women's groups and victims' advocates and unite with us in calling

on the federal government to reinstate funding to assist victims of personal

injury crimes, to ensure that child sexual assault victims, adult sexual assault

victims, victims of domestic violence and other victims of personal injury

crimes, get the counselling they need to recover from the criminal injury as

quickly as possible and go on to have productive lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on this bill because I think it is probably

one of the most important government measures that we have seen this term that

indicates an approach to social programs of a very important nature. I was going

to suggest that the members on the opposite side are becoming part of what might

be called a `closet reform party' by doing away with programs that have been

instituted as a part of our social fabric. Now the Minister of Justice referred

to it as an idea that somebody up in Ottawa thought up a few years ago and

convinced the provinces, by cost-sharing mechanisms, to get involved and that is

the origin of the notion of criminal injuries compensation but, Mr. Speaker,

that is not correct at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The idea of criminal injuries compensation

has its origin in the notion that the state tries to control crime by an

extensive expenditure on a police force, by a justice department and looks after

policing efforts and punishes criminals, puts them in jail, spends a

considerable amount of money attempting to reform them, et cetera and also to

act as a deterrent and punish them as well. That responsibility to the citizens

also includes the responsibility to the victims of crime. So that if somebody,

as a result of the criminal activity of members of society, suffers unduly, that

the state take some responsibility, only some responsibility, to try and

mitigate that loss. That is the idea of criminal injuries compensation, Mr.

Speaker. It is not some fancy program that somebody thought up in Ottawa a few

years ago but in fact it is a well recognized responsibility of the modern

state.

It is something that I know myself from years ago when I

studied in England - I, in fact, was at a conference sponsored by the European

Community which talked about criminal injuries compensation and talked about

developing a model legislation for the European communities. It is something

that most of the European communities have put in place and is recognized as a

responsibility of a state to look after the victims of crime, not just through

ordinary social services that might be available to anyone, but because they

have been particular victims of criminal activity.

So, Mr. Speaker, in doing this we are not just being asked as

members of this Legislature to give legislative approval to a budgetary decision

made by a government, a Cabinet, last year covered in one line in the budget,

that we will no longer accept applications for crimes compensation. What we are

doing here is wiping out a program that has become a feature of the modern state

that recognizes responsibility to victims of crime. That is what we are being

asked to do and that is a strike against our social fabric. If more people were

aware of the importance of criminal injuries compensation, such as they are, of

health care, of education and other social services, the government would not be

able to get away with this because the place would be filled with people

complaining about the governments callous disregard for the problems caused to

victims of crime. It is particularly important, Mr. Speaker, in our Province

today because, as the Member for Humber East has said, it is just coming the

time when members of society, when victims of crime were taking advantage of

this program because it was made available to them, they were notified of it by

Crown prosecutors, they became aware of it, took advantage of it and were able

to get assistance.

Part of the reason for the great increase in approach and

access to the crimes compensation board resulted from the Hughes Enquiry, not

directly but indirectly. When the government announced the Hughes Enquiry, and

the enquiry got going, the stories from the young men from Mount Cashel became

known in this Province, nationally and internationally, people all over this

Province who have themselves been victims of crimes, particularly sexual

assault, were given the courage to come forward and tell their stories to

police, to social workers and eventually to courts and judges and to bring out

excruciating histories of their past.

This was a painful experience, Mr. Speaker, for them and

still is. An excruciating personal tragedy that they, as a result of the Hughes

Inquiry, were given courage to bring forth and try to deal with themselves,

instead of being further victimized by having to repress these memories, to

pretend that they never happened, and often, and in many cases, continue to

associate on a daily basis with the perpetrators of these crimes. The

psychological damage done to these individuals is very considerable.

