December

10, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 82

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker I will, at three o'clock, go to my office to

receive the first telephone call from the last community in this Province to

receive permanent telephone service - the community of Norman Bay, on the Coast

of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would just like to use this opportunity

to congratulate Newfoundland Telephone for making this investment in such a

hard, difficult, economic time. I congratulate the people of Norman Bay and hope

that they will have their personal business looked after, as any other citizen

of this Province has been able to over the years, and I congratulate all

concerned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House

of Assembly to recognize a very important event in the history of human rights.

Today marks the 44th. Anniversary of the Signing of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations unanimously

adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of

achievement for all peoples and for all nations, large and small.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code of this Province has its

roots in this Universal Declaration, as has the human rights legislation in all

Canadian jurisdictions and in other nations. The provincial Human Rights Code

prohibits acts of discrimination and harassment in the workplace, in admission

to public places, services and facilities, and in the rental of self-contained

dwelling units because of race, religion, sex, marital status, physical

disability, mental disability, political opinion, colour or ethnic, national and

social origin. Discrimination on the basis of age - between the years of 19 and

65 - in relation to employment is also prohibited. The Code also prohibits

sexual harassment and the maintaining of different wages between males and

females employed in the same establishment and performing the same or similar

work.

The Human Rights Commission has been established to

administer and enforce The Human Rights Code. In so doing, complaints are

investigated and attempts are made to effect settlements whenever possible.

In addition to this, the Human Rights Commission has a

responsibility to promote, through education, an awareness of human rights, with

the hope that increased awareness will lessen discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all the members of the House of

Assembly and the citizens of our Province to promote the observance of human

rights as a shared responsibility and to reaffirm our commitment to eliminate

discrimination in all its forms. I am pleased to bring to the attention of

Honourable Members that today is the 44th. Anniversary of the Signing of the

Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, and to mark the celebration

of International Human Rights Day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this minister and

this government had any commitment to human rights, the minister would have

risen in his place today and announced the government's intention to have this

Provinces Human Rights Code comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. If this government had any belief in the work of human rights, the

Premier would be initiating amendments to the Province's Human Rights Code to

extend protection to gays and lesbians. The Premier would be sponsoring an

amendment to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, to outlaw

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Instead the government has

been ignoring court rulings, has been willfully violating the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, has been refusing even basic reforms to our Human Rights Code. Mr.

Speaker, what the minister just said was words, puffery. This does not mean

anything in the face of the government's inaction, in the face of the

government's refusal even to have our Provincial Human Rights Laws comply with

the Canadian Constitution. I ask the Premier, the self-appointed champion of the

Canadian Constitution: why is he not amending our Provinces Human Rights Code to

comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as pointed out by the

Ontario Court of Appeal in a ruling last Summer?

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I have a

question this afternoon for the Premier. I want to revisit an issue that the

Member for Humber East raised last week. The Minister of Justice told the

Premier before he formally joined the Cabinet in February, that he would

continue to hold a major financial interest in his former law firm, an interest

that the minister himself confirmed last Thursday, would pay him approximately

$250,000 over a two year period. I want to ask the Premier: why did he not tell

his now minister then, that he must make a clean break, that he could not join

the Cabinet until he had all financial interest in his former law firm

relinquished?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. member does

not understand, but surely the Member for Humber East should know that anybody

who is a partner in a law firm has a capital investment. It is just like owning

shares if you want, in a corporation. It is done through a partnership interest

commonly referred to as the Capital account. When the Minister of Justice -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - as soon as the babbling stops, Mr.

Speaker, I will try and convey the information to the Member for Grand Bank.

When the Minister of Justice accepted the invitation to join

the Cabinet he had to terminate his interest in the law partnership. He did so.

He also tells me that under the terms of the agreement, there is a requirement

that the remaining partners do not have to pay out their share of the capital

immediately in cash, they have a time to do it, to repay it over a period of

time and he told me that period was twenty-four months. He told me that at the

time. He also tells me that - he just showed me now, he filed it with his

conflict of interest statement that was filed, dated the 17 of March last, right

after he became minister and it says, I will quote from it: I am a creditor of

Halley, Hunt, a law firm which practices from offices in the Scotia Centre on

Water Street. The debt represents the amount of my account as of the 31st of

January, 1992, when I withdrew from my partnership in the firm. It is being

repaid to me in twenty-four equal monthly instalments together with interest,

payable monthly in arrears at the rate of one-half prime plus 1 per cent. The

debt is unsecured.

Now he filed that, so the Member for Humber East did not make

any great disclosure. The minister did not respond to anything that was pried

out and suddenly disclosed in some clandestine way; he did what he is required

to do. He first told me about it, I said: I understand, that is a normal

circumstance. Then he filed it as part of his conflict of interest statement and

it was made public in March, so I guess that is probably where the Member for

Humber East got her information.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Now the Premier would be surprised where

the Member for Humber East got her information, I say to the Premier, he would

be very surprised.

That is the question that the Premier has to answer. The

Minister of Justice informed the Premier of his financial interest in Halley

Hunt. He filed a conflict of interest statement which the Premier has just read

from. Why did the Premier appoint Mr. Roberts Minister of Justice knowing all of

these things? It is a direct conflict of interest. Why did you appoint the man

to your Cabinet? is the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know if the hon. member is

speaking sincerely or if he genuinely does not understand. He doesn't have any

financial interest. The firm owes him a debt and they are paying it in

accordance with the terms of the agreement. Now, for any members opposite who

suggest that is a conflict, I say, ask the reasonable opposition, the Member for

St. John's East, and he will explain it to you. If members opposite really don't

understand, ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East. He will explain to you

that there is nothing inordinate about this. There is nothing clandestine about

it. It was disclosed and filed in the registry. Now, they can pry as much as

they want to but they cannot make a mountain out of a molehill, a molehill is a

molehill is a molehill and will forever remain a molehill despite the best

efforts of the members opposite.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the

Member for St. John's East, I don't know what he thinks of it but I think it is

a direct case of conflict. It is a classic case of conflict of interest, I say

to the Premier. What we cannot forget here is that the law firm was awarded a

lucrative government contract. Now, the Premier announced the appointment of the

Minister of Justice in November and the minister joined the Cabinet abut three

months later, in February. Now, does the Premier remember telling this very

House, standing on his feet in this House at that time and saying that the

three-month delay was to give the minister time to wind up his partnership and

financial connections with Halley Hunt? The Premier stood in his place and said

that. Does he remember saying that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that is precisely

what he did. He terminated his interests in the partnership before the end of

January. He is no longer a partner. He does not draw any benefit from the

profits or anything the firm makes. The firm owes him a debt. Now, Mr. Speaker,

we are bringing in new conflict of interest regulations which will be announced

very shortly. Meanwhile, we are operating under the conflict of interest

regulations the former government had in place. I do not agree they are

appropriate. It took us some time to get around to changing them, and I regret

that, but it is in the process now. But, Mr. Speaker, those are the same members

opposite who awarded a contract to a company that John Collins, the former

Minister of Finance, owned 25 per cent of, a contract to rent space, and he

thinks that this payment of a debt to terminate the interest is somehow a

conflict of interest. Where are their standards? Where is their honesty? Where

is their sense of fairness? This is a conflict of interest and that is not? What

are they talking about?

The law firm owes the minister a debt. They are paying it in

an orderly way in accordance with the terms of the partnership agreement that

entitles the law firm to do it. What was he going to do if they said: No, we are

going to pay it over the period of time as is required - could he then not

become the minister? Virtually every lawyer in the Province is in exactly the

same position. Does that means that no lawyer, except one who is in a solo

practice, could ever become a minister?

How irrational can they be?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier could have done

one of two things. He could have refrained from appointing the minister to the

Cabinet or he could have cancelled the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador

contract. That is what the Premier could have done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: He appointed a minister and he kept the

contract where it was. Now, I want to ask the Premier: Does he remember that

three months was the exact time he gave the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

to get rid of a properly tendered minor contract with the Newfoundland Liquor

Board, and he gave the Member for Humber West, the former Minister of Justice, a

short deadline to dispose of some interest in a properly tendered government

contract? I want to ask the Premier directly: Why the double-standard? Why do

you make chalk of some ministers and cheese of the others?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, they keep denying truth to

propagate this propaganda. The contract with Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador terminates as of December 31 of this year when every other arrangement

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: A year later!

PREMIER WELLS: Just stop the irrational babble and I will

tell you what was done. As everybody knows, I provided for three months for the

minister - or whatever the time was, September 30, I think -

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: - September 30, to have it corrected. In

the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the government took steps to put in place a proper

system for the provision of legal services.

MS. VERGE: A year later.

PREMIER WELLS: No, not a year later. In the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, the minister was required to terminate the relationship as at the end

of September - as at the end of September. He was sworn in in February or March

- I have forgotten - whatever it was.

MR. ROBERTS: I wasn't required to terminate a

relationship.

PREMIER WELLS: No, the firm was required to terminate the

relationship as at the end of September. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, we

have corrected the problem that they sat on for seventeen years. Those purists

who want to do everything right - who want to correct the Human Rights Code. The

member, when she was a minister, sat for all those years. When did -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Did she suddenly discover gays and

lesbians in the last three-and-a-half years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes!

PREMIER WELLS: Did she suddenly discover them? Where was

her standard five years ago when she was the Minister of Justice? We all know

where her standard was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Three-and-a-half years. We will see.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the time was set at September 30. In the

meantime, the government terminated all legal appointments in the Province and

called for tenders for all of them. The alternative was to put in place a

different law firm for three months, from October 1 to the end of December, or

allow it to continue.

MS. VERGE: It has been a year.

PREMIER WELLS: We acted, Mr. Speaker, not stupidly, but

rationally, and we are correcting the entire problem that they allowed to exist

for all those years. They don't like it, and it is too bad. It has been

corrected.

The people know the difference. If they think they are

fooling the people, just look at the poll results that were tabled today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, it is no trouble to tell when

you have him cornered, he turns to human rights issues and other issues. Yes, we

know about the poll results. We know why the rollback didn't come, because you

plummeted so badly, as your own polls showed, to which some of your own members

admitted last night.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Some of your own members admitted that last

night, let me tell the Premier.

