May 13,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 48

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to the routine business of the day, I would

like, on behalf of hon. Members, to welcome to the gallery fourteen Grade XII

students from St. Francis Xavier High School, Long Harbour, accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Adrian Norman.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Two years

ago, in the election campaign of 1989, and in his Government's first Throne

Speech, two years ago, the Premier said the priority of Government was to

achieve a real and permanent resolution in the unacceptably high unemployment

rate. The unemployment rate in April, 1989 was 17.2 per cent, one year later it

was 18.6 per cent, and two years later, April, 1991, the rate is 22.2 per cent.

It is going up instead of down.

I ask the Premier: When is the Government going to take some

action to stop this particular trend, and will he tell us what he plans to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member is mixing numbers and he knows that what he is quoting is not the

seasonally adjusted rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stats Canada (inaudible) rates.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, they are the Stats Canada rates, I

know, and I have what the Stats Canada rates are.

Mr. Speaker, there have been three fairly significant factors

affecting the Province in the last two years, that affect the current

unemployment rate. One of them is what has happened in the fisheries. It has had

a major impact on our unemployment rate. Second is the national economic

recession which has had a major impact on the unemployment rate throughout the

whole nation, and Newfoundland is not exempt from that. A third is that the

recent cutbacks decided by the Provincial Government have had an effect on our

unemployment rate now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We will debate that aspect of it another

time.

Mr. Speaker, I just happen to have the labour market

assessment done by the Economic Research and Analysis Division. It will be

published and made available, shortly, to the news media and Members.

The thing that you will see on the front cover is what has

been happening and what we have been able to do with what we set out to do to

improve the quality of our employment and ensure that people have steady,

reliable jobs. Now, you are not going to solve this overnight, and we made no

pretensions to being able to solve it overnight, but when one looks at the graph

on the front page of it, you will see the steady increase in the number of full

year jobs and a decrease in the number of part year jobs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are are not going to solve all of these

problems and we could not offset the ill effects of the national Government's

decisions that caused the economic recession or that caused the reduction in the

fisheries, though we made some contribution as far as the fisheries is

concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that when we are finished with our

work, our objective will, indeed, be achieved.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be accused of

playing with numbers or anything, but I say to the Premier, if he wants to use

the adjusted rate of unemployment where, in April, 1989, the numbers were 14.5

per cent unemployment and today, 19.8 per cent unemployment - those are the

adjusted figures - either way you slice it, it is 5 per cent over the last two

years. So he can use whatever numbers he wants.

I want to ask him these questions: Is he not aware - he does

not seem to be from what he just quoted - of the downward trend? In April, 1989,

there were 188,000 employed and 39,000 unemployed. In April, 1990, the following

year, 186,000 were employed, 43,000 unemployed. This year, in April, 1991,

181,000 are employed and 52,000 are unemployed. Now, those are the actual

numbers. Is he aware of that? And would he consider that we are perhaps heading

into an even deeper recession than most people are predicting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those figures are not true.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just so that people will get

the thing in perspectivbe and not draw the wrong conclusion from the comments of

the hon. Member, the change from 1990 to 1991 was the unemployed increased by

15.9 per cent in the last year, in Newfoundland - 15.9 per cent, unemployed.

Now, in Canada, as a whole, it has increased by 35.2 per cent, more than twice

that figure. Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot fight the Canadian nation. We cannot

fight the economic trends that are taking place in the Canadian nation. Mr.

Speaker, we have to run this Government in the context of the whole of Canada

and in the economic situation that Canada is in, as a whole. We can do a great

deal to offset and to try to improve our economic situation and, as most members

know, most of the economic forecasters expect that Newfoundland and Alberta -

some say Newfoundland will do better, others say Alberta will do better -will

lead the country, this year, in economic growth. That does not mean that we are

going to have acceptable unemployment figures. It means that we are performing

economically better than the rest of the country, and that the increase in the

number of the unemployed, even though it is unacceptably high, is less than it

is for the nation, as a whole. Mr. Speaker, we cannot outperform the whole

Canadian nation and eliminate growth in unemployment here, when the national

economic policy creates a recession in the whole of Canada.

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

MR. SIMMS: It is interesting how the Premier always finds

somebody else to blame. The fact of the matter is when you took office two years

ago the unemployment rate was 17.2 per cent and today it is 22.2 per cent, it is

5 per cent higher. That is the only thing that really counts. Would the Premier

agree that usually in the past, from year to year, the trend is that the

unemployment rate normally falls from March to April? Let us take a look at that

category. If he looks at the statistics he will see, and would he not agree,

that the number of unemployed across Canada, in most of the provinces, fell from

March to April by almost 10 per cent, everywhere in this country except in

Newfoundland and Labrador where the number remained unchanged at 52,000? Would

he agree that those numbers are alarming? Again, I ask him, when is he going to

do something about it because he is now into the third year of his mandate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just reiterate that we

cannot change the national economic situation. This little Province which has

2.2 per cent of the total population of Canada cannot alter the economic

situation in the whole country, and when we function as an economy we do so in

the context of the nation as a whole. Now, the fact that over the last year we

have, in a sense, outperformed the average in the nation in terms of maintaining

employment in recessionary times does not mean that we have prevented growth in

unemployment at all. There is growth in unemployment and I do not like it. I am

not happy with it but I cannot alter the national economic circumstances single

handedly, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want the Members opposite to pretend that

they can do it either.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the

Premier and they are for one particular segment of our unemployment statistics

which are our youngest people. It is the youth unemployment figures I want to

question the Premier about today.

Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech, and certainly during the

election campaign of 1989 this phrase was a common one by all Ministers and in

particular the Premier, the commitment was to provide an economy that would

allow our people the opportunity to earn a good income without having to leave

this Province. What does the Premier now say, two years later, faced with what

has to be called a human tragedy of youth unemployment? The rate has risen from

25.9 per cent in April of 1989 to 27.2 per cent in 1990 and to 33.5 per cent in

April of 1991. Will the Premier admit that at least in the case of youth

employment and youth opportunities that his Government has failed in its

commitment to these young people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that we have

failed in our commitment to young people. I will admit that we are faced, like

the rest of the country, with national economic recession.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Members will remember 1981 and 1982; let me

tell Members exactly what happened to the unemployment rate in April 1991 over

April 1990; it increased by 20.9 per cent, it is 20.9 per cent more this year

than it was last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell hon. Members what it was in

April 1982 over 1981, 22.2 per cent and in April 1983 over April 1982, it went

up by 33.3 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was because Newfoundland was affected

by the national economic circumstances. Does he think that merely because the

people of this Province had the good sense to elect a Liberal Government, they

could fight national economic policy and national economic circumstances, as

though it did not exist? It is irrational, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mean obviously, I

suppose the old cliche of: before you can solve a problem you first have to

recognize that you have one, and I have not heard the Premier say that he

recognizes there is a problem in youth unemployment. Now I would like the

Premier, when he gets up, to at least acknowledge that we have a problem.

We also have a problem as it relates to out-migration in this

Province. Last year over 4,500 people left this Province, an awful lot of them

young people, ten times what it was the year before. Now I ask the Premier, when

he gets up to acknowledge first of all, with 33 per cent, almost one in three of

our youth unemployed; that first of all we have a youth unemployment problem and

secondly, would he please give the youth of this Province some assurances that

his Government is working on a plan to resolve that problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have a youth

unemployment problem; we also have an overall unemployment problem of massive

proportions partly because the economy has been mismanaged in recent years,

while the hon. Members occupied the Government Offices and partly today, because

of the economic circumstances in the nation that affected the Province when the

hon. Members formed the Government in 1981 and 1982, as it is affecting the

Province today; so yes, we do have an overall unemployment problem and we have a

youth unemployment problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are setting about, in an orderly way to

try and rebuild the economy of this Province, and we are having a marginal

degree of success at this stage; we are less affected by the national economic

recession today than we were in 1981/1982. The work that we have done with the

economy, has been able to protect the Province more today than the Government of

the Province could in 1981/1982. We have not yet found the means of overcoming

all the national economic problems as they affect this Province, but I have no

doubt that given a term or two in office we will restore the economy of this

Province to an acceptable level of performance and I am confident that we will,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier one,

hopefully, final supplementary. At least he has acknowledged that we have a

serious youth unemployment problem in this Province and that his Government has

failed to rectify that problem when they are now entering the third year of

their mandate. Just let me ask the Premier this question, Mr. Speaker: in last

years Budget the Government spent $1.58 million on grants and subsidies in the

youth employment strategy when the unemployment rate was 27.2 per cent. This

year in March when the Budget was done you spent 1.583, an increase of $1,000 in

grants and subsidies for youth employment strategy. Does the Premier actually

feel that with the youth employment increase form 27 per cent to 33 per cent, an

increase of 3,000 young human beings and an increase of $1,000 in that subsidy,

is that an adequate response to youth unemployment from a caring Government? And

will he, in answering that, because he has to say it is not enough money, will

he immediately instruct his Minister of Labour to go out and develop some plans

on an urgent basis to help this almost one in three of our young people who are

unemployed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is not an adequate sum to deal with the

problem, but neither is any other amount that we have in the Budget an adequate

sum to deal with the problem. Measured against what monies the Province has

available and what financial ability the Province has left to it after seventeen

years of Tory administration it is a reasonably good performance in all of those

circumstances, it is not an adequate sum to deal with the problem.

Also, Mr. Speaker, remember that this is not only a problem

for the Provincial Government, it is a problem also for the Federal Government

and we try and work co-operatively with the Federal Government to put such

programs in place. I agree, more money should be spent on it, but more money

should be spent on nearly everything else we are doing as well, but we still

have to live within our means. There was no actual reduction in that particular

program, a very modest and minor increase to say the least. No, it is not

sufficient, but it meets a test of the maximum that we could make available at

this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. A few evenings ago in the

examination of the Minister's estimates she confirmed that no new money had been

placed in the Employment Generation Program for this year, and the Minister

confirmed as well that the estimates show that $1.5 million expenditure is in

this years Budget, but that it will be used to cover last years program.