I'm surprised that hon. members from the districts of this

Province who ought to know of the great pain caused by sexual assault

perpetrators, particularly children who have lived with that pain for ten and

fifteen, and sometimes more, years, without being able to deal with it, without

being able to get assistance, when they come forward - and I say this from

personal experience in dealing with victims of this kind of crime - and open

their psyches from the protective walls that they've built up over the years,

they are very vulnerable. They need help, they need assistance, they need

counselling, and that is not something that can be looked after by the new

program that the minister has set forth.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he thinks

that it will. I say to him that that is not the case and cannot be the case. The

Criminal Injuries Compensation program gave access to a number of types of

remedies or monies for several different heads. Money was available for out of

pocket expenses. If an individual - not just a victim of sexual crime, but a

victim of assault, for example, on the streets - had clothes destroyed or that

type of thing, compensation for that, compensation for transportation expenses,

ambulance services which individuals have to pay for, and also a maximum amount

of $6,000 for pain and suffering. That is not a very high amount when you

consider some of the pain and suffering endured by victims of crime.

Some victims could end up in the hospital for many years as a

result of serious criminal activity. Criminal negligence, for example, in the

operation of a motor vehicle, would attract that type of dangerous, long-term

injury. Ordinary assault victims can suffer ongoing trauma. I know of one case

of a stabbing victim having very serious psychological impairment for a number

of years following a stabbing incident on the streets of St. John's several

years ago. These are individuals who are innocent victims of criminal activity

perpetrated upon them who have an opportunity to apply for compensation to get

some money for pain and suffering, a very small amount compared to other

provinces.

I know that in the Province of Ontario, for example, the

amount of money available for criminal injuries compensation for pain and

suffering was four times what we had here in Newfoundland. Perhaps that could be

justified by our lesser fiscal capacity, perhaps that could be justified by our

lesser fiscal capacity. I am willing to accept that there could be different

levels of compensation in different parts of the country because of the very

different financial circumstances we might find ourselves in, but it must bear

some relation, Mr. Speaker, to the damages caused.

In addition, if an individual, as a result of being a victim

of a crime, lost work. Someone may have been victimized, a victim of sexual

assault, rape, a victim of a physical assault, assault causing bodily harm and

could be in hospital for a week or ten days and lose pay. Who should suffer that

loss, Mr. Speaker, the innocent victim? Should the innocent victim lose two

weeks pay or should that victim somehow be compensated by the state in the first

instance?

The perpetrator of the crime sometimes may not even be known.

Sometimes you might not even know who it is. A victim of assault is found on the

street, unconscious, having been struck by an assailant, ends up in hospital for

two or three weeks, loses three weeks pay and does not know who the perpetrator

is, the perpetrator is never found and there is nobody to sue.

We have a criminal injuries compensation system that says the

state will remove from that individual the burden of losing three weeks pay and

will compensate them. That is what the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is

all about. It recognized the states responsibility to that individual. The state

may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases trying to find

criminals and if they catch them they put them in jail. We know the cost, Mr.

Speaker, of keeping someone in jail. I think it was said in the House last year

that it was $130 per day per individual to keep someone down at HMP. That is

what we spend if we do catch somebody and we put them in jail. We could spend

the amount of money that would be given to a criminal injuries compensation

applicant in a matter of weeks.

We are not talking about a great deal of money but we are

talking about fairness, Mr. Speaker, fairness of public expenditure for the

victims as well as public expenditure on the other side, in policing, in

prosecuting, in providing rehabilitation and reformation for the perpetrator. I

think we are going to be in a shocking state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, if a