I want to ask the Premier: Does he remember what he said in

the 1989 election campaign? I would like to refresh his memory by quoting: `I

personally consider it totally incompatible for a minister or any member of his

family or any company in which the minister or any member of his family has an

interest, to be dealing directly with the government and have the government

make decisions of awarding that minister, or the company with which he is

associated, any business.' That is what the Premier said. Now that is a very

clear statement.

I want to ask the Premier: Why doesn't this statement apply

to the present Minister of Justice and to the company in which he continues to

hold a financial interest, I say to the Premier, regardless of which way he

tries to cut it. If anybody is going to get $250,000 from a firm over the next

two years, there certainly is a financial interest, I say to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I stand by every word I said,

every single word. I just dispute the proposition that the hon. member makes

that this is a financial interest in the firm. The debt was there, it was

disclosed, it had to be eliminated within a certain period of time and orderly

provision is being made for it. I know hon. members don't like that. They are

not used to that kind of a standard of honesty. They didn't practice it when

they were there. They didn't practice that kind of a standard when they were

there. I know they are bothered that the people of this Province are judging

them on the poor standard that they maintained and judging us by our standard,

and they are found wanting, as of which now there is every indication.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard it all. There has never been a worse case of

conflict of interest in the history of this Province, I say to the Premier, than

there is right now - never a worse case!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: There have been other conflict of interest

cases, but none as blatant as this one.

Is the Premier so naive, or does he think the people of the

Province are so naive, to believe that a minister - who himself admitted in this

Legislature he is going to receive $250,000 over the next two years - does not

have a financial interest in that company? Does the Premier think the people are

so naive? Does he really believe that a minister in such a situation would not

have an interest in preserving and promoting the financial interest of that

company?

I ask the Premier finally: Why does he not admit that this is

really a classic case of conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. Maybe the hon.

member is cornered and he is trying to cover it up. Maybe he sincerely does not

understand. I do not know. I do not know what it is. Maybe he is trying to

fabricate something, as they generally do; but here is the statement, filed

months and months ago - filed months and months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to state categorically that if I

invite somebody who happens to be a member of a law firm, a doctor practising

medicine with others, a member of a corporation, a shareholder in a corporation

that is doing business, a chartered accountant - any one of a number of people -

I will require them to divest of their interests. I will understand that the

people who buy their interests require a reasonable time to pay for it, provided

it is fully disclosed.

Now if that is a conflict of interest, I stand before the

people of this Province and say: I am responsible. I accepted that knowingly.

But I say to everybody in this Province that that is quite acceptable. What is

unacceptable is sitting as a member of the Cabinet and awarding a contract to

your fellow partners. It happened with Dr. John Collins. It happened with Dr.

Collins in renting space. It happened with the Member for Humber East when

contracts were awarded to Mr. Verge by the government of the day. It happened

with everybody!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That, Mr. Speaker, is an unacceptable

conflict of interest. This is full and total disclosure and honest dealings -

matters with which the hon. members opposite are clearly not very familiar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Statement released last week

showed that municipal affairs -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair has recognized the

Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The Financial Statement released last week shows that the

minister's department, under current account, is to have a saving of $3.2

million in this fiscal year - in the three months that is remaining. I ask the

minister: Can he tell us how he is going to achieve a $3.2 million saving in

just three months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I will take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker,

to answer that question; but as I recall it, the greater portion of it will be

achieved through added debt retirement from the municipalities through the

existing program that was unexpected.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the

minister.

Is it the intention of the government to maintain the cap on

MOG's this year - a $41 million cap? We see in the Estimates in 1992, municipal

operating grants was $44,845,000. Is it still the intention to maintain it at

$41 million this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for this fiscal year we plan

to continue that cap.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Will the minister not confirm then that as the number of

households and the value of property increases, the amount left for the road

component will be again decreased this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a pretty short answer.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what the road

component grant is going to be this year, since he only had $1.9 million last

year and he has already confirmed we are going to have further reductions. Can

the minister tell us what the road component is going to be for municipalities

this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, as I did

in the previous question, I said: yes it would. That is a good guesstimate based

on the experience of the last couple of years and I just say that that is going

to happen again this year and I do not know how far it would be reduced.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this.

The Federation of Municipalities have asked the government to set the road

component at a fixed rate of $1,000 per kilometre, will the minister confirm

that the Federation asked for this and will he also confirm that as of today,

councils have been notified that the road component for this year will be $81.40

per kilometre, a further reduction of $400 per kilometre over last year, it is

now set at $81.40 per kilometre?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: There are two parts to that question, Mr.

Speaker.

A committee appointed by the minister came forth with certain

recommendations, and obviously the hon. member has a copy of those

recommendations in which the roads component was recommended to be set at $1,000

and was not rejected by government, because I do not think it got to government

yet. It was rejected outright by this minister and the department and that

recommendation is in the process for government to consider. That is based on

the fiscal position and the fiscal experience that we find ourselves in now,

that this rejection was made.

The second part of his question on the $81.40, it is a new

figure to me; I did not know that it had been reduced to that, but it does not

surprise me and I will check out his figure and if it right I will confirm it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier in this session, the minister indicated that no

municipalities had come to him seeking financial assistance because of the

uniform utility tax across the Province. The minister indicated that if they

came to him he might offer some assistance because of the number of communities

that are now having trouble balancing their books and their budgets as a result

of the unexpected loss of revenues. Will the government offer transition grants

to allow the municipalities to cope with the unexpected loss of revenues, in the

case of some communities in excess of $100,000? Will they offer transitions

grants as they did in the initial phase-in of the MOGs, to allow the

municipalities to adapt to the sudden revenue loss?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. There is no offer of

transitional grants in this fiscal year, what might come in the new fiscal year

will be decided through the budgetary process and by the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board and the recommendation to government. The doors to the Department

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs are always open to those councils who come

to us with inordinate budgetary positions that through no fault of their own

they find themselves in for whatever reason and that practise and policy will

continue to stand.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

In a call for proposals, a request for proposals sent out by

the minister in November of this year to law firms for legal services, there is

also estimated an indication of the average annual value of each service to be

tendered.

For Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, the

average annual mandate cost is estimated at $15,000. Will the minister confirm

that in fact, the amount of revenue to a law firm from that account is closer to

$200,000, as the minister will know from his own law firm and the predecessor

law firm, that in fact there is along with that mandate to do ENL's corporate

work, the exclusive right to act on debenture work that the clients pay for at a

price to be determined by that law firm? Would the minister confirm that please?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm it because the

hon. gentleman's information is incorrect. I have no idea what Halley, Hunt

bills to ENL or what anybody else bills to ENL.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady finds that hard to accept but

she should accept that some people occasionally are frank. She may be used to

dealing in a government, of which she was part, where truth, candour and

integrity were not part of it. But let me come back to the hon. gentleman

without the cynicism of the hon. lady for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I have

no idea what Halley, Hunt bills, or what ENL pays to any law firm. The numbers,

the amounts given in the request for proposals that were sent out to his former

law firm, along with everybody else in the whole Province, were prepared by my

officials upon my direction from the information supplied by the agencies.

My friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology,

who is the minister responsible for ENL, tells me that its average - it was

$25,000 last year. It was $70,000 the year before, when a different firm was

doing the work, and it was less the year - it goes up and down. The numbers in

the legal technology, the request for proposals, were prepared by my officials.

I put them forward on that basis. If the hon. gentleman wants more information

I'll get it, but I certainly cannot confirm what he suggests, because to my

knowledge what he suggests is not correct.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is in addition

to the corporate account which may vary from year to year. Those are the

accounts that are paid in fact by clients of ENL to the law firm for preparation

of documents. To be fair in terms of, first of all, putting the proposals out,

and to be fair to clients of ENL, ought not the government insist in its tender

calls that these figures also be disclosed, not only by Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador, so that tenderers can be fair, but also so that the public can be

protected?... because the exclusive right to do legal services at the cost of

the clients of ENL is also given to the legal firm which gets this tender.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is not

asking a question so much as making an argument. I, when I was at Halley, Hunt,

did no work for ENL. So I don't know the details of how it - I certainly know

the firm had the work, long before I was approached to join the Cabinet and long

before I accepted the Premier's invitation to join the Cabinet. I must say, the

longer I'm in it the more I am glad I did accept the invitation, when I see the

state in which the hon. lady and the hon. gentlemen opposite left the Province.

So I have to give a hand to those who want to try to straighten it out.

What I would say to my hon. friend is, to my understanding -

AN HON. MEMBER: What would we have done without you?

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I know, Mr. Speaker, what they did

without me. Sprung, the country on the verge of bankruptcy, and a bunch of other

things. Let me come back to the hon. gentleman for St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to please restrain themselves.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a perfectly straightforward

answer to a perfectly straightforward question. They're all having apoplectic -

even the puffy toughy over there. The toughy puffy.