Now in view of the alarming unemployment figures that we have

before us today, does the Minister plan to put any new money into the Employment

Generation Program or not?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: There will not be any money put into the

Employment Generation Program under that particular category, Mr. Speaker. I do

not want to continue with that program until we have had an opportunity to

evaluate it. I think it would be wrong for us to just keep on spending money

hand over fist until we have had the opportunity to evaluate it. I make that

commitment to the Newfoundland taxpayer, that I do not intend to be spending

money on programs that have not been thoroughly evaluated.

Whether or not, Mr. Speaker, there may be a new program with

similar aims or another program aimed at employing people, will come about if we

see this continuing trend in the growth of the people who are unemployed. There

are a number of reasons for us to think positively that this may start to change

as the year progresses, but at this point in time we are just not exactly sure.

I do not see myself today putting new money into any particular employment

program similar to the one that is so dear to the heart of my Opposition critic.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Let me say to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations it matters little if it is dear to my heart. It is dear to the

heart of the 52,000 unemployed people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Not my

heart, my heart does not matter in this.

Now, the Minister says that she wants to evaluate that

program. Is she saying that the 52,000 unemployed people in Newfoundland and

Labrador are going to have to wait until she makes that determination? Could the

Minister indicate how much longer the 52,000 people who are unemployed in

Newfoundland and Labrador will have to wait before she makes that determination?

This is a crisis. There is no employment generation program this year. What is

she going to do for that 52,000 people who are unemployed?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: There are a number of courses taking place

that will see some of those people with jobs before the summer is out. We have,

for example, an increase in the construction industry which will see more people

employed and as a result will see increases in the trade industry as well. The

recession seems to be bottoming out in Canada which eventually will reflect in

Newfoundland in a positive way. Seasonal employment will kick in shortly, which

will also help reduce some of those numbers.

Again, my commitment to the Newfoundland taxpayer is to see

that that taxpayer's money is spent in a very wise way. I am not convinced that

the Employment Generation Program is doing that and that is why I want to see an

evaluation of it. If I am proven wrong, then I will likely recommend to my

Cabinet colleagues that we continue with that program. It seems that the most

successful programs we have, Mr. Speaker, are those that are client oriented,

not those that are oriented towards business enterprises.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister: What is

the Minister talking about when she refers to the construction industry? The

construction industry is totally flat in this Province right now. It is totally

flat.

Now, let me ask the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations: has she approached the Federal Government yet with a proposal for

emergency funding to deal with the unemployment crisis? If she has, as I am sure

she must surely have done by now, will she table the details of that proposal?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, being in this House is such an

industry is flat if you use the word flat as a statistical term, it is no

different that means than last month and we have been showing a minor increase,

and it had stayed stable this month. We are hiring more people at Hibernia.

National trends across Canada show an improvement in the construction industry

which will gradually reflect in the Newfoundland economy.

I have not at this stage approached the Minister of

Employment and Immigration in Ottawa, as when I go to see that particular

individual as I did with his predecessor, I want to have facts straight. I want

to take the information that is available to me on a much more firm foundation

than those that we can see in one week out of April, that week on which the

unemployment statistics were based.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if I continued to see the problems

over the next several months, I will be recommending action either to my Cabinet

or to Ottawa or to both.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the Member for

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has revealed in

this House today is absolutely unbelievable. We have 52,000 people unemployed

and she has not yet approached the Federal Government for emergency funding, or

even to make them aware of the problem. What is this Minister doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister. One

of the functions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - of the Minister's....

MR. SPEAKER: This is a supplementary. I think it is two

occasions now the hon. Member has sort of made a speech before he got into his

supplementary. I ask the Member to get into his supplementary please.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister. One of

the functions of the Minister's Department is to monitor current unemployment

and employment trends in the Province, and to project what the unemployment rate

is going to be in the Province. What is her Department's projections of

employment and unemployment for the first quarter of this fiscal year? Does she

have that information? Could she make it available to us? Is it going to be any

worse than it is right now at 22.5 per cent?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know which of his

many questions to address. First of all, as far as approaching the Federal

Government is concerned, I can have no control - believe me, if I could have

some control over the Federal Government's interest rates and if I had some

control over a government which could bring in bills like Bill 16, would I not

be happy? But these go ahead without consulting me. So I am not sure just how

effective my petitions to Ottawa would be.

As far as projections are concerned in unemployment, we can

do some crystal ball gazing, but we cannot be absolutely sure as to where the

unemployment will go. We know that a recession in Canada is going to have a bad

impact on Newfoundland that may echo here for a little longer than it does

elsewhere in Canada. Aagain, as I said, we are going into a time when seasonal

employees are coming on. We do not know what the fisheries will bring this

summer. At this point they are down. We do not know what will happen with a

number of things within the Province, and that all has to be tempered. So it is

very difficult to crystal ball gaze in this particular circumstance, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

the Minister of Social Services. Can the Minister confirm that his Department is

engaged in a process of contracting out counselling and other services for young

people - individual, family counselling, group work (Inaudible) - for a six

month period? Can he confirm that? And tell us how much money is involved in

that programme?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I am not sure - counselling out to youth?

AN HON. MEMBER: Contracting out.

MR. EFFORD: Contracting out counselling for youth, is

that the hon. Member's question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no, he did not ask me the same question.

Mr. Speaker, we do not contract out counselling for youth for a six month

period. What we do is whenever the need arises for youth to receive counselling

we arrange that counselling for those individuals on a particular occasion. But

to contract out for a group of youth? Absolutely not, not for a six month

period.

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

MR. HARRIS: Well, perhaps the Minister can explain why

the invitations for proposals have been sent to various people asking for

proposals to provide administrative and case management services on an ongoing

basis for challenging youth and care givers, and asking for proposals for a six

month period for these youth? Can you explain that to us? This is what I am

referring to as contracting out. The Minister may not call it that. But can you

confirm that that in fact is the case? Can you tell us how much money is

involved, and where these services are expected to be provided?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly to the point of

exactly what we are doing. We have, in this Province, a major problem in the

Child Welfare Department, especially with children in the age group of twelve to

sixteen years. In the past, it was dealt with on an ad hoc basis. We had over

8000 children in this Province, under the department's Child Protection, with an

increase to 11,000 over the last year. What we are doing is building a case

management plan for troubled teenagers, covering the teenager with very severe

behaviour problems - as the hon. member talked about - for a six-month period.

In the past, sometimes, there were no plans in place at all. What we are doing

now is trying to identify professional councillors in the Province, to deal with

these children, on contract, only as the need arises.

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

MR. HARRIS: Is the Minister aware that these very

services are provided by the Dr. Thomas Anderson Centre, Health Care, at the

Janeway, and some of the people that perhaps he is proposing to assist in this

are now overworked, under very heavy caseloads? Can the Minister tell us how

much money he plans to spend on this program rather than urge his counterpart,

the Minister of Health, to provide the additional staff required at the Thomas

Anderson Centre to meet the caseloads they already have?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. Member what

everybody in this House of Assembly, on both sides, knows, that we do not have

enough counselling services to provide for the youth in trouble in this

Province. It is not something that has been unidentified, Very clearly, the

program we are putting in place around individuals in the Province is not only

for the St. John's region. We are talking about case management for youth all

over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The one thing, ideally, to be

done for youth with severe behaviour problems, in relation to family, is to try

to keep families together. We are not about to bring youth from all over the

Province into St. John's to try to deal with their problems. I understand the

point the hon. Member is making, that there are very heavy caseloads at the

Thomas Anderson Centre here in St. John's, there is no question about that, but

they are equally heavy all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When

we build a case management plan around individuals it will keep the child with

the family; that is the best way to provide counselling services. As to cost, I

do not have the figures here today, but I table them in the House at my earliest

convenience.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister to consider the fact that many of these

services to be provided, in the six-month period the Minister talks about, are

inadequate for an ongoing counselling relationship. Does he have any concerns,

and has he considered, with professionals, the potential problems of having a

client base that become dependent upon the service, and that the six-month

period is totally inadequate? Would it not be better, in fact, to provide the

service on an ongoing basis to an existing facility, or to an expanded facility

such as the Thomas Anderson Centre?

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

MR. EFFORD: To assume that six months is not long enough

for a counselling service for youth - I mean, every individual case in this

Province is assessed on its own merit; sometimes one month is adequate,

sometimes six months is adequate, and sometimes it may take years. That is the

very purpose of building a case management plan around the particular

individual.

The second thing we prefer not to do is institutionalize

young people. We do not want to separate family and youth, and if it is possible

to keep the family and youth together by all means we will do that. But, you are

quite right, there is a need for more counselling services all over the

Province. There is a greater need where the population is heaviest, and that is

particularly in the St. John's region. We are working on that. One of the basics

is to put a proper case management plan in place. We are doing that, one step at

a time. The problem is that in the past there was never any management plan in

place for troubled children.

We are now working with a volunteer group in the community to

find the capital to build an adolescent centre here in the St. John's region,

where youth who are in difficulty can go for a two-to-four-month period for

professional counselling. It is something that has to be built on initiative,

co-operatively, by the community at large and the Department of Social Services,

and we are certainly working with that group to accomplish that.

MR. SPEAKER: I said it was the last supplementary for the

hon. Member, and a couple times now I have done that with Members. I recognize

the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

for the Premier, following along the lines of the previous questioners on the

alarming escalating unemployment rate in the Province. I am wondering, Is not

the Premier concerned now, that the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission

appears to have thrown up his hands in complete frustration over the Premier's

and the Government's lack of economic leadership?