perpetrator of a crime can have thousands and thousands, and tens of thousands

of dollars of public money spent on trying to rehabilitate him or her. They are

going to be advantaged by the system by having public money spent to

rehabilitate them, thousands of dollars, counselling, group therapy sessions,

special jails, special programs developed. The perpetrators are going to be

looked after. I will not say, coddled. They are going to be looked after, they

are going to be helped. The rehabilitative approach to corrections in this

country dictates that if the perpetrator of a crime can be helped then a program

will be developed and money will be spent, tens of thousands of dollars on each

individual, to look after them and to try to make them better. What about the

victims? What about the innocent victim who has no control over what is done to

them? We are now saying to those innocent victims, you are on your own. Let the

loss fall where it may. Let the victim suffer the loss and let us use our public

funds to look after the perpetrator. That is what we are saying when we pass

this legislation. I think that this legislation is indicative of an attitude of

government that says we cannot afford to look after our people. We can afford to

spend money looking after criminals, we can lock them up, we can feed them, we

can house them, we can have programs for them, but we cannot afford to look

after the victims of crime. When this government - I guess it was this

government - the Hughes Inquiry was announced by the former Minister of Justice,

but it was this government that conducted the inquiry. When this government

unleashed the outpouring of the excruciating past of so many people, first of

all in the Mount Cashel, the effect of it was Province-wide, Mr. Speaker, and

resulted in the seven hundredfold increase in reporting of sexual assaults. Not

necessarily new ones. They were old. Most of them had taken place two, five,

ten, fifteen years ago. These people, Mr. Speaker, if they had been able to

report those crimes because of the societal changes at that time, and if they

had gotten the kind of assistance that a criminal injuries compensation system

would give to them, they would be much better off today than they are now.

I say to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Social

Services that the victims of crime now, if they are able to be looked after now

by counselling, will be able to have the damage that was done to them by the

crime considerably lessened. I say that from my own research into the long-term

effects in particular of sexual assault on young children. If you are able to

provide the support and counselling that is required and necessary very close to

at the time of the perpetration - and that may not be, and that is not just a

very short period of time, but the kind of counselling that is needed at that

time - then the psychological damage that is done is very much lessened.

I say this because cost consciousness is important but also

compassion is important. If that is done at the time of a criminal injury, of

sexual assault in particular, that the long-term costs to the society will be

considerably lessened as well. The cost of the Social Services Department in

later looking after victims of crime when they become adults and have

difficulties operating within society. In some cases the cost to society of

victims of crime themselves becoming a part of the criminal system and using up

government funds to deal with that. Many victims of sexual assault, for example,

have difficult problems with addictions, with alcohol, with drugs, as a result

of the psychological consequences of sexual assaults as children.

These costs for treatment, for social loss, in addition to

the significant human cost to the individual, are very great indeed. I ask hon.

members opposite - in fact, I'm going to go farther than ask, I'm going to plead

with hon. members opposite, particularly those in the back benches who may be

new to the system and may not be fully aware of the consequences of removing

this protection from their constituents in the form of criminal injuries

compensation.

This is particularly true for rural areas where access to

services is so limited. I'm aware of people who have had crimes compensation

awards who lived in remote areas and had to travel to St. John's or Corner Brook

for counselling services that they would never be able to afford if they did not

have this kind of criminal injuries compensation, an individual travelling from

Stephenville to Corner Brook, for example, once every two weeks, to get a

counselling session that is so vital to his psychological well-being. Some of

these counselling requirements go on for six months, some might go on for a

year, or some for two years and more perhaps, in order to enable an individual

to cope with the consequences of a criminal act committed against him or her.

These counselling services are not available. The Minister of

Social Services does not provide those services, he cannot provide those

services he does not have the people to do it and he does not have the funds to

do it in his department. He does not have the programs to it. The Victims

Services Program which the minister referred to, which all the government

resources are apparently putting in to it, is totally inadequate to deal with

these problems and let me say further that it is not designed to deal with these

problems; it is not designed to deal with the ongoing problems of individual

victims of crime.

The Victims Services Program is designed specifically to look

after individuals, through the criminal court process, that is what it is there

for and very necessary, no doubt about it. I have seen over the years, and

mostly as defense counsel, because I have never acted as a prosecutor, but

mostly as defense counsel, I have seen the victims of criminal acts,

particularly difficult trials, where, there are allegations of sexual assault

and denials and the usual kind of things that goes on, the victim being treated

as just another witness, being treated in a callous manner, really, from their

point of view, the prosecutors there doing their job and the witnesses waiting,

sometimes for a day, or two and three days waiting to be called as a witness,

all of a sudden they are on the stand being cross-examined by an apparently

hostile defense counsel in a very foreign setting about very personal and

intimate details of their lives and that has been referred to as a further

victimization of victims of crime, done in the interest of justice for the

alleged criminal, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless having a very negative affect on

the individual who has spoken up about a crime committed against him or her and

sometimes very young children are involved, so a Victims Services Program is

very necessary.