Let me come back to the hon. gentleman. I don't know whether

ENL requires a person borrowing from it to use a particular law firm. I just do

not know that. My friend the minister may. I don't know that. What I will tell

him is the amounts that were in the letter I signed, or the attachment to the

letter I signed, were given to me by my officials at my request, and they went

as far as I know to the agencies concerned. That's how, for example, we got the

figure from Williams, Harris, Roebothan & McKay and the money they'd got over

the years from the Workers' Compensation Commission. Exactly the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The request for

proposals clearly states that the work referred to has a $15,000 price tag, in

addition to amounts paid by clients in specific transactions. Now why isn't that

amount disclosed in the tender call, and why doesn't the government insist that

people responding to the tender call indicate very clearly what scale or what

level of fees they'll be charging to other people who have to do business with

them?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it's not disclosed because I

didn't have the information and I don't have it now, and I see no need to get

it. Of the 200 or 300 proposals that came in Friday afternoon that are now being

looked at by my officials with a view to bringing forward recommendations for

awarding of the tenders for the first time ever in the history of this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: - if any of the law firms wants the

information

I would suggest they approach the client, in this case E & L,

and get whatever information they seek but I am not going to provide information

when there is no need to and I am not going to provide it when I do not have it

and in this case both of those are applicable answers.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a

question to the Minister of Education. The minister denied in the House on

Monday that government is cutting almost $18 million from education this year

and he later admitted it, just moments later outside the House. Now the minister

also told the press and in Tuesday's Telegram that $11 million equalization

should not have a major impact on school boards and I quote: it was money that

they never had. In 1991 the government provided $10 million equalization, $10

million in 1990, $10 million in 1989, $4.5 million in 1988 and the two previous

years a total of $7 million. I would ask the minister would he now stand in his

place and be straightforward with the House, the press and the people of this

Province, and tell us that money has been in the Budget for equalization for a

number of years.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should clarify what

happened when the hon. member rose in his place to ask me about the cuts to

education. Now the $17 million taken out of education was public knowledge, it

was read by the hon. Minister of Finance when he read his statement in this

House, no one is trying to hide that, it is $17 million and a few dollars which

is coming out of education. Now, whether I understood the hon. member correctly

or not, I got the clear impression that he was suggesting that the $17 million

was coming from the school boards in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that of

course is not the case at all. The $17 million is coming out of the total $800

million, or a little less than $800 million, so $17 million, Mr. Speaker, out of

an almost $800 million does not strike me as being an overwhelming amount.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have explained on many occasions, this

Province replaced the $35 million school taxes and in the meantime we attempted

to address the inequities that were in the system. We have attempted to bring up

the equalization. We had allocated $11 million to do that, $3 million of the $11

million was never ever assigned to anybody. It was held in reserve by the

department to try to accelerate some of the school boards which had fallen

further behind over the years. $4.5 million of the equalization had been already

allocated in the tentative grants which the school boards have been told about.

So, the actual amount of money in that particular pot, Mr. Speaker, is somewhere

between $3 and $4 million which had not been allocated, plus as I said the $3

million which is going to be held back anyway. The other $8 or $10 million which

he is talking about equalization grants, that has already been included in the

school grants and it is a red herring to introduce that at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the galleries today 25

Level III students from Fogo Island Central High School in the district of Fogo,

and these students are accompanied by their teachers Susan Taite, Roy Dwyer,

Christine Dwyer and Roxine Cull, chaperon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have two notices of motion,

one in my own name and one in behalf of my colleague the Minister of Finance. In

my own name may I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask lease to introduce a

bill entitled, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, Number

2." And in behalf of my colleague the Minister of Finance who is away from the

Province on business I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act." Unless

hon. members opposite fear we are going to annihilate them by legislation

instead of by the election, as we shall, let me say this is the conflict of

interest bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to bring it in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Child

Welfare Act."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Canada Newfoundland Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland Act, Number 2."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House the Leader of the Opposition asked

some questions about health. I am sorry he is not in his place now and that the

critic for health is not here but I think I will give the answers anyway. He

basically asked three question. Looking at the back of the Ministerial Financial

Statement by the Minister of Finance some time ago, where the Health Budget was

displayed, there was a difference of a $6.37 million decrease in expenditures

predicted for this current year. The hon. member wanted to know the breakdown,

how much would hospitals be affected and how was this breakdown achieved, so I

would like to give some details of that now, Sir, if I may. Basically, the

budgets of the hospitals and nursing homes were reduced by $3.8 million. I will

just give a slight flavouring of the types of things they had to do. Some

reduced vacation relief and overtime, some delayed recruitment of non-crucial

vacant positions, some reduced travel and continuing education programs, some

reduced office and administrative expenses, including reductions in

long-distance telephone calls. There was a decreased replacement for sick leave

relief, compassionate leave, and statutory holidays unless absolutely necessary.

In areas heat was reduced where twenty-four activity was not taking place, and

supply costs were reduced. In one case the need for a second ambulance standby

was able to be reduced because they put a private ambulance service on call just

in case, rather than have two from the hospital. In another case they had

organization restructuring of management personnel with some reductions through

resignations. Other management positions were frozen, and another hospital

reduced their staff education budget somewhat. The conversion from light diesel

to Bunker C in one case, suspension of catering service per meetings and others.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say here is that in no case was patient care

affected and while I am Minister of Health there will be no reduction in patient

care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: That was $3.8 million. Of the other

remaining dollars actually the department cut back over $11 million but we have

been over budget by almost five for various reasons: For instance, our indigent

drug program was up and our dental services were costing more; we were spending

more on drugs for cystic fibrosis; the health and x-ray workers were

reclassified and got quite a good settlement there; we brought in a cardiac

surgery program, if you remember, to help clear up the backlog; we gave some

money to Royal Oak Mines as a health subsidy; and various other points which

increased our budget. Then we had to cut back by eleven to achieve this net of

six point four. As I mentioned, three point eight came from the institutional

sector. In the Department of Health itself, within the department here in

Confederation Building basically, we reduced some of our computer expenditures

by $147,000. We put a ban on out-of-Province travel unless it is absolutely

necessary. I cancelled a conference I was going to myself and we cancelled a

fair number of those which we thought to be a good measure that would not

effectively effect the health care.

Mr. Speaker, not to continue on too much, because I know we

want to keep these answers very short. We estimate there will be a saving in the

services of residents outside the Province, that this won't be as much as it has

been in previous years. We were able to get from MCP something like $3.4

million, and the School of Medicine at Memorial agreed that they could save some

money as well. The ADDC was reorganized and were able to save some money there.

The non-implementation of pay equity, the second stage, that helped us a bit as

well. So these saving total $11 million. Our overrun was $4.8 million which

resulted in the $6.4 million. That is the first question, Mr. Speaker.

The second question that the hon. member for Grand Falls,

Leader of the Opposition, asked: Here is where I am having a bit of difficulty,

because he suggested that this $6.3 which was the result of 1 per cent and 3 per

cent, 1 per cent on wages and 3 per cent on operating expenses, for the year but

which would have to be done in three months, would somehow be $25 million over

the whole year. Now, this is a very strange thing for the hon. member to say. It

is like: `How much would a chicken weigh standing on two legs if it weighed

six-and-a-half pounds standing on one leg?'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good one, Hubert.

DR. KITCHEN: The 1 per cent on salaries and 3 per cent on

operating expenses for a year, which is what we are going to have next year, is

exactly the same as we are going to get in three months. So the answer to the

question is $6.25 million, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the third question has to do

with our capital budget. Why did we cut back $1.5 million on our capital budget?

The answer is: We didn't cut back on our capital budget. This is a cash flow

question, and the money will not actually be spent, although it has been

committed, on certain capital construction works that will go ahead. As a matter

of fact, quite recently we announced that the Cancer Treatment Research

Foundation will be proceeded with and we have called tenders. But this is a

saving in this year's capital budget of $1.5 million with no cutbacks in

commitments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we shall carry on with the

orders that we announced yesterday, beginning with Order 28, Bill 56, where the

hon. lady from Humber East has the floor, and then go on, in order, to Orders

30, 26 and 24. We hope we will get there by five, if not we shall carry on in

the interest of the public.

Let me place on the record: I believe I have consent from all

groups in the House to waive the Late Show today. So we shall simply carry and

see how we get along. At five there will either be a motion for the House to

adjourn or we will be back here at seven depending on the House's desire, of

course, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: We were in an adjourned debate.

The hon. the member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was well into my remarks condemning the principle of part

three of the bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary," the only provisions of the bill which are new. These are the

provisions purporting to establish a public complaints commission for the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary. Not only did I express disagreement with the

principle of the proposed Complaints Commission, but I also faulted the

government's process in putting this forward.

To summarize: the government waited two years too long to

initiate establishing a police commission, since it was two years ago that they

eliminated the ombudsman's office. Now the ombudsman served many worthwhile

functions in addition to fielding complaints about the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary. One specific part of the ombudsman's terms of reference was to

receive, investigate and comment publicly upon complaints about the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary. That office was eliminated two years ago. The Wells

administration in their first year in office moved to wipe out the ombudsman's

office because of their narrow, partisan small-mindedness.

So there was a two year gap. This proposal has been obviously

ill conceived, ill researched. It's being rushed. The Bill before us was printed

and distributed only two weeks ago. Members of the House haven't had adequate

time to read it, try to understand it. Members of the public have had even less

opportunity to find out about these measures. Organizations with an obvious

interest in the constitution of a Constabulary commission are being shut out of

the process altogether. This Bill, this important draft legislation, has not

been referred to a committee for public hearings.

As for content, Mr. Speaker, the proposed single commissioner

is to be part of the justice system, part of the same system with the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary. The commissioner is to be appointed by the Cabinet

without provision for non-partisan input into the selection. The commissioner is

to be paid at rates set by the Cabinet, again with no outside reference. The

commissioner is to do his or her work with staff provided by the Minister of

Justice. So obviously the Commission is not at arm's length from the justice

system. Is to have a direct connection with the minister and the Cabinet; is to

be part of the same department as the police force which the commissioner is

charged to investigate.

Number two, the terms of reference are much too narrow. The

Commission is empowered to react - not to initiate, but to react. To react only

to specific complaints concerning the conduct of a police officer. I refer to

Clause 22(1). The commissioner is not to have the power to investigate

complaints about procedures or patterns of behaviour of the Constabulary. That's

a serious shortcoming.

There isn't sufficient provision in the draft legislation for

advocacy groups or third parties making complaints. Clause 22 does give the

commissioner the power to turn down a complaint made by a third party if the

person alleged to have been wrongly treated doesn't consent.