He has confirmed, finally, Mr. Speaker, that he intended to

leave last year. He is leaving now after about three years. This follows on the

heels of other resignations and, I think, shows complete lack of confidence in

the Government to turn things around. Can the Premier give an explanation for

Dr. House's leaving? The Commission has only been in place for about three years

and the Premier said it would take six to eight years before the Chairman would

be able to report his findings. In view of this, can he explain why the Chairman

is leaving and what will replace Dr. House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as usual he has the whole

thing backwards. When Dr. House agreed to accept the appointment, he accepted it

for an even shorter term, and agreed that he got enthusiastic about the job he

was doing and the opportunity for the future, and stayed on longer than he had

anticipated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) people of the Province.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Dr. House told me at the

beginning that he only wanted this to be about a two-year term. He wanted to go

back to his academic career, and he made special arrangements at the university

to get the leave to enable him to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just wants to make a point straight about

supplementary questions. I mentioned it on Friday, and I think the Leader of the

Opposition probably misunderstood what I said. He said something in Hansard that

suggested maybe he misunderstood what the Chair said.

I just want to again point out that the Chair has full

control over Question Period and over the numbers of supplementaries. Over the

last little while, we have been dragging on with supplementaries. The Chair does

not want to be unfair to any Member, but I think Members will appreciate, if we

start allowing one hon. Member to go into four or five supplementaries, Question

Period can really get dragged out. There are a number of hon. Members, and

particularly now, with a different structure in the House - if there were just

one party, then we could stay on, as hon. Members know, could orchestrate; as

long as one hon. Member keeps standing, there is not much the Chair can do about

it. But, as long as we have two different structures here, when other Members

are standing, the Chair would like to keep the supplementaries down to a

reasonable number, and asks hon. Members to co-operate.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

Be it resolved that

the House urge Government to immediately bring in an emergency job creation

program, in order to combat the alarming unemployment rate and the loss of jobs

to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Amend The

Law Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers."

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act."

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

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I did not realize the Chair had ended

Question Period when you were making your comments, but I would like it noted

for the record that when the Chair declined to recognize me for a last time,

there were no other Members standing in the House, other than myself, and Your

Honour has commented in the past that when there was only one Member standing -

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

I ask the hon. Member to take his seat. The Chair is not

going to accept any debates about my rulings during Question Period, but the

hon. the Member for Grand Bank had stood simultaneously with the Member for St.

John's East when he rose for the question. The Chair is not going to debate

these things about who is standing and when. The Chair is in full control of

Question Period, I observe what is going on, and I say the hon. Member has no

point of order.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: I ask, please, that hon. Members take their

places. It is difficult for the Chair to recognize who is standing, to do what.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Member

for Grand Falls asked me to lay some information on the Table concerning my

travels. I now have that ready, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will notice that I

have been travelling to far-off exotic places over the last year. I visited St.

Anthony, Deer Lake, Goose Bay, Corner Brook, Gander, Corner Brook, Labrador

City, Corner Brook, St. Anthony and Gander, Mr. Speaker. I made four visits out

of the Province - one to Victoria, one to Winnipeg, one to Prince Edward Island

- all listed under (inaudible), Mr. Speaker. I have not yet made my trip to

Mecca, to Norway, as previous Ministers used to do, but maybe I will get around

to that sometime.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations

Act, 1977." (Bill No. 26)

On motion, Bill 26, read a first time, ordered read a second

time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a Bill

entitled, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Lotteries And Amusement Devices

In The Province," carried. (Bill No. 32)

On motion, Bill 32, read a first time, ordered read a second

time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 7, continuation of debate on a Bill,

"An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of

The Government Of The Province And Others." (Bill No. 6)

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the close of the session on Friday, I had commenced my

remarks in relation to this Bill. I was speaking about the concern I had that

the Minister had obviously not given an opportunity for input and consultation

from the women of this Province, represented by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Status of Women Council and, indeed, the Women's Policy Office of Government,

because it fails to take into account, Mr. Speaker, the differences between men

and women with respect to career patterns and career paths and does not make any

special provisions that would accommodate the differing career paths of men and

women, with one small exception, which has, I think, nothing particularly to do

with women. But, in its

definitions of full-time employment, it makes a

reference to job sharing as considered to be full-time employment. Mr. Speaker,

that is, as I say, the only recognition that there may be differing patterns or

career patterns that ought to equally be considered for the purposes of

pensionable service. I do have a great deal of difficulty with that, because the

whole of the differing career patterns of men and women was not taken into

account. The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union made this point to the

Legislative Committee, Mr. Speaker, but we do not have any amendments coming

forth in this House from the Government, or at least, no indication of any

amendments from the Minister, in speaking with respect to that aspect of it.

There are a great number of women, Mr. Speaker, who take the time during their

careers, as a result of decisions made by families, to spend time at home with

young children and return to work and to the public service, and they ought not

to be penalized, Mr. Speaker in their pensionable service as a result of that,

or a way ought to be found to share that burden with their partners.

The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, fails to look after that in any

aspect. Other aspects of the bill that I find problematic, and I want to

comment, I suppose, on the whole of the differing aspects of the bill as

outlined to us. Some parts, as I had indicated on Friday, are quite good and

some points are not. There is a difficulty with the issue of the calculation of

average pensionable salary. That is a difficulty in that you have the average of

the best five years changed from the average of the last five years. That is a

good thing, Mr. Speaker, because it does allow some flexibility in the

calculation of the pensionable benefits because there may be in the last couple

of years, for reasons of seasonal work, or other reasons, a lesser salary from

employment without any fault to the employer, whether it be because of a

seasonal layoff or seasonal work. Although seasonal workers are included in the

pension plan there is no special provision there for their best five years of

work, there is no flexibility there. The last five years of seasonal employment

is taken into account regardless of whether it is the best five years or not.

This could be a period, Mr. Speaker, when Government is cutting back, such as

now, and there may be less seasonal work available, and despite the fact that an

employee has given long service on a regular basis for years and years, and

there are many, many individuals in the public service, Mr. Speaker, with that

circumstance, they will not receive the same treatment in terms of the best five

years of their service. There is, of course, a very new provision that the

Government has introduced here which, I think, provides a decrease in the

flexibility of alternatives for employees in that the redundancy pension is

taken out of this plan entirely. Now, this was a very good option for Government

employees who could, instead of retiring without any benefit and leaving

divested debentures, could get a redundancy payment that would allow them to

have the alternative of going out of the public service with a cushion. In view

of the unemployment rate in this Province and the lack of alternatives for many

people at least this was able to provide them with a base income and not force

them into a state of unemployment from which they might never recover. The

concerns that I have about this bill have to do with the lack of flexibility in

that redundancy provision, in the calculation of average pensionable salary when

it relates to seasonal employees, the lack of flexibility, I suppose, also in

the purchase of services. Now, Mr. Speaker, the organization of the purchase of

service is much less flexible in that there is an actuarial costing done of the

cost of providing the period of service that employees are able to buy back.

That is something that is unknown, together with a much higher interest rate on

the financing of that through an interest rate chartered bank prime plus two.

This is a much more expensive method of buying out prepaid service. I wonder why

that was chosen, Mr. Speaker, because we have a prime plus two and that

certainly is not the rate that the pension plan itself would earn. If an

individual were a member of a pension plan and the actual actuarial cost of his

or her benefits were at a certain rate, and that could be capitalized at a

certain amount, then interest would not be earned on that at the Bank of Canada

prime plus two. That would be a much higher interest rate than the pension plan

as a whole would earn, so why would an individual, for buying back those years

of service, why would he or she be expected to keep the chartered bank prime,

plus 2 per cent? That would be much higher. I would say that if a pension plan

were able to earn the chartered bank prime lending rate plus 2 per cent we would

not have a problem with our pension fund in Newfoundland because the earning

rate of the pension plan would be considerably lower than prime plus two because

they are in long-term notes, bonds, or long-term growth investments, and not in

the kind of short-term money that the chartered bank prime would relate to. So,

in those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there ought to be more

flexibility and a lesser interest rate for buying back service.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the vesting period it is a very

big plus to see the vesting period for the pension decrease from ten years to

five years. That is an advantage to employees who instead of having to take back

their contributions plus modest interest are required in fact to leave those

funds in the plan and have that benefit at retirement. Sometimes of course

employees may want to take that, but in the long run having that in there for a

period of time earning interest, earning a benefit over the years, and being

payable at retirement age, is a much greater benefit than taking back merely

their own contributions and a modest interest rate. There is a move on the

national level to reduce that vesting period down from five years to two years.

So that anybody with two years of service, and having funds in a pension

service, ought to have the benefit of being able to obtain a pension when the

time comes. And I hope that the Government will give consideration to that in

the future.

I have a bit of concern, and this perhaps might be left

better to the detail of a third reading debate, or a clause by clause debate.

There seem to be certain difficulties with the way the Government has set up the

ability to buy back leave without pay. Clause 11 of the Bill deals with buying

leave without pay.

Section 11 (1) says: "authorized leave of absence without

pay" can be "credited as pensionable service," but pension contributions must be

paid. And this has to take place 120 days from the commencement of the service.

That has to - I am sorry, 90 days of participation in the pension plan by paying

the contributions. And that 90 day period, if they miss that period they have a

problem in not being able to get that credited service.

And it seems to me that there would be a lot of automatic

leaves without pay - for maternity leave, for example, or educational leave. And

it seems to me that rather than have that election period there or have it

limited to a 90 day period afterwards, that there ought to be an automatic

crediting of service and that the employee ought to be required to make the

contributions afterwards. And instead of opting in, the employee may be allowed

to opt out. I am not even sure that that perhaps should be permitted. But rather

than having it as an optional thing where employees might have bits and pieces

of creditable service added together. That their whole period of employment with

the public service ought to be, at least in the first instance, regarded as

pensionable service and that if there are special reasons for taking items out

of that, that that should be the way to go rather than having to opt in. So I

have a concern about that aspect to it.

Similarly, the Minister has a fair amount of power in this

Act to determine whether or not an employee on a retirement, for reasons of

illness - the Minister has a lot of power to determine whether or not an

individual is properly rehabilitating himself or is engaged in a rehabilitation

programme. And looking at Clause 16 in particular, the Minister needs to be

satisfied that there is a medical certification of an incapacity that is likely

to be permanent from a date determined by the Minister.