I have seen some prosecutors whom I hold in very high regard

go out of their way to ensure that victims of crime are not treated as mere

witnesses in a criminal trial but whose needs are looked after, but that is the

exception, Mr. Speaker, because of the constraints of the system and the demands

on prosecutors, as well as some individuals not being aware of the great

necessity for it, so the Victims Services Program is very good, because it can

provide that on the spot service, in a trial situation, to a victim of crime to

make sure they understand the system, to make sure they get the respect they

deserve from the system, even to the extent of being aware of what the progress

of cases is, why the days are going on, when the matter is coming to court, what

a preliminary inquiry is versus what a trial is, all of this stuff, a victim of

crime needs to know about to be able to feel that they are treated fairly by the

system and not just a cog in it, they are after all the reason.

The act that was perpetrated against them is the reason for

all of this activity in the court in the first place, and victims have not been

given proper attention by the judicial system and by the administration of

justice system, so I welcome the Victims Services Program to the extent that it

is able to assist that, and the Member for Humber East has pointed out its

inadequacies, and perhaps we will have some promises from the minister to

rectify those inadequacies, I don't know, but nevertheless, that is not a

replacement for criminal injuries compensation. I say it is not intended as, it

is not designed as a replacement for Criminal Injuries Compensation, it does not

do the job of Criminal Injuries Compensation and it will not in any respect make

up for the loss of this to victims of crimes past and to victims of crimes in

the future.

So I say to hon. members that this is a very, very

regressive, retrogressive piece of legislation. I say leave it on the books,

make some attempt to examine how this system could work at a lesser cost.

Consult, consult and consult with people in the field who know what goes on with

victims of crime. Consult with the working group on child sexual abuse; consult

with the Status of Women Councils who have been dealing with these problems all

across this Province, consult with the transition houses who deal with victims

of crimes; consult with Crown prosecutors who are daily operating with

situations that are most excruciating and difficult. Consult with the police

forces; consult with anyone who wants to have a say as to how a system could be

designed to help victims to deal with the consequences of being victims of

crime, but do not throw it out the door.

If it means taking away the pain and suffering award and

leaving the other aspects, the counselling, the therapy needs, the out of pocket

expenses, leaving that there at a lesser cost, I would prefer to see that, Mr.

Speaker, than to see the system wiped out and the Crown and the government and

the state say that we are not taking any direct responsibility on an individual,

one on one basis, to a victim of crime.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, I think is very good. It says

that a person has a right to compensation. It says `... a right to compensation.

Nobody has a right to victims services, except as a general citizen they can go

and ask for services. If they are in Burgeo they do not have a right to it

because they do not have any services there. If you are in Burgeo and you are a

victim of crime you have a right, under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act,

to make an application; and people from the South Coast, from Harbour Breton and

from other places, have had awards from Criminal Injuries Compensation. So that

is available to everyone in the Province, Mr. Speaker, on an equal basis. The

Victims Services Program is not, and I have not heard a promise that it will be;

and it is, as I say, a program that is designed for a different purpose -

designed to help people through the court process, not designed to compensate

victims of crime.

This legislation, I hope it does not pass, Mr. Speaker. I

hope the government will see that there is a possibility of perhaps amending the

legislation so that pain and suffering awards might be suspended for a time to

allow the Minister of Justice and his Cabinet to consult with their federal

counterparts, consult with other provinces, to see what they are doing. I know

of no one else who has wiped out crimes compensation. I know Nova Scotia has

made modifications to their plan, but they have not wiped it out. I think they

have removed the pain and suffering award - I am not sure - but they have still

kept the basic right in tact, the right to some form of compensation from the

state for victims of crime. I do not think we should lose that, Mr. Speaker. I

think we are on a slippery slope if we do.

There are many other rights that individuals have, social

rights, social programs, that we see on the block as an excuse - the excuse that

is used - and we hear that from the Reform Party. Their excuse used is fiscal,

but the reality is that we are changing the nature of our society and taking

away the kind of caring society that we have been trying to develop in Canada

over the last number of years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he closes

the debate. The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think we have ventilated the

subject thoroughly, so I will not be very long.

I do not disagree with much of what my friend from St. John's

East said, and even some of what my friend from Humber East said, although I

must say, listening to her speak is a little like having one's teeth drilled

without an anaesthetic. She just keeps going on and on and on, and it keeps

getting more and more painful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be nice now.