Next, the system laid out poses unreasonable and unnecessary

hurdles for members of the public. There are three layers. Initially, complaints

have to be investigated by the Chief of Police. Again, the police investigating

themselves. There's no time limit prescribed for the Chief's investigation. If

the complainant after waiting for the chief's investigation - and who knows how

long the wait - is not satisfied with the outcome, then the complainant may go

further and have the commissioner investigate. Now the commissioner, part of

that same justice system, using staff appointed by the minister, may make the

final determination. If the commissioner says the complaint has no merit, that

is where it ends. Finally, if the commissioner gives the go-ahead, the complaint

may go on to a panel of adjudicators - a panel of six lawyers appointed by the

Cabinet - one of whom is to conduct a public enquiry.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is an unreasonable three month

time limit within which this bill says complaints have to be made. That is quite

inappropriate. As members should have realized, after the revelations of sexual

assault offenses of the last few years, many victims of sexual assault or sexual

misconduct require much more than three months within which to make the decision

to disclose or report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment,

seconded by the Member for Kilbride: That the order for second reading of this

bill - Bill 56 - be discharged, the bill be withdrawn from the order paper, and

the subject matter be referred to the social legislation review committee.

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

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment is clearly out of order. I

submit that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

The amendment is clearly out of order. I suggest that Your

Honour accordingly rule that it is out of order. I can give you citations if you

wish, Sir. They are in Beauchesne. There are so straightforward that I am

surprised even the hon. lady from Humber East did not know about them.

The amendment seeks to achieve by words what can be achieved

by defeating the motion before the House, and that is an out-of-order amendment.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is just a standard six

month hoist motion that has been -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No it is not.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - And I am wrong again, Mr. Speaker, so

it is not.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there are three amendments

that can be moved in this situation. One is a six month hoist. I forget what the

second one is. I am just trying to find it here in Beauchesne.

The amendment was taken specifically from Beauchesne, and

written from the book. As I say, there are three cases where the amendment can

be accepted, and this is one of them.

So I tell the Government House Leader that he is wrong. I saw

your Honour nod and I am sure that you can -

Okay, here is it. It is Beauchesne, sixth edition, Mr.

Speaker, Page 200, Paragraph 666, Amendments to Second Reading: There are three

types of amendments that may be proposed at the second reading stage of a bill.

These are:

l. the hoist (eg. three months, six months).

2. the reasoned amendment.

3. the referral of the subject matter to a committee - which

my colleague has moved.

I submit to Your Honour that the amendment is in order.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I now have the citations to which I

referred. We are all using the sixth edition of Beauchesne - the same hymn book

but different stanzas. Citation 576 on Page 176: It is not an amendment to a

motion to move that the question go to a committee.

Furthermore, 578: An amendment proposing a direct negative,

though it may be covered up by verbiage, is out of order.

It goes on: An amendment which would produce the same result

as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want one final point in

submission. The Government House Leader referenced Paragraph 578, an amendment

proposing a direct negative. This is not a proposed direct negative. The member

is not proposing that whatsoever. It is referring this contentious, substantial,

significant piece of legislation to committee. It is not a direct negative. If

anything, it is a direct positive because people of the Province should be

permitted the input into this piece of legislation. The committee should be

given the right to go about the Province to not only educate the public about

what is in this bill, but to hear from the public their opinion on this bill. It

is not a negative. If anything, what the member is proposing is a direct

positive.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed both citations

looked at by the members and it appears, at first glance, that they are in

conflict; but when you look further it is not really.

The

section to which the Government House Leader referred

deals with motions. Now while technically it may be a motion that the bill be

read a second time, in fact the

section on Page 200 is a part of what is called

the 'Examination of Bills'. Under the heading of 'Second Reading of a Bill',

which is what we are dealing with now; although it may be technically a motion

to give second reading, that, in fact, it is the examination of a bill on that

second reading and therefore, it seems that paragraph 666 would apply. And the

three amendments that are available as set out on page 200 are available to this

time, so it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader and the

Member for Humber East are, in fact, correct and that the motion is appropriate

and in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard enough submissions and

we are just going to take a brief recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

After considerable research in the time we have had, the

Chair rules, in accordance with Beauchesne,

section 666, giving the three

possibilities, that the referral of the subject matter of the amendment to a

committee is in order.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was

confident that the motion was in order for the reasons given by the Opposition

House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, under the rules, I am now

entitled to speak for up to sixty minutes on this amendment.

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty minutes.

MS. VERGE: Thirty minutes, oh too bad.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier remarks on the

principle of this bill,

part 3 of the bill, which is new, is a significant

measure and it should be circulated to the public so that citizens of the

Province and groups which have a demonstrated interest in the proper functioning

of police have an opportunity to find out what the government is proposing and

then give the House of Assembly and the government the benefit of their views on

the draft legislation. As I said when I spoke on Tuesday, I know of a number of

organizations which could make a valuable contribution to the House of Assembly

and the government in improving on this draft. One such organization is the

Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association. That is a non-governmental

organization based in St. John's. That organization today is sponsoring a public

forum on police commissions. It is a forum planned months ago for the observance

of International Human Rights Day. For the forum the Human Rights Association

brought into the Province, Sher Singh, a member of the Ontario Police

Commission. I heard Mr. Singh being interviewed on CBC radio this morning. Mr.

Singh said that the governments proposed public complaints commission for the

Constabulary, while well-intentioned, is seriously flawed. Basically, Mr. Singh

said we would be better off not proceeding with this proposal and, instead, take

the necessary time to revise it and benefit from the experience of other

provinces. One advantage that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, being on the

edge of Canada, on the edge of the continent, having a very small population,

having relatively few public resources, is that we usually are not in a position

to pioneer with law reform and usually, in responding to economic and social

changes, have the benefit of earlier experimentation by other jurisdictions. We

often can avoid mistakes of other provinces and similarly we often can profit by

the positive experiences of other jurisdictions, and that is true in the case of

the establishment of a police commission in this Province.

As the minister said when he introduced the bill, we have

only two police forces. The provincial Department of Justice, has contracted

with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for provincial policing throughout most

of the Province. Under the contract between the Province and the Federal

Government, the RCMP are responsible for provincial policing throughout all of

the rural parts of the Province, and we have the provincially owned and operated

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the force which is the subject of this

legislation.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is the oldest force in

all of Canada, and is responsible for provincial policing in three urban centres

in the Province, St. John's and the Northeast Avalon, Labrador City-Wabush and

the city of Corner Brook. The RCMP have a public complaints tribunal which was

put in place by the Federal Government within the past ten years or so. It is a

national tribunal, and the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from

that federal tribunal the same as do people in other provinces.

In the case of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, we had

the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was first appointed in this Province in 1975. A few

years after the Ombudsman was in place, in the early 1980s, the governing

legislation was amended to specifically provide that the mandate of the

Ombudsman included dealing with complaints about the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary. That empowered the Ombudsman to investigate complaints, to use the

powers accorded the office by the legislation, to require the production of

documents including police reports, to require the testimony of witnesses and to

do a full and fair investigation. The Ombudsman was under an obligation to

report the results of investigations to the public through the House of

Assembly.

Now the Wells Administration, in their first year in office,

eliminated the Ombudsman's office and, since then, for two whole years, there

has been no independent agency empowered to deal with or investigate complaints

against the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. We have had a two-year void.

Ironically, during the last two years, people have become more aware than ever,

I have become more aware than ever, of the importance of having such an agency.

Over the past two years, the Hughes Commission, appointed to

inquire into the failure of the criminal justice system and the child welfare

system to respond to complaints of child abuse at Mount Cashel in the mid-1970s,

completed its work. The Hughes Commission completed its work, submitted its

report to the government in May of 1991 and, as members of the House opposite,

as well as members of the public, learned when the government finally made the

report available to the public a year later, the Hughes Commission recommended

that the government establish a police complaints commission.

The Hughes report called for a separate Cabinet minister

responsible for the police, a solicitor general to be responsible for the

police, in addition to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who had

continued to be responsible for the prosecutorial function of the criminal

justice system. Mr. Justice Hughes said that the Solicitor General should

establish a police commission for the Constabulary, with a complaints bureau.

The judge talked about the need to have ongoing responsibility of elected

accountable politicians for police, and assigned to the Solicitor General the

function of reporting to the House of Assembly and the public on the work of a

police commission with a complaints bureau, and of ensuring that the police

commission have sufficient resources with which to function. The commissioner,

while underlining the need for accountability by ministers, the Cabinet and the

political arm of the government, did stress the importance of a correct

relationship between the Ministry and the police commission.

So we have the recommendations of the Hughes Commission,

which are in marked contrast to the provisions of this bill. We have the efforts

of the Newfoundland Labrador Human Rights Association, which has brought a

member of the Ontario Police Commission to the Province, and which is sponsoring

the forum tonight. The Newfoundland Labrador Human Rights Association, for some

months, in addition to planning the forum for tonight, has worked on a

submission on the subject of an appropriate police commission and police

complaints commission for the Constabulary. From checking with the Association,

I am led to believe that the submission is not quite complete, and that it is

being prepared for the government. It is my understanding that if this bill is

referred to the Social Legislation Review Committee, as is called for in my

amendment motion, that that Association will appear before the Committee and

give the Committee the benefit of their views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned when I spoke on

Tuesday that the union, now called the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association, has a direct interest in the constitution of a police commission.

After all, as proposed in this bill, the commission would be mandated to deal

with and investigate complaints about particular police officers. The power

given to the Chief under the legislation, the one-person commission under the

legislation, the adjudicators under the legislation, would include disciplinary

action, dismissal and other penalties.

Obviously, the police union would have an interest in this.

Individual police members would probably have an interest additionally, in

ensuring that if and when they see the force acting improperly, if there is ever

any prospect of the thwarting of the law, the thwarting of police investigative

processes that happened in the mid-1970s, should not the concerned members have

an independent agency to which they can go without fear of reprisals? That isn't

provided for in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two years while people have been

waiting for the government to put in place a commission for the Constabulary, we

have all heard of particular instances of citizens feeling that they have been

improperly dealt with or treated by the Constabulary. A number of these cases

have been reported by the news media. The most recent was reported on CBC

television last Friday evening. It involved a woman in the Corner Brook area who

says the police came into her home and dragged her out of bed using excessive

force. Perhaps that woman would have gone to a police commission instead of the

CBC if there had been a police commission. If we still had the Ombudsman, she

could have gone to the Ombudsman.