Now this is a normal Ministerial discretion. But what it does

is allow the Minister of Finance, who obviously knows nothing about these things

- he may, incidentally, but not by being Minister of Finance, he does not know

anything about it - nor do his officials for that matter. Because they are not

trained in assessing the rehabilitation plans or programmes or assessing

doctors' or medical certificates.

So these considerations here - and whether or not the

rehabilitation programme is properly recommended, whether or not the action to

be taken by a person on medical retirement is reasonable in the circumstances,

this is not really a function of the Minister or the Minister's office. It is

something that might be more properly carried out by the Workers Compensation

Commission, or somewhere in the Department of Health or Rehabilitative Services.

But it is certainly not something that ought to be in the discretion of the

Minister. And I ask the Minister to consider that and to respond to those

concerns in his reply. But I find that is a rather onerous provision, and one

open to establishment of a whole new level of decision making and appeals and

boards and tribunals to determine all these issues.

Speaking of boards and tribunals, I would like to draw the

Minister's attention to the manner in which people who are aggrieved by the

decisions of the Minister - this is an appeal provision specified in

Section 35

(1), which provides that: "An employee or other person aggrieved by a decision

of the Minister or of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" - and then there is a

very broad statement - "in a matter related to, connected with or arising out of

his or her entitlement to or the award to him or her of a pension or other money

under this Act may appeal the decision to a judge of the Trial Division."

Now I do not have any grave problems with that. That allows

for a route of appeal. But the concern that I have is that the notice of appeal

that is provided for there in

Section 35 (2) provides for "sixty days after he

or she has received the decision of the Minister or the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council" shall "serve on the Minister a written notice of his or her intention

to appeal to a judge of the Trial Division." And then must set out the notice

and the grounds and all of that sort of thing.

Now, that strikes me - I mean, at first glance it looks like

it might be alright. But if one looks at the very broad provisions of

Section 35

(1), there could be any number of decisions, letters, notices or entitlements

that an individual might be notified or might receive in the mail or anything

like that and in order to appeal them they have to give the Minister written

notice within sixty days of intention to appeal. I would suspect that not very

many people would be aware of this provision. And I would suspect that most

people, when they are dealing with the pensions which are a matter of fairly

broad, fairly detailed and sometimes confusing entitlements, that an individual

may well not know that what he is dealing with in his hands in his or her mail

or found on a bulletin board is a decision of the Minister, of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, for which a right of appeal exists.

And that notice provision would knock out very many appeals

that might want to be launched at some point, once an individual realizes that

there is no recourse other than an appeal to the court. I would suspect that the

time for giving notice, the sixty days, would probably be long gone. So I would

ask the Minister to reconsider that point. Or at least address it in his remarks

so a proper amendment may be able to be made at third reading.

I also have a couple of concerns about the issue of the

re-employment of pensioners before age 65. A pensioner who is re-employed after

his first retirement continues to obtain pensionable service but a pension in

these circumstances does not include a survivor benefit. And perhaps as a

question of explanation, perhaps the Minister can explain what

Section 21 (4)

means and why the pension does not include a survivor benefit when we are

talking about re-employment. That indeed, if an individual is re-employed and is

able to gain further pensionable service why he would not wish the survivor

benefit to also increase in age. Why (inaudible) of survivor benefits, Mr.

Speaker. It appears that a special provision for survivor benefits are increased

for children who are in full time attendance in school or a post-secondary

institution. The survivor benefits under sections 23 of the bill, the survivor

benefit is paid to the surviving children where the surviving spouse dies or

where the pensioner, or deferred pensioner dies leaving children under the age

of eighteen but no surviving spouse. So the children get the survivor benefit,

Mr. Speaker, up to age eighteen and, in fact, can go as high as twenty-four if

the child is in full-time attendance at a recognized school or post-secondary

institution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see any reason why that cannot be

continued for all dependent children because there are, in addition to students

who may be in attendance at full-time institutions up to age twenty-four, other

pensioners leave dependant children who may not have any other source of income,

who may be totally dependant by reason of a physical or mental incapacity. Mr.

Speaker, if ordinary children, shall we say, or children without any special

needs are able to get survivors benefits up to age twenty-four by mere

attendance at a post-secondary educational institution, surely that same

benefit, as a survivor of a pensioner ought to be extended to dependant children

who are dependant by reason of a physical or mental condition or handicap. I

would urge that the Minister consider himself introducing such an amendment at

third reading or encouraging one of his colleagues to move it or accepting an

amendment from this hon. Member or this side of the House.

The act in general, Mr. Speaker, provides some benefits, but

it does limit the flexibility of the plan in a number of important ways, and I

think for these reasons we have a lot of concerns and may not be able to support

the Bill unless certain amendments are made that make it more palatable. I see

another one just coming along here. This Bill has been praised by some people as

expanding the definition of spouse under the definition

section in clause 2 of

the Bill. They have included in the definition of spouse, people who are married

at the time of the employees death or who established to the Minister's

satisfaction that they have co-habited. Now I do not know how the Minister will

satisfy himself that the person has co-habited for a period of twelve

consecutive months immediately before the employees death but the provision

here, Mr. Speaker, that I find a little less than flexible is provided that the

person and the employee held themselves out to the public as spouses of each

other and there was no legal impediment to the marriage between that person and

the employer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the attempted

definitions of

common law spouse in the legal world. One of the

definitions of common law

spouse is people who are married to one another or people who say that they are

married to one another, who pretend to be married to one another, who say that

they are husband and wife and live together, and that there is no legal

impediment to them becoming married. So in other words, a person who is not

divorced by a court but is living what we all know is common law with another

person, that person would not qualify as a spouse under this definition. Or if a

couple were living together for many, many years and had children, more that one

child, lots of children, but yet everyone knew that they were not husband and

wife, that they did not hold themselves out to be husband and wife because

everyone knew that they were not married and they did not pretend to be married

then that person would not qualify as a spouse. I ask the Minister of Finance

whether or not he thinks that is reasonable? Is it reasonable that because

somebody pretends to be married legally that they should be regarded as a

spouse, but if they tell the truth to themselves, to the public and to the

community around them then they are not regarded as a spouse and they cannot

obtain survivor benefits when in every other sense, Mr. Speaker, in the common

law, in the common experience of mankind, in the knowledge of their community

and the knowledge of those around them they are, in fact, living as husband and

wife, they are acting as husband and wife, yet they do not hold themselves out

to be husband and wife. They do not say, 'this is my husband and this is my

wife.'

I see the hon. Member for Harbour Grace listening attentively

to this because I think it is very true. There is a commonsense thing about

that, and if you look at the definition of spouse in Bill 6 it does not really

cover what I think, and what I think we all think, ought to be covered by that

definition of spouse for the purposes of getting a survivor's pension under this

act. And I think some consideration ought to be given to changes if the Minister

is prepared to expand the definition of spouse beyond those who are legally

married under proper laws and licences and not divorced by a court, if he

intends to expand it beyond that then perhaps he should reconsider the

definition and make the definition a little more in keeping with the realities

of life today for families and different types of families that exist in this

Province. There is much less of a social prohibition now about people living

together. People do not have to claim to be man and wife or husband and wife in

order to live openly in this Province and have families for that matter. If The

Pensions Act is intending to recognize such unions then it should do so clearly

and not just restrict it to those who are able to be married and yet have not,

but say that they are or say they are husband or wife. That may sound like a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: For the benefit of the Member for LaPoile,

there is no definition, there is no legal definition that applies as knowning

what a common law spouse is. It is different things for different purposes. In

the unemployment insurance legislation, there is one definition. In The Canada

Pension Act, the federal legislation, there is another definition. Sometimes it

depends upon how long you have been living together, if you have been living

together for twelve months and have children, then you are considered a spouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, and the higher power is this

Legislature. Because this Legislature makes the laws and it will determine who

gets pensions and who gets survivor benefits and who does not. The law right now

is defining who gets a survivor benefit and who does not. I am suggesting that

if the Minister wants to give survivor benefits to people who are dependent

spouses or spouses of a pensioner and wants to use an expanded definition then

the expanded definition should be one that more adequately reflects the

realities of modern life so that if certain individuals who do not happen to be

able to get married for some circumstance but happen to be living together for

many, many years despite the fact that a husband may be gone to the United

States and unable to find this person to obtain a divorce, there may be other

problems. This may be going on for many, many years and it is quite obviously a

situation where it is a proper relationship but it ought to be counted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. Members for their patience on

my views. I will have other views at a later stage of debate, thank you.

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

If the hon. Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the

Members of the Opposition not having more to say because we are used to a more

protracted form of debate every time I bring in a bill. I am very pleasantly

surprised. I must say there have been quite a number of points raised here that

bear looking into in the long run. What I think we should do is to get into the

Committee stage on this Bill as soon as possible and see if there are any

specifics that need to be changed.

Let me just say that the purpose of this Bill is basically to

address the serious problem of unfunded liability that we have been having with

the various pension schemes. This is the Public Service Pension Plan and by

accepting the new Bill, what we will be doing basically is preventing further

erosion of the pension fund. That is the main purpose of the Bill, to come to

grips with the financial problems of the Act.

Once we get the other three bills through the House, and we

have that unfunded problem pretty well halted - we are not going to solve it

completely, but we will prevent it from getting any worse from here on in - once

that is done, we will see, as we look at the other bills, that there are a

number of anomalies in the various bills. The rights of various public servants,

as opposed to other groups working for Government, are somewhat different from

group to group, from pension plan to pension plan, and that bothers me very

much. So, I think the next stage of pension reform will be to go through all the

bills, all the pension acts, which we will have, hopefully, in a few weeks, and

then, go through them, systematically, over the coming year and make whatever

minor thoughtful changes are required; because, all these things, although

minor, have to be thought out very carefully. What we have done, basically, is

taken the old Act and modified it to handle the liability question, the unfunded

liability, to keep that from getting worse.