MR. ROBERTS: I am being nice. If one makes a good point,

by the thirty-seventh time it is made it loses it effect. Let me just make a

couple of comments.

The hon. gentleman from St. John's East is correct when he

says that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Here I am, making a few conciliatory

remarks, and I am being viciously attacked by gentlemen on the other side again,

Mr. Speaker. The only thing is, being attacked by gentlemen on the other side is

a little like being lashed with wet macaroni.

Mr. Speaker, let me get on with this and bring it to a

conclusion. The hon. gentleman for St. John's East makes some valid points. The

issue is, how much we, in society, should, as a group, be able to do to

compensate individuals who are affected by others.

We have not repealed this program, or anything in this

program, because we argue against that principle. We have ended it because given

the means at our disposal we simply are not able, in our judgement, to do all

that we want to do, and this is one of the things that we have dropped.

Repealing the act is simply tidying up a loose end, something

that was done two or three years ago. The major theme of what both hon. members

said was the need for victim services workers. Now, I realize that is separate

and apart from the crimes compensation thing. The problem with crimes

compensation was that it did not necessarily represent a wise use of scarce

resources in that they did not go to the people who needed them. They often

went, as with any tortious type of thing to those who reached out and grabbed.

We have chosen instead to put our money into a victim services program. We have

four workers in place now. The hon. lady for Humber East went on at great

lengths about how overworked the people in Corner Brook are, and I agree with

her, but I will say two things, she ought to have realized, and perhaps simply

did not remember, that we are committed to expanding the program and in fact we

are now nearly at the point where we can advertise for, I think, six or eight

new workers who will be coming on as soon as the PSC process of the

applications. That was provided in this year's Budget. We are committed to do

that and we are doing it. We are doing it because we believe that is the best

way to use scarce resources. I can tell my hon. friend for Humber East that some

of those workers will be stationed in Western Newfoundland. From memory, I

think, one goes on the Northern Peninsula, the other goes in Bay St. George, and

that is a stationing determined by the caseloads and by the forecast workloads.

The only other comment I would make at this time, Mr.

Speaker, is to say on behalf of all of us that when the hon. lady spoke of

junior treasury board analysts, and she gave us the benefit of her views on this

point, I can only say that it sounds familiar. My friend the Minister of

Finance, and I, and other members of Treasury Board, that caring gentle group of

ministers who are charged with doing the impossible, getting a quart of water

out of a pint bottle, or trying to make the financial means at our disposal go

as far as they should go, can only say that this is an all too familiar attack,

and not simply from the hon. lady. It comes from our own colleagues as well and

I am prompted to ask her, whether when she was a minister - I do not know if she

served on Treasury Board or not, I could look that up, I suppose, she would have

heard the same charge made to her then - and I think she nodded acquiescence

that in fact she did get fingered by the Premier of the day to serve on Treasury

Board -

MR. BAKER: If we could only find that one -

MR. ROBERTS: - but whether she made the same plaint then

that she makes now - and my friend the Minister of Finance says: if we could

only find this junior analyst who has such great power, the very least we would

make him or her the opposition finance spokesman and thereby elevate the level

of debate very greatly.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Criminal Injuries

Compensation Act," read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole

House tomorrow. (Bill No. 29)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we now go to Order 27,

Bill No. 28, moving right along here?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act." (Bill No. 28)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is

an Act To Amend The

Judicature Act. It implements a decision taken in the budgetary process a couple

of years ago. What was done was this, we closed the judicial centre at Brigus

and this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you do that?

MR. ROBERTS: We did that because in looking at the

resources available to us in the sense of judges and officials, and after

consultation with the Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court,

we decided, it was our decision but the judges, of course, were consulted, we

decided it would be a better use of scarce traditional resources to close the

judicial centre at Brigus and to move the judge station there - it was then Mr.

Justice O'Regan, into St. John's so that is what was done. It has worked very

well over the last couple of years. There was not universal approbation at the

time. Some of the lawyers who practice on the north side of Conception Bay had

concerns but these appear to have been allayed. The court still sits at Brigus

when needed. When council wish to hear matters at Brigus, the judge goes in and

sits and hears it, just as the judge does at Clarenville or other places that

are not judicial centres but are still circuit points.