Last winter, we heard about the allegations of a woman who

went to the Constabulary twenty-one months earlier making allegations about a

former member of the House of Assembly. Months and months went by without that

woman hearing what the police were doing. A year later, when she went to the

Constabulary, she got the runaround. She was referred from one member to

another, from one office to another. Eventually, she was told that the file had

been shelved and no one had done anything about it. A whole year had gone by.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the woman alleged.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies!

MS. VERGE: The member for Placentia, a former police

member himself, is saying, `Lies.' If there had been a police commission, if the

Ombudsman had still been in place, that woman could have gone to an independent

agency with her complaints about the police, with her complaints about the

delay, with her complaints about being shuffled from one office to the other,

with her fears that there had been political interference, and there could have

been an independent investigation and adjudication. Perhaps the woman was wrong,

perhaps she was right. We will never know.

Mr. Speaker, there was another case, well-publicized,

involving the death of a man at Brittany Inns in St. John's, the death that

occurred after the Constabulary was summoned to the hotel. Police members went

to an hotel room where a skirmish ensued and an hotel guest died. Mr. Speaker,

the minister and the Premier had some difficulty responding to the call for an

independent inquiry. After a delay, they brought in the Ontario provincial

police. That was an ad hoc response. That was a move to investigate any possible

criminal wrongdoing.

Whether or not other dimensions of that incident, which could

have been and should have been reviewed by a police commission, a complaints

commission - should there not be a mechanism to review, not only particular

actions of police members on particular occasions, but to assess procedures, to

look at the pattern of police response or consistent refusal to respond, to

inquire into the quality of response?

Mr. Speaker, as has been said by others and as I mentioned

when I spoke on Tuesday, this bill does not establish a police commission, it

does not mandate a civilian body to advise the government and the public about

police power fees, about a constabulary code of ethics, about police pre-service

training, about police in-service training, about the underrepresentation of

women in the police force, about priorities for policing, and about the relative

amount of time spent enforcing The Highway Traffic Act versus enforcing criminal

code assault provisions. There is no provision in this draft legislation for a

police commission.

All the bill does in part three is purport to establish a

complaints commission. Mr. Speaker, the Bill was printed and distributed two

weeks ago. Obviously it was rushed. There was a two year delay from when the

government abolished the ombudsman's office but it is clear that the Minister of

Justice and the Premier, the only two over there with any real clout, were

preoccupied with constitutional matters for most of 1992 and it was not until

after the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord at the end of October and after

the House opened in November that they turned their minds to the subject of the

constabulary police commission. They realized they were heading into an

election, they knew they had the Hughes Commission Report before them. They had

kept that under raps for the first year they had it but they were finally shamed

into releasing it to the public last May, so they knew people had had that for

six months.

They figured that people would be calling on them to account

for the implementations of the Hughes Report recommendations and they realized

they could not stall any more, so what they did was slap together this Bill,

hoped to slide it through the House without too much debate or attention, put in

place a token police complaints commission, set it up so it really would not

amount to much, it really would not make a difference. Strike it so that members

of the public would be disadvantaged in approaching with it, and then go into

the next election campaign claiming that they had actually done something to

improve the criminal justice system - all form, no substance, all show. Mr.

Speaker, people are not going to stand for that.

The Justice Minister learned the ropes in politics as a very

young man under the wing of Premier Smallwood in the 1960s. The minister may not

have realized it but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have progressed

considerably since those years. People nowadays are much better educated, much

more demanding, much more critical, and what the minister may have gotten away

with back in the 60s people will not let him away with in 1992. People want to

know the contents of this Bill, people want an opportunity to have their say

about it before a House of Assembly Legislation Review Committee. Particular

interest groups have already done a considerable amount of research into the

subject of police commissions. A member of the political science faculty at

Memorial University, writing in his weekly column in the Evening Telegram, did a

critique of the Bill. I would think members opposite read it. I believe I heard

the Minister of Justice acknowledge it.

Dr. Peter Boswell in a column published in Saturday's

Telegram slammed the government's proposed police complaints commission. The

headline of the

article is: 'Proposed police commission a hypocritical sham."

Hypocritical sham, what an apt phrase to describe the Wells administration. So

much of what they do can be called a hypocritical sham. The Premier's answers to

the hard hitting questions of the Opposition House Leader on conflict of

interest today reeked of hypocrisy. His move now to revise conflict of interest

legislation will probably be a sham. A hypocritical sham is what Dr. Peter

Boswell called this proposed police complaints commission. Let me quote from the

concluding paragraph of his article. 'Bill 56 is neither an adequate response to

the finding of the Hughes Commission nor does it provide an acceptable

replacement for the ombudsman's powers of investigation into complaints against

the RNC. It is a hypocritical sham which the Minister of Justice should have

been ashamed to introduce in the House.' End quote.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, Sher Singh of the Ontario Police

Commission told CBC radio this morning that this Bill is well-intentioned. Mr.

Singh may well be right. Perhaps I'm a little too cynical. Perhaps the minister

and the Premier had good intentions in putting forward this legislation but they

certainly didn't do an adequate amount of research. They certainly didn't take

proper care in formulating the commission. They certainly didn't make proper

provision for the independence of the police commission. They certainly didn't

give the commission wide enough scope. They certainly loaded the deck against

the individual aggrieved citizen, stacked the deck.

At least they made a start. After two years, after the two

year void, they've made a start. If as I'm proposing with the amendment

presently before the House the Bill is referred to the Social Legislation Review

Committee, I'm confident that the members of the Committee, under the capable

chair of the Member for Harbour Grace, can go through the Bill, analyze it,

discuss it among ourselves, the seven members of the Committee, invite and

receive informed comments from the public, and then come back to the House of

Assembly with a report laying out a superior model for a constabulary commission

and a complaints process.

Members on the backbenches opposite who serve on the Social

Legislation Review Committee have quite a bit to contribute, I say to the

Minister of Justice. I call on him to use the legislation review process which

this administration established three years ago to involve the capable members

behind him and on this side of the House in the process of improving upon this

draft legislation.

At our meeting last week about the law society amendments the

Members for Harbour Grace, Port de Grave, Humber West, St. George's, Kilbride

and I made several constructive comments about the minister's proposed Bill.

Unfortunately we were without the Member for St. John's East, because of a

long-standing prior commitment. But if the full Committee is now mandated to

deal with this Bill, I'm sure the Member for Harbour Grace would agree that we

could provide a very valuable service by noting the positive contents of the

Bill - because there are some - and then going on to recommending improvements.

All this means is using the legislation review process

started by the Wells administration, returning to the positive experience of the

first two years, harnessing the talent of government backbench members as well

as Opposition members. The Member for Carbonear chaired the first Social

Legislation Review Committee, and I'm sure he can tell the Minister of Justice

what a good job the Committee has done in the past and can do if given the

opportunity in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes, the Member for Carbonear reminds me that

when he chaired the Committee the Committee did very useful work. The Member for

Kilbride sat in on the meeting of the Committee a week or so ago. The Member for

Kilbride has much to contribute to a debate about a police commission. The

Member for Ferryland, who has made such an outstanding contribution in his few

short weeks in the House of Assembly, I am sure could improve upon this draft.

But more than that, more than what we as individual members can contribute

through working on the committee, Mr. Speaker, the committee collectively can

reach out to the public. We can involve organizations and individuals who have

had experience with the police, who know the positive and negative experiences

of police commissions in other provinces and in other parts of the world.

Instead of rushing through this House of Assembly, a Bill

providing for a flawed Police Commission, instead of settling for a hypocritical

sham, in the words of Dr. Peter Boswell, how much better would it be if we

pause, accept my amendment motion, refer the Bill to the Social Legislation

Review Committee, allow the committee to do its work in the early part of the

new year, in January and February, and then return here in March, have the

Member for Harbour Grace rise in his place and give a report commenting upon

what is good in this Bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MS. VERGE: - and then proceeding to lay out

recommendations to improve it, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair would like to

welcome on behalf of all hon. members to the gallery, the Mayor of Happy Valley

Goose Bay, Mr. Baikie and Mrs. Baikie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

say a very, very few remarks as it pertains to the police commission. As an

ex-policeman, many years ago, I think the police commission is a good idea. I

think it has to come but I have some problems, Mr. Speaker, with the structure.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, if we put in the red tape whereby people will look at

what they have to go through to get a hearing, I think, Mr. Speaker, that there

will be a lot of people that will not seek that kind of help.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I also see in this legislation that if a

person comes in and makes a complaint against the police officer than if that

complaint is completely erroneous and it is almost

an act of (inaudible) than

the complainant has to pay for it and I see that as - well it is a step in the

right direction, the right step in the right direction. I think too, Mr.

Speaker, that there should be only three people on that commission. I think that

three people are sufficient because no matter what that commission decides the

courts are still available to that person. But, Mr. Speaker, usually in the

democratic system in which we live if there is a panel, not a political panel

but a panel of independent people, usually the decision that they make can be

upheld. But then I do not think that it should have any adjacency to or be part

of the Department of Justice. I think that it should be at arms length from the

Department of Justice and I think that the commissioner's report should come to

the legislature. That is where I think it should come.

The other thing I want to say to the minister is I am always

fearful, when you appoint commissions, of the persons involved in that

commission, in its initial stages, beginning empire building, until finally we

have a great big establishment that by the time you get to where you are

supposed to go in the first instance, you have to pass through about ten

individuals just to get that hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that the commissioner

and all members of this commission should be on a part-time basis. I do not

think - perhaps in the first few weeks you will see people come in - it is new -

and avail of it. I think that when people realize, and I realize there are not

that many complaints against The Newfoundland Constabulary. They are minor, and

there are not that many, so I do not see the necessity of a full-time

commission, and I say that to the minister with all honesty.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister, there is one

thing that I find lacking in the Bill, and that is the protection for the

policemen themselves. Now the minister said the other day that a policeman can

now issue a complaint. People may not understand, but from someone who was in

the police force, if you have a sergeant, and you are in that department and you

go over the head of that sergeant, it is treated by that department as being

wrong. That is the truth of it. Now you have a right to issue a complaint

against an individual, but if you go beyond the department and go to the Justice

Department, then you are on your own and you will be treated as such.