We have not addressed, though, two major problems with this,

yet. We have not addressed the whole question of indexing, and this Bill does

not address that. We will have to come to grips with that one, too. That is a

major concern of many people. Up until now, every so often, Government has done

some ad hoc indexing. Government has said, Let us give the pensioners a 4 per

cent raise, or a 2 per cent raise, or no raise, whatever the case might be. That

is all very well, but every time we do that, we build a cumulative problem into

the pension fund. And this unpaid for indexing is a very costly provision,

because the Government does not pay any money into the fund to take care of the

indexing, and the pensioner does not provide for that, as part of his own plan.

So, the indexing has not been funded and this Bill makes no attempt to address

that issue. We are going to have to come to grips, shortly, with the whole

question of indexing. It is not addressed in the Bill, and it is something we

are going to have to look at fairly quickly.

There are a number of points I will address, but not too many

now, because I would rather do it in Committee stage, if Members do not mind. We

have a problem with respect to the disability or sick pensions, as they are

called. We thought first that we might cut out sick pensions entirely and put in

some sort of disability insurance towards which Government and the employees

might contribute, so that if a person is disabled on the job, the insurance

would take care of it, as some companies and institutions have that type of

coverage. In fact, Government has it on a voluntary basis, now. We looked into

that and had a report done by a consultant and, while I am personally not fully

convinced that it cannot be done, at the moment, it looks like we cannot do it

immediately. So we decided to stick with the medical pension, if you like, or

the sick pension, for the time being, but to improve it a little bit.

Anyone who is sick and cannot perform his work, now, goes to

a doctor, who certifies that the person cannot perform his work, and the report

from that doctor comes to Government; then, one of the Government doctors looks

at that report, checks it out, checks it carefully, and if he is not satisfied

with the details contained in the report, he has the authority to have other

people look at it. Then it comes on through, back to the Pensions Division, and

eventually, it is signed by the Minister. There is some check there, but there

is no provision, once a person is on medical disability; as the person gets

better, they are still on medical disability. So, this attempt, here, to give

twelve months, and if the person gets better during the twelve-month period,

then he or she can be offered alternate employment, is an attempt to come to

grips with it in an interim way. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second

reading reading now and examine the various points during the Committee stage.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law

Respecting A Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And

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

on tomorrow. (Bill No.6).

MR. BAKER: Order 13, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "

An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting The Provincial Court", (Bill No. 2).

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Act, entitled "An

Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Provincial Court", is an important piece of

legislation for the Department and also the Provincial Court, itself. This is

the court to which the public has the most frequent access, as it is the court

of first instance in criminal matters and has recently assumed the

responsibility for an expanded civil jurisdiction of $3,000.

I believe the Act is fairly straight-forward. It is divided

into four parts, the first dealing with the Provincial Court and judges, the

second part dealing with judicial counsel, the third part with administration,

and the fourth with subsequent or consequent transitional repeal and

commencement provisions.

First of all, the portion dealing with the Provincial Court

and judges, sets forth a selection method for judges, how and when they may be

deemed to retire or resign, whether or not they can obtain other employment

during the course of their duties.

The second part deals with the judicial counsel; I believe it

is an important factor for the public, and important protection, in that there

is a theory, and it is in fact, a case, that the judges are independent of a

political or other influence, so that they are totally free to hear facts and

make legal decisions on the law as they understand it to be.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble hearing the

Minister.

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

MR. DICKS: I believe the speaker is on, Mr. Speaker. Are

these microphones, by the way - Does it carry to the Chamber?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, okay, that is fine.

Mr. Speaker, I was discussing part two of the judicial

counsel and all I really want to say, in

summary is, the judicial counsel

provides a mechanism to supervise the behaviour of Provincial Court judges. It

provides, essentially, for their discipline and, in extreme cases, removal.

Part three is the administration and it basically sets forth

the manner in which the court should be staffed and run and I do not think there

is anything in there that would cause undue concern. Other than that, Mr.

Speaker, I expect that my colleagues opposite will have some questions

concerning it, which I will attempt to deal with in closing. Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The

Provincial Court", was examined by the Social Legislation Review Committee in

the early part of this year. Unfortunately, there has been a hiatus in the

functioning of the Committee and, after a lapse of a month and a half or so, it

is only now that the Committee is meeting again. We are due to meet tomorrow

morning, actually, to clue up our deliberations on this Bill, as well as two

other Justice Bills that are on the Order Paper, the Bill dealing with Juries

and the Amendment to the Evidence Act.

However, the Committee's deliberations to date have been

useful. As a result of recommendations that I made at the Committee, I

understand the Department of Justice is planning to revise two clauses of this

Bill. Both changes are technical, but I think they represent constructive

changes.

This Bill, as I understand it, was generated by a committee

established about three years ago by the previous Administration.

Actually, I was Minister of Justice at the time. The

Committee was given the mandate of advising the Department of Justice on the

contents of a revised Provincial Court Act to reflect many of the improvements

and changes that had come about in the functioning of the Provincial Court in

the appointment of judges in the preceding years.

The Committee was made up of members of the Bench, the

Supreme Court as well as the Provincial Court, members of the Bar, and

representatives of the Department of Justice. My knowledge of the functioning of

that Committee over the past two years is that it consulted widely within the

legal and judicial communities and that the contents of the Bill reflect fairly

accurately the consensus among the judiciary, with some input on the part of

practising lawyers. I think the process of drafting the Bill has been quite

satisfactory considering the work of the Advisory Committee and also the

deliberations of the House of Assembly Legislation Review Committee.

Over the past twenty years there have been major strides made

in the functioning of our Provincial Court. The first significant improvement

involved an initiative of the Moores' administration. That was the upgrading of

magistrates' - as they were then known - education. The Department of Justice

sponsored, in cooperation with Dalhousie University Law School, a programme for

magistrates beginning in the late 'sixties. At that time possibly only one, or

perhaps none, of the magistrates had a law degree. Many of the magistrates had

come from the professions of education and social work. Very few if any had

formal legal education. Beginning in the late 1960s the Department of Justice

offered each of the magistrates a three year law school programme at Dalhousie

University with all expenses paid in return for a commitment to serve on the

Bench of the Province for several years following. Most of the magistrates

availed of that opportunity and graduated from law school.

The next major improvement flowed from the findings and

recommendations of a study done of the Magistrates Court, or the Provincial

Court as it was later designated, by Mr. Justice Steel, now a member of the

Court of Appeal. And it was the Steel report which guided most of the

improvements in the Provincial Court in recent years including, I would suggest,

the contents of this Bill.

One of the reforms introduced at some point during the late

'seventies or early 'eighties was the establishment by law in the Provincial

Court Act of a judicial council. A body appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, comprising judges - Federally as well as Provincially appointed - and

lay people who are empowered to advise the Government on all matters relating to

the Provincial Court; to deal with complaints about judges; as well

as to consider applicants for the position of provincial

court judge and to recommend to the Minister, and through the Minister, the

Lieutenant- Governor in Council, the best candidates for appointment to the

provincial bench. During that time patronage was eliminated from the selection

of provincial court judges. I noticed in the news about developments in Nova

Scotia politics, that it is only now that the Nova Scotia Government is

promising to eliminate patronage from the appointment of provincial court judges

in that province. That is a development that happened in our Province many years

ago. I think it is now generally accepted, and I am pleased to see that the

Wells administration has followed this part of the legacy of the former PC

administrations, that provincial court judges are to be appointed on the basis

of merit on the advice of the judicial council.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few provision of this Bill which I

think detract from the admirable progress that we have made in the operation of

the provincial court. The first one is contained in Clause 7, Sub-clauses 2 and

7, and it deals with the termination of the term of office of the Chief Judge.

Under existing law the incumbent serves until normal retirement age which is

sixty-five, as do the federally appointed Chief Justices, the Chief Justice of

the Trial Division of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice of

Newfoundland who presides over the Court of Appeal. This change represents an

alteration in the term of office of the incumbent. Now, if the change were being

made upon retirement of a Chief Judge then I might not have an argument with it,

but I think a change of the rules of the operation of an office that is supposed

to function at arm's length from Cabinet, from the political body of the

Government, amounts to regression, and we have seen other examples of it with

this administration. We saw the administration, by legislation, alter the

composition of the Public Utilities Board reducing the number of members on the

board and empowering the Cabinet to pick and chose from among the incumbents,

and, of course, the choices exercised indicated a bias in favour of the

utilities. The consumer advocate was fired. Then we saw the administration,

through legislation, eliminate the office of Ombudsman altogether. Now, that act

smacked of partisan vindictiveness, even though the incumbent had been

unanimously recommended for his second term of office of ten years by the

Members of the House of Assembly five years ago, Liberals and PCs. It was a fact

that many years previous the incumbent, Ambrose Peddle, had been a PC

politician, and it seems that many Members of this administration, including the

Premier himself, although he tried to pretend otherwise, are, when it comes down

to it very petty and very vindictive, and they targeted Ambrose Peddle. Now as

Ambrose Peddle himself said it was a tragedy that in an effort to get rid of the

person this Government burned down the church.

The excuse given was the need to save money. Now the cost of

operating the Ombudsman's office was only about $200,000 a year, and the

decision was made and announced when the Government was painting a rosy

financial picture and forecasting a $10 million surplus on current account. The

Ombudsman's office was created to be an important check against abuse of power

by the executive, by the Cabinet and by the administration, by the public

service. In defending the elimination of the Ombudsman's office the Premier said

that there are fifty-two MHAs who can do the work of the Ombudsman, not to

mention open line radio hosts. Of course, that is ludicrous.

And then there was the matter of the Auditor General. In the

new Auditor General's bill there is a provision to truncate prematurely the term

of office of the Auditor General. Now, the Auditor General is another officer of

the House of Assembly who is supposed to function at arm's length from the

political body of the Government. So there has been a whole series of actions by

this Government showing contempt for offices that are designed to function

independently of the Cabinet, which were created to operate in a way, to protect

citizens' interests, and to shield them from abuses of power by the Cabinet and

by the public service.