Mr. Speaker, unless hon. members have some questions or some

concerns, I will let the debate go by simply moving second reading. It is a very

straightforward piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of quick questions. I have no quarrel with the move

to eliminate the Brigus judicial centre and merge that with St. John's but when,

a few years ago, there was some question about phasing out Brigus as a judicial

centre, some members of the Bar and judges talked about the idea of creating a

judicial centre for much of the Avalon Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula at

Clarenville. The minister did reflect the fact that the Supreme Court does go on

circuit from the remaining five judicial centres, but I am wondering if there is

any thought currently to establishing another judicial centre at Clarenville or

for that matter anywhere else to serve the area formerly covered by the Brigus

judicial centre?

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he closes

the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I gather no other member wants

to speak. What I shall say to the hon. lady is that - there are six other

judicial centres by the way, not five. She forgot either Grand Bank or Labrador

and one would be (inaudible) and the other would be utterly unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, we have examined recently the question of

whether we would move the judicial centre now at Grand Bank to Clarenville -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. ROBERTS: - which I think is the same - Well my hon.

friend does not need to get his knickers in a knot for a moment. That I think is

the concern the hon. lady was putting forward. Now let me explain to the House

why the timing now?... and then I will give the answer. We are not going to move

it but I will tell you why.

The judges are appointed of course, these are

Section 96

principles of judicial independence, which of course, are paramount and must be

observed and properly so, we have the right as a Cabinet, under the Judicature

Act to approve the initial posting of a judge to a judicial centre, but once

that judge is in a judicial centre, then he or she may only be moved with

consent for obvious reasons.

Now the Grand Bank judicial centre is currently vacant. Mr.

Justice Green who served there for two or three years has now been moved into

St. John's and transferred to the judicial centre here. No judge has been

appointed to sit in Grand Bank, I don't why, I have had some consultations with

officials in Ottawa and there is a need to have a judge appointed. I believe

Chief Justice Hickman of the Trial Division has also been urging an appointment

be made but for whatever reason, no appointment has been made. It may have been

caught up in the election process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The judge should be bilingual? In fact we

had our first bilingual criminal trial in Gander, oh no, sir, it is coming up in

January, the first bilingual criminal trial I think held in this Province. Mr.

Justice Roberts, in deference to him, I hasten to say no relation, will be

holding the trial and it will be held in Gander simply because the Crown and the

defence counsel have agreed that that is a more convenient place for all

concerned. It is these men from St. Pierre who have been charged with breach of

the fishery regulations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Grand Bank.

MR. ROBERTS: No, my hon. friend says it should be in

Grand Bank. All concerned, court and counsel have agreed that Gander would be a

more convenient place so that is why it has been moved. But Mr. Justice Roberts

will be hearing that trial and I understand it will be conducted entirely in

French, the first time that has happened in this Province, but in any event,

with the Grand Bank centre being vacant, we have an opportunity to revisit the

issue, we have looked at it; we have discussed it with Chief Justice Hickman and

I believe my officials have been in touch with Mr. Justice Green -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Derek Green, who was there for two or

three years in Grand Bank, succeeding Mr. Justice Easton and it has been decided

we should not move it, that the workloads are such, that the present disposition

of judges is the appropriate one, so we are going to continue for the time being

and we will see where we go.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I can say to my hon. friend from Grand

Bank that there has been an unusual pattern to criminal activity recently on the

South Coast. He may know more about it than I, but the disposition of the RCMP

has changed. We have put substantially more officers in Burin.

MR. TOBIN: There are some people who would suggest that

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I have no doubt, as my friend from

Burin - Placentia West says, there are those who say we should transfer them

out. I can say to the contrary, the word should go out that we are having a new

fast, boat built -

MR. TOBIN: In Marystown?

MR. ROBERTS: The RCMP are building it. I am not sure

where it is built.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

it, in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It could be; I do not know. It was ordered

by the Tory government in Ottawa. It probably went to Quebec; I do not know.

Anyway, the RCMP are having it built.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my understanding is that this new

boat, in conjunction with radar, will be very effective. Also, the new penalties

are very effective. Also, with reference to the