If a person is in the CID, which has some prominence - to get

to the CID it looks like you are in the investigative aspect of the police

force. It has a bit more flamboyancy or whatever; but if that person in that

investigative department goes beyond his supervisor, then he will not be long in

that department - in that part of that department. He will find himself back

walking the streets again.

It is so easy to say: This is the way it will happen. But in

many occasions it is not like that. I say to the minister that once, a good many

years ago, there were four of us who took up a petition to have the forty-eight

hour work week reduced to forty-two. We did it in a manner which the chief of

police did not think was right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No it was not. The Premier is coming now, so

I hope he listens.

Anyway, we took up a petition. The chief of the day was not

in the office at the time but we, sort of bullies at the time, a bit younger,

took up that petition and presented that position to the then Leader of the

Opposition who was Malcolm Hollett, to present it in the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, the hon. Malcolm Hollett - Lord have

mercy on him. We presented the petition to Malcolm Hollett, and he presented it

to the then Liberal government. At any rate, let me get down to what I am

talking about.

The chief then issued us - the four of us - an Admit or Deny.

It was a paper where you admit what you had done, or deny what you had done. He

gave us twenty-four hours to submit that, or be fired. We had no recourse; but

we had a good friend at the time who, by the way, told us we were right in

presenting the petition in the first place, and that was the hon. J.V. McEvoy.

We went right straight back to the hon. J.V. and said to him:

What are we going to do? We showed them the letter: We are going to be fired -

the four of us are going to be fired. And he wrote a letter and we

hand-delivered the letter back to the Chief, and I don't know if the Chief ever

deciphered it. There were words in it such that I couldn't get to the first

syllable. The first syllable threw me off. Anyway, we heard nothing from it

afterwards. We didn't get fired. I resigned from the police force some time

later and so did all my colleagues.

But the point I am making to the minister is, the police at

that time, and today, have no recourse within the police force. The police,

themselves, have no one to go to on the inside. They are a group who should be

able to lodge complaints themselves. It must be remembered, even in the Hughes

Inquiry, the sergeant went to the Chief, and he told him: Squash it. Now, I

would say, the next day that sergeant would be out of that office if he didn't

do it, walking the beat. And these things do happen in the police force. Some of

us think they are farfetched, but they are not. It is the truth, they do happen.

And the same recourse should be available to the police, as to the public who

report police injustice.

What I am saying again, Mr. Speaker, is, I hope there will be

some provision made to ensure that the police have access to the commissioner

from within. Because, Mr. Speaker, people outside see very little of this, but

these things happen daily and I think there should be some protection for the

members of the police force.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended

to speak in this debate, but I made up my mind to speak this morning when I

heard Mr. Sher Singh interviewed on CBC Radio, and I was quite impressed with

what he had to say. But before I get into that and deal with the comments that

he made, I think I should say something else on behalf of all of the people of

this Province.

People should not interpret this move or this fairly

widespread support in the Province, for the creation of a police commission as a

severe criticism of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has, I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, a record that can stand favourably side by side with the

record of any police force in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: They, together with the old Newfoundland

Rangers, policed this Province quite effectively before we became a Province of

Canada; and then our structure changed and the Newfoundland Rangers were taken

into the RCMP, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was confined to policing

the city of St. John's.

Now, I don't know how many of you are old enough to know when

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary used to police smaller communities. I grew

up, spent part of my life, in Bishop's Falls, there was a policeman there,

Constable LeCour, who was the policeman for Bishop's Falls. In Millertown

Junction, there was another, Saul Churchill, as I recall. They were all around,

in Curling and so on. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary did a darn good job of

policing most of this Province and the Rangers did the remainder.

After Confederation, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

essentially became a police force confined to the City of St. John's, but they

were not a municipal police force. They did all of the policing duties and

maintained law and order as peace officers in the City of St. John's and the

immediate environs.

In recent years, that has been extended to include Labrador

City, Corner Brook and Conception Bay South. I was in Corner Brook, or had just

recently left Corner Brook, at the time that these changes were being made. I

recall there were really some second thoughts about it amongst the people of

Corner Brook. They had a good rapport with the RCMP and they didn't want to see

that changed. They felt the RCMP had done an excellent job, and so they had.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to this House today that

the people of Corner Brook are extremely pleased with the performance of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and with good reason to be extremely pleased.

They went out and took over in difficult circumstances, managed the political

aspects of it very well, integrated themselves into the community extremely

well, and the City of Corner Brook is today well policed by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary.

Mr. Speaker, all that, to establish that this has been a good

police force. The individuals who have served in it have been superb

individuals, on the whole. But in every excellent organization there is a bad

apple or two, or sometimes three or four. Sometimes that bad apple might be

fairly well up the line in terms of the chain of command. Don't condemn the

whole of the police force and don't look upon this bill as necessary to restrain

a police force run amuck.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: This is a bill that will provide for an

appropriate level of supervision or investigation when cause for complaint

exists. Cause for complaint has existed in the past, and I have no doubt that

cause for complaint will exist in the future. So, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely

appropriate that we should put in place a commission that can fairly adequately

deal with complaints as and when they arise.

The system that we have where the complaints are essentially

dealt with by either the senior officers up to the Chief of Police, or through

the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice, which basically has

responsibility for the general direction of the operation of the police force in

the Province, is not entirely satisfactory in this sense: in the sense that

occasionally the Department of Justice can falter, too, and a genuine complaint

can be covered up, as we saw in the Mt. Cashel case.

But, let us not condemn the entire police force because of

that one bad experience. Let us instead, put in place an appropriate level of

investigative commission to deal with the problem, to the extent that the

problem exists or is likely to exist in the future.

Now, I said I was moved to speak because I'd listened to Mr.

Sher Singh comment on it. I listened to all his comments and his criticisms of

the paper and his expression of opinion that he thought it was an expression of

good intention on the part of the government bringing this forward. Then he set

about explaining what he saw as flaws in it, and explaining that we shouldn't be

going off in a new direction on our own. Instead, they have a good example in

Ontario; why didn't we follow the Ontario example? That would be a logical

approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, that is what I heard him say on

radio - that we didn't have to re-invent the wheel, that the example was already

done in Ontario, it was done in Manitoba, it was done in British Columbia, and

we could do well to follow the Ontario example. This bill didn't follow the

Ontario example to certain extents and he mentioned those.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's a very good reason why we're not

following the Ontario example - We aren't Ontario. There is a number of

substantial differences between Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario, quite

apart from the difference in wealth and capability of running an extensive and

expensive commission, quite apart from our inability to put in place a

full-scale commission at the kind of cost that Ontario would incur.

Mr. Speaker, they also have a circumstance where the entire

policing of Ontario is done by police forces subject to the control and

inspection of this police commission - the Ontario provincial police, and all of

the municipal police forces in Ontario - I suppose, several hundred different

police forces in Ontario. So you can justify a commission.

We, Mr. Speaker, have one police force. They happen to police

four separate communities. Now, what in God's name are we doing trying to put

the trappings of an elephant on the back of a mouse? Mr. Singh's comments were

quite appropriate. I cannot argue with the theoretical comments that he made,

largely - if I went back and examined it in detail, I might find some argument

with some minor aspect of it, but in general, I can endorse pretty fully what he

has said. However, Mr. Speaker, the thing that he overlooked is he was talking

in the theoretical. If you were dealing with a circumstance where there was

responsibility for a large number of police forces widely spread out to police

some 10 million people, and you had the financial resources of Ontario, then it

is an entirely appropriate regime.

What is being proposed here, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you,

is an entirely appropriate regime for what we have in Newfoundland. Remember, we

are going from nothing. Nothing now exists other than the discipline of the

Chief and the overall general supervision of the Attorney General, so we are

going from nothing.

MS. VERGE: You had the Ombudsman.

PREMIER WELLS: The Ombudsman - did anybody ever read an

Ombudsman's report? I wonder that he even got out of bed in the morning when I

looked at the content of it. I can't see any evidence that he ever did anything.

The Ombudsman - good heavens above!

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we must do, and what I believe this

bill does, is to put in place a commission that is appropriate to the

circumstances with which it has to deal. We are starting from nothing - nothing

exists. What we need, basically, is a system or something in place where an

individual who feels aggrieved by an action of the police - and I don't believe

there is a great number; I really do not believe there is a great number. I am

quite prepared to believe there are some, and there are some justifiable

complaints but I don't think it is a significant number.

We don't need to create this massive bureaucracy that Mr.

Singh is talking about. What we need is a sure and certain independent person to

whom an individual may go, who feels aggrieved and has not gotten justice or

fair treatment from the Chief of Police, who has primary responsibility. If he

has gone to the Chief and said, Look at what Constable so-and-so did, or he

failed to do, and as a result of that complaint he does not get full

satisfaction, from his point of view, he can then go to the commission. And the

commissioner can cause whatever investigation is necessary to take place and

then, if the commissioner, on the basis of that investigation, is satisfied that

there is a legitimate complaint, he can put in place an adjudicative procedure,

or call it off if there is no basis for it. And, lest the hon. member be utterly

shocked, occasionally, people make complaints for which there is not one iota of

basis in the world, and there is no need to put in place an investigation or a

royal commission. That is why we have the commissioner to make the decision as

to whether or not it is necessary. What are you going to do, set up a full-blown

commission every time somebody says boo, whether there is any need for it or

not? Where are we going to get the money to pay for such madness? We have got a

simple, straightforward, quite acceptable proposal in this bill to meet the

needs of Newfoundland and Labrador - not the needs of Ontario, but we are not

governing Ontario, we are governing Newfoundland and Labrador. And what is there

is a very fair and straightforward system and it should be within our means.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied that we need to put in

place a full structure with a three-member commission, is what I believe he

suggested, full office, full office staff, investigative staff. Where are we

going to get the money to pay for it? Look at what we have had to do recently to

cope with our budgetary problems. What are we going to do, putting this kind of

super bureaucracy in place? It is enough, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the

present circumstances, if every citizen of this Province can feel absolute

confidence that 'If I have a complaint that the Chief of Police does not deal

with adequately, there is somebody to whom I can go and cause it to be done,' if

it is a legitimate complaint.