And I submit to Your Honour that this premature truncating of

the term of office of the chief judge of the Provincial Court is another such

example. And I think because it is the court - it is the senior office in the

Provincial Court - it is more reprehensible than the other developments that I

listed.

The other aspect of this legislation that I would like to

dwell on now has to do with the Provincial Court districts in the Province.

Clause 13 of the Bill, the same as the present Act, says that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the Cabinet by regulation must prescribe or

delineate the Provincial Court districts, must prescribe the basis or the places

of residence of the Provincial Court judges.

Now, the current regulations list fifteen Provincial Court

districts. Fifteen places in the Province where Provincial Court judges are

supposed to be based, where they are supposed to have their residences. Well, in

a fashion that seems to be indicative of this Government's attitude, while they

have gone ahead and centralized the Provincial Court and eliminated five out of

the fifteen places on this list, they have not changed the regulations. The

regulations still prescribe fifteen Provincial Court districts. The regulations

require that Provincial Court judges have their principal place of residence in

or near: St. John's, Holyrood, Harbour Grace, Placentia, Clarenville, Grand

Bank, Gander, Grand Falls, Springdale, Corner Brook, Woody Point, Stephenville,

Port aux Basques, Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Wabush. A total of fifteen.

Well what is actually happening in the Province today? Four

of these centres have been eliminated. Presumably part of the Wells'

administration's resettlement programme, part of the rationalization effort.

Smaller hospitals have been closed, others have been downgraded. People in the

rural areas are being required to go into the growth centres for health care

services. In the case of education four or five of the community college

campuses have been gutted and thrown to the local communities and the Federal

Government. Bell Island, Bonavista, Springdale, Baie Verte and St. Anthony are

community college centres in name only. If the Federal Government does not come

though with assistance those education centres will be defunct.

The Provincial Government has abandoned its responsibilities

for the community college centres, and I say Bonavista to the Member for

Bonavista South, Bell Island I say to the Member for Mount Scio Bell Island, and

he knows it. Springdale, Baie Verte, and St. Anthony, I would say to the

Minister of Health if he were here. In the case of the Provincial Court, the

same pattern. Bonne Bay and the whole northern peninsula are being served from

Corner Brook. Now Labrador West, Labrador City - Wabush are going to be served

from Corner Brook. The judge in Port aux Basques is to be phased out as of

September 1st. Presumably Port aux Basques and all of south western Newfoundland

will be served out of Stephenville or Port aux Basques.

Springdale has not had a Provincial Court Judge since the

last judge there retired. I assume Springdale was being served from the growth

centre of Grand Falls. Not only has the number of Provincial Court Districts

been made smaller with judges serving more of the Province on a circuit

arrangement, but many of the circuit arrangements have been eliminated as well.

For years there was a court house on Bell Island, there was a court premises on

Bell Island with a clerk. Judges from St. John's went there regularly on circuit

and held trials, dealt with the public, dealt with the police. Through the court

clerk residents of Bell Island could pay their fines on Bell Island. No more.

All court matters relating to Bell Island will have to be dealt with at Atlantic

Place in downtown St. John's. If a resident of Bell Island wants to pay a fine,

ferry trip and a trip in to water street.

So it is all part of the Wells administration grand

resettlement design. It is all part of rationalization, a cold, calculating,

mechanical approach to social engineering. Amalgamation, of course, is probably

the prime example of this type of social engineering. It might look nice and

neat and logical on paper, but regrettably the whole human element has been

screened out. I travelled from Deer Lake this morning on a flight with an

education administrator, and he said that we might as well have an automaton as

Premier, we might as well have a machine. The Premier seems to spit out

mechanical, cold, detached, impersonal and inhumane decisions. And in the case

of the Provincial Court, just another example of what we are seeing with

municipal centralization and consolidation, merger, amalgamation, what we are

seeing in education with a centralization of community colleges and what we are

seeing in health care with the closure of rural hospitals. Of course, in the

case of health care the regional central hospitals have been downgraded as well

so everyone is suffering, residents of urban areas and rural areas. Big mistake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to mention the

two changes that I suggested which were accepted by the Department of Justice.

One has to do with the clause delineating the functions of the judicial council,

clause 18. Presently it reads: the first function of the judicial council is to

consider all proposed judicial appointees and make a recommendation to the

Minister with respect to those candidates. Now with this wording, Mr. Speaker,

there was the danger that the Minister would manipulate the appointment process.

I understand the change that has been approved will clarify the situation so

that we will continue to have the judicial council being unfettered, indeed, the

judicial council will be mandated to consider all applicants for judicial

appointment.

Over the past several years of all members of the bar

interested in an appointment to the Provincial Bench have been directed to make

applications to the judicial council and the judicial council which, as I

explained, comprises members of the bench Supreme Court Federally appointed as

well as Provincially appointed. Members of the Bar representing the Law Society,

and members of the general public appointed by the Cabinet, consider candidates

without reference to partisan considerations.

The other change is one that I have advocated for all

government boards and commissions. It has to do with continuity of the operation

of the Judicial Council. It says that while the Cabinet appoints members of the

Judicial Council for a term of three years, on the expiry of a term of three

years, unless the Cabinet has appointed a successor, another member, or

re-appointed the original member, then the first member shall continue to serve.

That way there is no danger of a hiatus or a gap in the functioning of the

Judicial Council, which sometimes in the past inadvertently has happened and

which certainly can happen in the future.

So in conclusion, this Bill is on the whole sound although

there are a couple of very regrettable mistakes in the Bill. The process at

which the Bill was arrived at was a good one. It involved the judiciary and the

bar; it involved consultation with the judges and with lawyers; and through the

work of the Social Legislation Review Committee, there was an opportunity for

the public at large to have input. In fact, no citizens availed of that

opportunity. But our consideration of the Bill was publicized. We had a couple

of meetings on it. I am sorry that we did not quite finish our deliberations

before today, but we are scheduled to meet under the capable leadership of the

Member for Carbonear tomorrow morning. And at that time the whole Committee will

have a chance to make recommendations which can be presented to the House during

the Committee of the Whole clause by clause analysis of the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to speak

for a few minutes on Bill 2, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Provincial

Court," as it specifically relates to the district of Menihek that I represent.

While the previous speaker talked about the effects

Provincially and how she can see it Provincially as being a part of this social

engineering that is occurring by this administration, part of that overall plan

of restructuring the social fabric of this Province. The people in western

Labrador, which is very remote from other settled areas of this Province, are

very concerned about certain aspects of this Bill. In the fact that what this

does is - for years now in western Labrador we have had the opportunity of

having a resident judge in western Labrador. And this Bill suggests - and

indeed, the announcement has been made to my knowledge - that we will not have a

resident judge in western Labrador.

Now here is a district that is very remote from other settled

regions of this Province. On a border. And undoubtedly produces I would say

probably in the range of about 10 per cent of the gross Provincial product of

this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the fifty-ninth time you have

said that!

MR. A. SNOW: And it still has not sunk in. The hon.

Member for Pleasantville has suggested that that is the fifty-ninth time that I

have suggested it. I would suspect it is probably the thousandth time that I

have suggested it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, the argument - the reason why - now

the hon. Member for Exploits is also going to interrupt me and suggest that I

cannot use economics as an argument for having a judge in western Labrador. Well

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

economics was used when they removed the judge from western Labrador. So my

argument is, I want to use economics on having him continuing to stay there. I

point out the fact that we have contributed so much to the provincial economy

that we have more than earned the right and the responsibility, of having a

judge resident in the district, in the community of Wabush.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only good judges in place is where

you have lots of money.

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the only thing

that you should put in - you should not just have judges in areas that have lots

of money; you should have good health care and you should have good schools and

all those types of things there too, and you should have judges throughout this

Province, that is what the Premier or the previous Administration did.

They had judges located throughout this Province and it is

interesting to note that part of this Bill recognizes the importance of having a

resident judge in certain areas. As a matter of fact, one of the clauses, is

that, a judge shall maintain his or her principal residence within an area of

seventy kilometres by road from the city or municipality in which the courthouse

of the district to which the judge has been appointed is located.

Now that means that they want judges to live in the districts

because they recognize that there is an importance of having a judge living in

an area, Mr. Speaker. Now as I said, and historically I guess, we could be

considered in this Province as a frontier community in the sense that we are

very young, we are thirty years of age in western Labrador, and I can remember

the growth and hon. Members on the other side can also remember the growth of

the community.

We can remember the days when the courthouse was behind the

Town Hall in a little office, and I can tell you there was an extreme amount of

pride in both our communities, when we had a new provincial building built in

western Labrador and staffed by a resident judge, Mr. Speaker, that was a

tremendous growth. It gave the sense of permanence to the community; a sense,

Mr. Speaker, that is very difficult to define, but one that I am sure somebody,

probably more closely related and trained in the legal profession can probably

define much better that I can; but, Mr. Speaker, that fact that we, living up in

the north, producing a tremendous amount of wealth in a border community, could

have a judge living in our community, it certainly helped, Mr. Speaker, in

giving the community not just - it was not just going to be a mining town, this

was going to be a resident community of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, living

in Labrador with a complete rounding of the community in the sense that it was

not just going to be a mining town with bunk-houses and transient population, we

are also going to have this permanence about it, where we need it and should

have a judge.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Port aux Basques, a couple of

years ago, fought hard to retain a judge to be resident of their community,

because they recognized the importance of having a resident judge in the

community. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that this Administration

has seen fit to use economics to cut things in western Labrador, whether it was

the air passenger subsidy programme or the Crown Lands technician who was

removed from the area, the cuts to municipal grants from $310,000 a year from

the Wabush Town Council, cuts from the Town Council of Labrador City of $800,000

a year, Mr. Speaker, imposition of the payroll tax on the only industry we have,

the mining industry, the only resource industry that is taxed by this infamous

tax, Mr. Speaker, the discrimination. We have seen the postponement of

programmes such as the construction of the tourist chalet in our area, so we

have seen this onslaught against the people of western Labrador and this is just

another one of them, Mr. Speaker, and it is upsetting the people of western

Labrador.

We do not see why, since we contribute so much to the

economy, why we, in western Labrador are losing so much, especially now, when we

have a closure of the mine in Wabush for ten to twelve weeks, and people are

very apprehensive about the very life of that mine and now we see the Province

ripping out the judges, moving them off to Corner Brook, for whatever reason, I

do not know, and, he is going to live in Corner Brook.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that person gave a sense of permanence to

the community, a sense that yes, we are going to be here for a long time; yes,

this community is really part of this Province; we will put it in there, we will

have a judge there. It also brings to question, Mr. Speaker, about what is going

to happen now? I mean, we have to consider the geography of Western Labrador. We

are remote. We do not have a resident judge in, say, a place like Holyrood. If

they wanted to get a search warrant in Holyrood, the police could probably drive

into St. John's, go before a judge and get a search warrant. Mr. Speaker, in our

case, we are isolated. Where are you going to go, to the Town of Fermont, in

front of a judge? No! What are you going to do, fly to Goose Bay? No! What are

they going to do, go to St. John's to get a search warrant?

DR. KITCHEN: Don't break the law.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, isn't that something! The

answer to the whole problem of this bill, in the Province, is, `Nobody should

break the law.' Now, that is really intellectual, coming from the Minister of

Finance. That is how important he thinks this bill is to the people of western

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit to this House, that a judge living

in a community gives a heck of a lot more than just adjudicating when someone

breaks the law. They do give more to the community than that, Mr. Speaker, and

it has been appreciated in the Town of Wabush, where a judge has lived for years

and years and years. It has. It gives a sense of respectability, a sense of

permanence, and a sense of credibility to that community, to have a judge living

in the community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Justice is listening

to this. How would a person who is incarcerated and who has to get a bail

hearing, go before a judge? I would probably think they are going to suggest

that somebody in the court is going to be trained for that, and probably it is

going to be the same suggestion as to what they are going to do with regard to

the issuance of search warrants to police officers. Mr. Speaker, he is going to

use the same type of argument. What he is going to suggest is that the people in

the court system, local residents, and maybe even JPs will be trained.

Mr. Speaker, I brought economics up before, and I will raise

it again, although the Member for Exploits suggested that it has absolutely

nothing to do with this. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will suggest that the reason why

we are going to lose the resident judge in Wabush is based on economics, they

are going to save money. That is why they are doing it. They are not improving

the system of justice in western Labrador by doing this. So, they are saving

money by doing it. Now, if they are going to train court workers - and they will

get it done cheaper then, in western Labrador, for the issuance of search

warrants or for bail hearings, that type of thing - well, they should do that

throughout the Province. Maybe that is what they should be doing throughout the

Province, if it is economics. Maybe that is what they should be doing then, but

leave the judge in western Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is important that the

people in western Labrador have the opportunity of living with the judge in

their own community. That is a very important fact of life, I believe, Mr.

Speaker. I also think it is good for the judge to live within the community that

he is judging.

AN HON. MEMBER: So, you are saying that no community is

complete unless it has a resident judge.

MR. A. SNOW: No. I am saying that a community of the size

of western Labrador, that produces as much as western Labrador does, and living

on a border as western Labrador does, that, Mr. Speaker, warrants having a

resident judge in the community. He may, indeed, have to travel from western

Labrador. Maybe he should be the travelling judge from western Labrador, so that

people in other parts of this Province can say, `Here comes the judge,' as well

as the people in western Labrador can say it, Mr. Speaker. I think that is

important.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen this Government, before, go to the

private sector for the motor vehicle registration in western Labrador. We were

the only ones in this Province directly affected or grossly affected by the

closure of the Motor Vehicle Registration Office, Mr. Speaker, for several

months under the guise of approving the service. Now I am sure that the Minister

of Justice is probably going to say that he has improved the legal system in

western Labrador by removing the judge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that they are also related

because right now my understanding of what is occurring is that when the Motor

Vehicle Registration Office was opened in western Labrador, the police would

stop vehicles wanting to check the registration and that type of thing and it

could be done right there through the Motor Vehicle Registration Office. Now it

takes considerably longer to do it because they do not have access to that

computer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, people over there say, 'what does that have

to do with the judge?' Well, what it has to do with the judge, Mr. Speaker, is

that it is all part of the legal system of the enforcement of the regulations

and the laws of this Province because right now because of what has occurred by

the closure of the Motor Vehicle Registration Office and not relocating the

computer to the local detachment of the RNC so that they could have access has

impeded the application of the laws of this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is what

that has to do with the judge. That is what it has to do, Mr. Speaker.

We are also, I think, going to see when the travelling judge

comes into western Labrador now, we are going to see probably night sittings in

the court or weekend sittings like we used to have years ago. Mr. Speaker, this

is going to affect local policing because what is now then going to happen is

the fact that the policemen who are scheduled to go to court are going to have

to be in court for this cramped in period of time. They cannot

schedule the

shifts in the manner that they would like to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That is exactly - they are going to get more

overtime. There is no problem with overtime today, Mr. Speaker, in western

Labrador. When I say problems - I will rephrase that, Mr. Speaker - there is no

excessive overtime with the RNC in western Labrador related to court work, not

like other detachments of police enforcement in this Province. It is not because

of the lack of court action, Mr. Speaker, it is the availability of a judge and

to be able to re-schedule or

schedule the police officers who will be testifying

in the court in advance time so that the schedules can be effective and not

necessarily have overtime. That is why. Effective scheduling, Mr. Speaker, that

is why there has been no excessive overtime in western Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon? Now the hon. Member suggests that

when the ore runs out we will not have anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. A. SNOW: He would know, Mr. Speaker, that of course -

MR. HEWLETT: He is also retreating, Mr. Speaker.

MR. A. SNOW: In all likelihood, Mr. Speaker, when the ore

does run out there will not be a community in western Labrador. The people who

live there, like myself who have been there for twenty-five or thirty years,

recognize that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not that old.

MR. A. SNOW: I just look young, that is all. I have lived

there a very long and exciting life.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would hope that this Government

would re-think this procedure of permitting the court system to have a

non-resident judge in western Labrador because of the affects that I have

suggested are very real and are going to have an impact on the people who reside

in western Labrador. You must consider the fact that we are a border town. It is

very important for the courts and the Province to have an immediate presence

there, a judiciary presence in the border community, an entrance to this

Province, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that you would reconsider and think about

the amazing amount of contribution that we make economically to this Province,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I would also hope that you would think about

the people who could possibly be incarcerated and not be able to get a proper

bail hearing, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that you would reconsider the fact that

search warrants may be issued by people not completely trained well enough to be

able to issue search warrants which could, I would suspect if there is some

problem with the search warrant, that may, indeed, have some problems in a court

case down the road. That would be the effect of some of the search warrants.

I would hope that the Minister of Justice and his colleagues

in Cabinet, because of those serious reasons that I have raised, because it is

very important for my community, a community that has contributed so much, to

have a resident judge in western Labrador. We have enjoyed having him living

there for the last twenty years, and we look forward to the next twenty years

with a resident judge -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) twenty-five years.

MR. A. SNOW: Twenty-five, I have been corrected, Mr.

Speaker, the last twenty-five years. And I look forward to having him for

another twenty-five years. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Party Whip and the

Member for Harbour Main.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hon. Party Whip? Oh, hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not have a great

deal to say on this particular Bill, not a lot at all. But I do have a few

comments that I want the Minister of Justice to take into consideration when he

is speaking and closing debate today on this particular piece of legislation and

that has to do with the courthouse at Holyrood, which of course, as Members

opposite know, is in the great and historic district of Harbour Main.

I wanted to direct a few comments to the Minister regarding

that particular courthouse and to actually ask the Minister, as a matter of

fact, why he has chosen to ignore, if you will - for want of a better word, I

will say to the Minister he has chosen to ignore - the legitimately elected body

in Holyrood? The Minister I believe was contacted over two months ago by the

Holyrood town council looking for a little bit of information as to why the

court in Holyrood in closing. And to date the Minister has not yet responded to

council.

Now, I may or may not have been on my feet today to speak to

this particular Bill had the Minister been a little bit forthright and open in

his dealings, and yes, indeed, a little bit courteous to the town council of

Holyrood and to give the council a little bit of information as to why the court

is closing.

Now, I would like the Minister to outline for me today when

he speaks why he is ignoring that legitimately elected municipal body and

keeping that municipal body in the dark as to why the court is closing. And can

he also tell me why the court is closing down when it seems to me that the

Holyrood town council has information regarding that court from well-informed

sources that it is extensively used? It is very, very extensively used. It

serves the Salmonier, St. Mary's, Admiral's Beach area from Holyrood right on

over to Colliers. And why is it closing down, I would ask the Minister, when it

will mean in actual fact extra cost to the Government? That is the information

that I have been given. That it is going to mean a great deal of extra cost to

the Government in terms of travel time for law enforcement people, in terms of

meal vouchers, and what have you.

And it is a very, very extensively used court. The Provincial

Court at Holyrood is used on a daily basis by the members of the RCMP

detachment, and I am sure the Minister of Justice is well aware that we have

quite a large detachment of the RCMP in Holyrood. In terms of the detachment you

have nine members, seven constables and a corporal. And in terms of the highway

patrol, you have nine members, seven constables and a corporal and a sergeant.

And as a result of that presence in Holyrood you have quite a great deal of need

for that attachment. It is used on a daily basis. And that would be, as the

Minister is well aware, for the laying of charges, the obtaining of court

records, the release of people held in custody and directing private individuals

to the court for the purpose of private prosecutions, et cetera.