Mr. Speaker, what I believe we have to do is make sure we

appoint an individual of unquestioned competence, no relationship with the

police, and no relationship with government - a totally independent individual -

AN HON. MEMBER: Appoint Lynn Verge.

PREMIER WELLS: - with competence.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that leaves Lynn out.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Her husband (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - a totally independent individual with

competence to whom a complainant can go with confidence that he will receive

redress, in the event that the complaint hasn't been properly dealt with.

Then, if, as and when those complaints arise, the individual

can cause whatever investigation - under that commissioner's direction -

whatever investigation is necessary to be made. If there is any substance at all

to the complaint that can't be dealt with to the total satisfaction of the

complainant, put in place an adjudicative procedure. Only then do you need the

three-person committee to deal with it and adjudicate. Or perhaps you don't even

need it then, depending on the circumstance. But leave it to the commissioner to

decide that.

Mr. Speaker, that is within our means. That is suited to the

need that exists. What are we going to do, putting this great organization and

bureaucracy in place for the few complaints that we have, in this little place

where we have basically a good, solid, sound police force?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let's put in place the kind of a police

commission that is adequate to the needs of the problems that exist. Let's not

create this fabulous structure that will be beyond our financial means to

provide and will have nothing to do except twiddle their thumbs.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: What is proposed will do the job quite

adequately, quite within our means. Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that we

will find a competent, independent commissioner, capable of carrying out the

task outlined here.

So to suggest that this whole thing should be delayed as a

result of this motion - we are going to delay this now while we spend hours,

days and weeks and perhaps months, and tens of thousands of dollars more on

hearings and proposals - to come up with what? - a system that we can't afford?

What utter madness! What an utter waste of time!

Mr. Speaker, the time has come now to move, to put this in

place, and cause it to operate in an efficient, effective way within the

limitation of the means that we have, and quite sufficient to meet the problem

that does exist. I do not suggest a problem does not exist, but I suggest to you

that there is not a problem with every single police officer in this Province.

It would take a full-time - you wouldn't need a full-time commissioner and a

staff and the kinds of numbers that Mr. Singh was talking about, unless you had

a problem with every single police officer in the Province.

There is a handful of individuals in respect of whom there

may be a bit of a problem. Let's put in place a system capable of dealing with

that handful of problems, not a system suitable to dealing with the problems

that Ontario has. Mr. Speaker, the motion is ill-conceived, and obviously

motivated just to cause delay or to attempt to try to cause embarrassment for

the government. But the people of this Province are much too sound and sensible

to be misled by that. So, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, you need have no

doubt that I intend to vote against the motion to amend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me say - and I don't think it has anything

to do with the conflict of interest legislation - but let me say, as a preface,

that in the past I have represented the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association. I have a lot of knowledge of the operations of the police force,

and I have a lot of friends in the police force. I also have had occasion to

appear before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the response of the

Newfoundland criminal justice system to complaints - the Hughes Commission.

So I do have, Mr. Speaker, an interest, and lest it go

unsaid, as a lawyer I think it's fair to say that I have had some experience,

knowledge, that is useful and valuable, perhaps, to the House. The fact that one

is a lawyer - although other people may not like lawyers, they do occasionally

happen to come into contact with matters of a legal nature involving the police

and involving matters that often come before a Legislature. So I hope to offer

my comments about this on the basis of having had some experience in these

matters.

I also say along with the Premier that we're very lucky in

this Province to have a police force which is well respected by the community at

large, and deservedly so. That doesn't mean that there's not a need and a desire

for a police complaints commission. I think that the Premier exaggerates a great

deal when he suggests that the Committee to which this Bill is being sought to

be referred, chaired by the hon. Member for Harbour Grace, is going to cost tens

of thousands of dollars of government money to listen to people. To hear what

people have to say about this.

It's one thing for the Premier to have experience as a

lawyer, as I do, as the Member for Humber East does, and as the Minister of

Justice does, but it's quite another thing to be a know-it-all. I don't know it

all, the Premier doesn't know it all, not even the Minister of Justice knows it

all. Not even the Minister of Justice knows it all. We may have some experience

being lawyers but there are other parties involved in this, and they are the

general public, the Police Association, which has an interest in this, the Human

Rights Commission which has a very strong interest in this, and members of the

general public. All that's being suggested by this motion is that there be a

little consultation.

You wouldn't know but this was an emergency that just arose

in the last week or so, that this has to be rammed through the House before

Christmas to meet some pressing emergency. This has been on the go since the

Royal Commission of Inquiry, the Hughes Commission report, was handed to the

government a year before they released it. So they've known what was being

recommended there. In fact they agreed that this was a good idea, long before

this Bill was presented to the House last week.

So there's no urgency here. If they were really genuinely

interested in public consultation there would have been a draft of this

legislation floating around for the last six or eight months. There was all

kinds of time for the Social Legislation Review Committee to have an opportunity

to talk about this and to have input into it. No, this was kept in-house, in the

office of the Minister of Justice or somebody else, until it was laid before the

House, and now we want to rush it through.

It is unconscionable, that legislation of this sort, with the

kind of public interest involved, should be dealt with in the manner as being

proposed. It's a shocking exaggeration to sit here and listen to the Premier

talking about the wasting of tens of thousands of dollars of government money.

To put an ad in the paper and have the Member - the Member for Harbour Grace

doesn't make tens of thousands a week to chair committees. He's being paid a

salary by this House to do his job and to do his duty. I think maybe the daily

rate as chairman, it might be $125 or something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Nothing. He tells me nothing. Nothing. He

doesn't take anything to chair this Committee.

MS. VERGE: It's a frugal committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Development is asking for

conclusions. Mr. Speaker, I've been giving conclusions to this House since I

(Inaudible) up. I've concluded that this government is incompetent in the

presentation of legislation, and incompetent in its mandate to consult with

people on such an important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, hon. members are talking

about polls. I have to tell hon. members, just before they run off half-cocked,

that those polls were taken before I became Leader of the New Democratic Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: You will notice that those polling results

were taken between November 5 and November 14. I didn't become Leader of this

Party until the afternoon of November 14. So while I recognise that the Party

has a along way to go, I intend to bring it there. I digress from the important

points that I am about to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only place you can go is up, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: I am glad to hear the Member for St. John's

South suggest that we will be going up in the polls as time goes on, and I have

to agree with him. That is the direction we are heading, and consequently as we

go up, he and his party will be going down, down, down.

Mr. Speaker, back to the issue at hand. The motion before the

House is to refer it to a committee, a very simple motion, an important motion

on a matter that is of such great importance. There is, for example, need for

discussion about the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry - the Hughes

Commission - which really suggested that the Minister of Justice ought not to

have a hand in this kind of activity at all.

The Hughes Commission said there ought to be a separation

between the operations of the police force, including a police complaints

commission, and the activity of the Minister of Justice. That is an important

consideration that we really ought to have a closer look at. Should this body

report to the Minister of Justice at all - not because it is this Minister of

Justice - although I know the Human Rights Commission cannot report to him for

reasons of potential conflict or perceived conflict, and that is understandable.

Equally so, perhaps the police complaints commission ought not to be reporting

to the Minister of Justice when Mr. Justice Samuel Hughes said that it ought not

to be so.

Perhaps the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations who

is discussing this matter with the Minister of Justice now, perhaps he should

also be given the responsibility for the police complaints commission as well as

the Human Rights Commission. That perhaps is an appropriate situation to have

brought up. This is something that could be brought up before the committee so

ably headed by the Member for Harbour Grace. That is an important fundamental

point that needs to be looked at.

I also heard Mr. Sher Singh today talking about the reason

and the rationale for a police complaints commission in the first place, and it

is a very important one. What he said at a luncheon meeting today - this is why

I was late for Question Period and unable, therefore, to speak on the

Ministerial Statement that was made today. I was attending the luncheon and Mr.

Sher Singh spoke to the Canadian Bar Association.

At that time he talked about the great powers that we give,

as a society, to police officers. We give them the power - power that is given

to no other people in society - and that is to have discretion twenty-four hours

a day to deny an individual person their freedom - to arrest and imprison

somebody; secondly, to also use force against a citizen, and whatever force is

required, and that may involve even the causing of that person's death - even in

Newfoundland where police do not carry sidearms. That is a very, very,

significant power. I am told - I am not an expert on military law, but Mr. Singh

said that is not even a power given to military personnel in war on the front

lines. They must respond to orders to shoot. They must respond to orders, but we

give the discretionary power to a police officer to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on, Jack. Say something.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is saying something, if you would just

listen.

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Justice indicated that nobody

was listening, so I thought I would wait until I got the attention of hon.

members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a serious

matter here, and if hon. members do not think that the liberty of each and every

person -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for St. John's

East. If hon. members want to carry on a private conversation, I suggest they go

outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it appalling when we are talking -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already brought attention to a couple of hon.

members who insist on shouting across the House. If it persists the Chair will

enforce the rules of the House.

The hon. the Member for St. John' s East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The important and fundamental rights that our society has

surrendered to police officers -

MR. HOGAN: Nobody so stupid (inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs is perhaps not as aware of fundamental human rights as he

should be and perhaps if he listened for a little while he might learn something

about it. If he does not want to listen, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he remove

himself from the Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: It is not surprising that the Premier can

come in here and make foolish exaggerations about the cost of public

consultation when the likes of that, Mr. Speaker, does not have any recognition

or any respect for human rights or privileges that we have in our society, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have surrendered to police officers the right

to arrest people and detain them at their discretion if they believe, on

reasonable grounds, that someone has committed an offence. That is a very

important discretion and we have done it for a good reason, because we want

security. Public security demands it. We surrender that right in return for

security but it also requires accountability. Mr. Speaker, that is something I

believe the police association would agree with. I believe the chief of police

would agree with it, and I believe that all hon. members, if they thought about

it, would agree that is part of the arrangement that has been made.

We give up that measure of security but we demand as citizens

that there must be accountability for that power. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are

now debating is the method that we are choosing to have that accountability. We

could leave it as it is, Mr. Speaker, and have the Minister of Justice

responsible for it, not this Minister of Justice but the Office of Minister of

Justice, but that has proved, Mr. Speaker, to have failed in this Province, to

have failed to be an adequate method of dealing with the accountability of

police officers. Chief Justice Hughes has reported and recommended that it

should be removed from the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and he

recommended a separate solicitor general. Now, Mr. Speaker, that may or may not

be necessary, but he suggested that the reason for that was to keep it separate

from the operation of the system of justice and the laying of charges, that the

control of the police ought to be separate. Now, government has decided not to

do that. Perhaps the police complaints commission could report to another

minister such as the Human Rights Commission does now, or is being proposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should report to the House.

MR. HARRIS: Or we will make them report to the House. I

think that is a better system again. It should be appointed by the House and

report to the House. There are a lot of questions raised here and this is why

the amendment of the Member for Humber East is valuable and worth considering

because a committee is a more appropriate body to deal with these questions.

Now, I have not even gotten to the Bill itself. I am only dealing now with the

fundamental and basic issues that are associated with this, and when the

Minister of Justice says he is doing this in compliance with the recommendations

of the Hughes Commission he is not correct because he is not separating out the

relationship between the police and the administration of justice. So, Mr.

Speaker, what we have to have is a procedure that is recognized by the public as

being independent, and I am afraid that the system that has been designed in

Bill 56 will not be recognized as being independent. There has to be more

involvement than the appointment of a commissioner and one or two or three

adjudicators.

Mr. Speaker, in order for this system to have a proper

effect, not only on the response to public complaints, but also on the actions

of police officers, it has to be accepted by police officers as being

reasonable. It does not have to have a full time commission with five or six

commissioners spending tremendous amounts of public money, it can be a

commission that meets as necessary; it can be a part-time commission. I do not

anticipate there is going to be hundreds of thousands or hundreds or thousands

of complaints made to the police, in fact Mr. Singh has suggested that a police

commission of this nature might have a lot of complaints first, but not very

many of them will be sustained.

People will be complaining about something that is not worthy

of complaint and as the former Minister of Education says, the system will look

at the complaint, may find it not the proper basis of a complaint or, the

behaviour of the police forces may in fact change and I think that is a good and

proper thing, so we do not need to worry about having a full time commission

meeting eight or ten months of the year and being paid big salaries. We may be

able to have a commission that meets infrequently, such as arbitration boards do

under the Labour Relations Act, or such as the Labour Relations Board itself

does, part-time from time to time.

As the Member for St. John's South knows, the Labour

Relations Board consists of people appointed by employers and employees, usually

not lawyers, Mr. Speaker, although I know that the Member for St. John's South

likes to see lawyers on these boards, but the Labour Relations Board is composed

primarily of non-lawyers, lay people who have expertise in that area and I would

submit that this commission could equally be composed of non-lawyers, and we

would want non-lawyers because we need members of the public on this commission

because it is public accountability that we are talking about here.

Mr. Singh suggested today that you may well need a lawyer

part-time to act as a commissioner to deal with evidence and things like that,

but he suggested, and I think it is a good suggestion, that perhaps one member

of this commission ought to be a nominee of the police association, who would be

designated and must be a non-lawyer and that we have a third person nominated by

community groups who might have an interest in these issues so that we would

have a three-person commission, two non-lawyers and designated as such, who also

did not have previous police experience, to again be seen as being independent

and that complaints ought to be made to this body, so the police association

would have some input into it and the community at large would have direct input

into it by nominating someone to the board and you might find room for someone

with a bit of legal knowledge to be a part-time commissioner or chair of the

commission, and that would give I would suspect - the members of the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary might have more confidence in a body that they

themselves had participated in forming.

That is not a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that comes from the

police association. They may have their own suggestions about that. We will not

know, I suppose, unless they are invited to participate in this discussion by

having this amendment, to pass it over to the Social Services Review Committee.

That is the proper place for this because despite the fact that there have been

public calls for a police complaints commission for the last two years or more,

the only issue is whether or not the government was going to get on with it -

whether they were going to follow through on their promises or whether they were

not. We were all up in the air. We have been up in the air up until this Bill

has been presented as to whether or not we were going to have a police

commission at all.

There has been no public discussion about the nature of the

commission - about how it is going to be composed. Now it is time for that. What

about a week? What about two weeks? What about from now until the middle of

January? No, Mr. Speaker, the government wants to push this through. You do not

want to spend tens of thousands of government dollars on the Member for Harbour

Grace chairing committee hearings. The Member for Harbour Grace says that he

does not take any money for being chairman of the committee, so I do not know

where the tens of thousands of dollars are that the Premier talks about - a

gross exaggeration.

Why is this government opposed to public consultation? Do

they want to convince people that they know it all; that the Minister of Justice

and the Premier know it all; that they are right?

AN HON. MEMBER: You said you did not know it all.

MR. HARRIS: I do not know it all, Mr. Speaker. I am

certainly sure that the Minister of Justice does not know it all either,

although he may act like it from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of problems with this

legislation as it is, and I want to look at some of them that come to mind at

first reading. We see that there is a lot of information up front about the

establishment of the commission. What we see here is really an agency of the

Minister of Justice.

Section 20 says: The officers, investigators and employees

that are necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the commission shall be

appointed at the direction of the minister in the manner established by law.

So the minister is running the show here, and he is the same

person who is also running the police force, and that is not right. There has to

be some separation between what the minister does and what the commission does,

so there is a lack of independence there.

Section 22 says: A complaint made under subsection (1) shall

be a complaint which, if substantiated, would lead to review and discipline

under this Part.

Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? Does that mean it is not a

complaint unless it is something that would definitely be the subject of a

disciplinary matter? Surely people can complain about police activity, whether

or not it would be subject to discipline procedure.

A police officer can be carrying out his function and duty

totally in keeping with the procedures laid down in the police act and

regulations and police policy but still be wrong. He could still be wrong. He

may not be disciplined for it. It may well be a valid complaint, that the police

procedure itself is wrong. Mr. Speaker. you cannot define those complaints out

of existence, as this act does.

It is a serious flaw because there are many police procedures

that are on the books, that have been there for ages - well intentioned, perhaps

proper when they were brought in, but will now or may now come to be seen as

being wrong - as being insensitive to women, as being an improper way to

approach a particular activity.

The woman who complained about police behaviour in Churchill

Park this year, it was found that the police officers were acting in accordance

with existing police procedure, but there is a legitimate question as to whether

- and the police officers were not going to be disciplined for it, and that

makes sense. If a police officer is acting in accordance with his duties and

orders and laid down rules, he should not be disciplined. He or she should not

be disciplined, but that does not mean that it cannot be the subject of a valid

complaint.

The commissioner, Mr. Speaker, should be able to say: we have

examined the circumstances, we have examined the police procedures, we are

satisfied that the police officer acted in accordance with the policy and

procedures but we feel that those policy and procedures are wrong and should be

changed and are not appropriate to these circumstances. By this legislation, Mr.

Speaker, that would not even count as a complaint. Because a complaint here has

to be a complaint, which if substantiated, would lead to review and discipline

under this part,

section 22(2).

That is just one flaw, Mr. Speaker, some of this stuff may be

more properly raised at third reading, Mr. Speaker, but I am raising it now on

the basis that the hon. Member for Humber East has said it should go to a

committee where it can be studied and improved. Not torn apart, Mr. Speaker, not

destroyed but improved, that is the purpose of these committees. The Member for

St. John's South may have a contribution to make at the committee. He is not

going to be listened to here in this House because the Premier and the Minister

of Justice are trying to ram the Bill through. But in a committee, Mr. Speaker,

he and his fellow backbenchers over there have a role to play. They have very

little role here, Mr. Speaker, except obstruct the workings of the House when

hon. members have something to say, and prevent them by abusing the rules.

But in the committee they have an opportunity to improve this

legislation, to make it better for their constituents and for my constituents

and for all the people of this Province, instead of being run roughshod, run

roughshod over by the Premier and the Minister of Justice in this House. They

can participate and have something to say, make a contribution. So Mr. Speaker,

there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this Bill. I have not even begun

to look at the details of it. The only time limits that we see here, Mr.

Speaker, are the time limits for the laying of a complaint and the time limits

for appeals. A complainant has fifteen days to appeal to the court. A

complainant must make a complaint within three months but no time limits for

anybody else, no time limits for the commissioner, no time limits for the chief

of police, no time limits for anybody else except the complainant, who must

bring the complaint within three months of the happening of the incident, Mr.

Speaker.

Now, what if the complainant does not find out about the

behaviour for four months? What if the complainant finds out six months later

that the police have done something that was improper? What if they find out

that some police officers wiretapped their home, Mr. Speaker, without a - wire

tapped their home, Mr. Speaker, entered their home illegally and they do not

find out for six months or four months or eight months? Too late, Mr. Speaker,

too late because they did not complain within three months of the happening of

the incident. So, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many flaws in this Bill. How much

time does the chief of police have to investigate and why should the chief be

doing it anyway? The commissioner should have the right to take over an

investigation, Mr. Speaker, if he or she feels that it is the right thing to do,

as soon as the complaint comes to the commissioners attention. That is another

flaw, Mr. Speaker, there is no procedure here to ensure under

section 25, that

the investigation shall be concluded within even a reasonable period of time.

Although I am sure the courts would impose that rule on them but lets give it

some time periods.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can speak again on

the main motion, so it is okay.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question on the

amendment?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we do - I move that the

House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn

at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour of

the amendment please say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on the second

reading.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that the

Government House Leader has chosen not to come back tonight but to continue at

5:00 p.m. because I may be finished by 8:00 p.m., Mr. Speaker, and then the

Minister of the Justice and the Premier could go to the public forum on this

Bill and perhap