And it is, as I indicated, used extensively. As a matter of

fact, the court sittings are held on the average of three weeks a month. Three

weeks a month and that was being used quite extensively indeed. We are wondering

as well, Mr. Speaker, how many court offices are going to be closed right across

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Maybe the Minister of Justice can

make that information available to us as well? How many court offices are going

to be closed? Insofar as Placentia is concerned, will there continue to be a

judge resident in that particular community? I want to give the Minister of

Justice a little bit more information on the Holyrood court. I am wondering if

the Minister was aware when he made the decision to close that court down that

on the average approximately 500 tickets are processed through the court on a

monthly basis, based on the combined efforts of the detachment at Holyrood and

the highway patrol as well?

I am just wondering if the Minister is aware of how

extensively that court is used? Five hundred traffic tickets are processed

through the court monthly based on the combined efforts of the RCMP detachment

and the highway patrol? And approximately 100 other charges are processed per

month as well, which include various provincial statute violations, the Liquor

Control Act, the Wildlife Act, the Dog Act, Criminal Code violations, break,

entry and theft, frauds, impaired driving, and what have you, so 500, Mr.

Speaker. That is quite a number of charges that go through that court that are

dealt with by the RCMP on a daily basis. In terms of saving money, is this

particular move going to save money?

MS. VERGE: At whose expense?

MR. DOYLE: Yes, indeed, at whose expense?

Both the general public and the police will have to travel

greater distances to obtain judicial services. I am quoting from a letter here

that was given to the Holyrood town council recently, and it says, 'Many times

private individuals take out private prosecutions and this movement of the court

may intimidate many of these people from doing so due to distance and the sheer

size of the provincial court at St. John's. The relocation could also, at times

result in the detachment area being short of police personnel being available to

respond to calls due to their presence being required outside their duty area

while giving evidence at the St. John's provincial court, work that they

previously could scoot down over the hill to the provincial court on the South

side of Holyrood to do.' Costs will definitely increase as well. The costs will

be found in the areas of transportation, meal vouchering, overtime, and greatly

increased witness fees as well. There is no real justification for Government to

be closing down that particular facility in Holyrood. It is one more move, I

guess, Mr. Speaker, at centralization and rationalization by this Government. I

am concerned that the Minister did not respond to the legitimately elected body

in Holyrood, the Holyrood town council. I am wondering why he did not do that

because they are quite concerned about losing that facility, and on top of that

we have the Electrical Inspections Division, up in the town of Holyrood which

has been moved. I am wondering if that is a political move on the part of

Government. When you have a small community with a very, very small tax base it

is very, very important that these facilities be kept in these small rural

communities to make them more viable. When you close out a provincial court and

when you take into account the fact that they do sit three times a week, and you

have so many cases going through there, it attracts a lot of people into the

town as well. It is serious business insofar as a small rural community in

Newfoundland is concerned and I would like the Minister to address that also.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this bill concerning

provincial courts, as well. I guess, about two weeks ago, I attended a citizen's

forum in Springdale, called by a group of concerned citizens who had formed

themselves into a committee. They wanted to discuss Government cutbacks in the

Green Bay area.

MR. EFFORD: Is that a Liberal District?

MR. HEWLETT: Green Bay is not a Liberal District, no,

Sir, I tell the Minister of Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, during that particular citizen's forum, myself

and Mr. George Baker, the brother of the President of Treasury Board, were on

stage together listening to the complaints of the citizenry of Springdale, in

particular, and Green Bay, in general, with regard to cutbacks on the part of

this Provincial Government. A good many citizens got things off their chests

that had been brewing on their chests for quite some time, Mr. Speaker, various

aspects of Government services that have been considerably cut back in the Green

Bay area.

One of the people from the audience, who stood at the

microphone and had a few words to say, was a social worker from the area. He had

a commentary to make with regard to the provincial court in Springdale. Being a

social worker, of course, he sees many troubled family law cases, and has, I

guess, on a weekly basis, had occasion to deal with the provincial court system.

The social worker was complaining that the caseload of the provincial court at

Springdale is such that humongous numbers of cases are being put through in a

given morning or day, by a judge. The social worker made the comment that he

really did not see how justice could be done to the individual cases involved,

given the number of cases that have to be put through in the few days available.

The reason we have just a few days a week available, Mr. Speaker, is that

Springdale is now served on circuit out of the county courthouse in the Town of

Grand Falls - Windsor.

The Premier, some time ago, in a weekend paper here,

mentioned that he was considering a county system of government for this

Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this hon. House, that in

many aspects that system is already in place, the provincial court system being

a prime example. Springdale still has a courthouse. I would assume that there

are some persons who do janitorial services and clerical services for the court,

who reside in the town, but the judge who holds court, Mr. Speaker, comes from

the county courthouse in the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, and he is out there

two or three days a week to process cases that were previously handled by a

judge five days a week at the provincial courthouse in Springdale.

Mr. Speaker, Springdale does have a resident judge, but

unfortunately for the justice system in Springdale, the resident judge is

retired, and has not been replaced by this Administration by an active judge. As

a result, we have court on circuit, a crowded court agenda, and, according to

one social worker, who stood in the public forum and spoke on behalf of the

clients he serves, he indicated that he did not think justice was being done to

the court agenda or the court docket on any given day, because there just was

not sufficient time to do justice to the cases coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, one wonders what this means for a place like

Lewisporte, and, of course, I am duty bound to be concerned about the Town of

Lewisporte, in that the Liberal Party has twinned Lewsiporte with my district.

The hon. Member for Lewisporte is my twin in terms of politics in this Province,

I have been told. The hon. Member for Lewisporte has made a couple of forays

into my district to ensure that it is being well represented, etc. So, I, being

my brother's keeper, have to be concerned that the Town of Lewisporte is well

served by the judiciary, and I would certainly hope that my twin's district

would not be on the losing end of court services, as his twin's district, i.e.,

Green Bay.

Mr. Speaker, one wonders whether or not court services to the

southern part of the island are being affected by this. I understand Bell

Island, which we know, from the news of late, has been ice-bound a good bit of

the time, now receives its court services out of St. John's. Given the

transportation system we have and the climate and ice conditions we have, I am

sure that causes considerable problems for the citizens of Bell Island in

receiving fair treatment at the hands of the courts, simply by reason of our

climate and geography.

So, Mr. Speaker, one wonders exactly what this Government is

up to. The Premier tries to put it forward as a positive policy that we are

going to get like the mainlanders now, we are going to move a notch up the

social ladder of life, we are going to have counties. But counties,

unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, mean a loss to the Springdales of the world and to

the Lewisportes of the world. The problem in a county system of Government, Mr.

Speaker, is which community becomes the county seat. And, with all due respect

to the communities involved, I would say that the winners in the county system

of Government are the Ganders of the world or the Grand Falls-Windsors of the

world, and the losers are the Srpingdales of the world and the Lewisportes of

the world. Mr. Speaker, I have to be equally concerned about Lewisporte, of

course, because my twin represents that particular area, and I would be remiss

in my duties if I did not look out for him the way he looks out for me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of this boils down to a disguised form

of resettlement. Just about every provincial government service that you can

talk about is now being moved away from the district level, wherever possible,

and moved to the regional or county level. In Green Bay, today, I mean, you have

to co-ordinate in a given community outside of Springdale, half-a-dozen people

getting sick so that you can share a taxi. If only one person is sick in town on

a given day, that person has to hitch-hike to Springdale to get to the welfare

office because the taxi is not forthcoming unless she is crammed to the rafters

with sick people, Mr. Speaker. Services are being centralized even to the point

where the Minister of Social Services is now quickly becoming the Minister of

hitch-hikers, and that is relatively sad, when you think that many of the people

who have to avail of the taxi services under his department are probably ill and

in need of a doctor's care, and unless they can come up with a half-dozen sick

people in the town of King's Point on a given Wednesday morning, Mr. Speaker,

the sick person has to get out on the highway and hitch-hike to Springdale to

see a doctor. Should they be on the south shore of Green Bay, in Robert's Arm or

Triton, they are going to have to hitch-hike to Grand Falls, because the

hospital in Springdale has been removed. They have to go to the county hospital

in the town of Grand Falls-Windsor, another part of the countification of rural

Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker.

So, education, the Premier says, along with the court system,

and the hospital system is going to be countified. Well, Mr. Speaker, one

wonders how that meshes with the denominational system, but we gather that the

new Schools Act basically takes away most of the powers of the local

denominational boards and puts it in the hands of the Minister or his officials.

So, no doubt, the Minister and his officials can operate a county system of

education nominally denominational, but again out of the county seat at Grand

Falls-Windsor, and no doubt, the great and historic District of Green Bay, along

with the great District of Lewisporte, may get a member or two on the county

Board of Education for the integrated people, or the county Board of Education

for the Catholic people, or the Pentecostal people, as the case may be.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is all part of a scheme that came to a

grinding halt when the Liberals lost power in the early 1970s and the ball has

been picked up again by the new Premier of our Province, and it continues. We

understand that the town of Port aux Basques will be losing its resident judge,

come this fall, September, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Port aux Basques is

not my twin, but nonetheless, in this hon. House, he is my colleague, and I do

have a responsibility to be concerned and look out for his welfare and the

welfare of his constituents. I presume the people in Port aux Basques will have

to be served from Stephenville or Corner Brook. Heaven help us, Mr. Speaker, if

they have to be served from Grand Falls-Windsor.

So, what we see, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill, regarding

provincial courts, as we have seen in matters relating to health and education -

electrical inspection, we have lost our resident electrical inspection office in

Springdale - you name it, provincial government services that used to be

delivered at the district level are now being delivered at the regional or

county level and the communities, especially those that used to be the capitals

of the individual districts, are the big losers, Mr. Speaker.

It was known for years that Springdale, in informal terms,

was the capital of Green Bay District. Very quickly under this Administration,

Mr. Speaker, the concept of capital of a district

AN HON. MEMBER: Which was the capital of the district?

MR. HEWLETT: Springdale.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Pilley's Island is the historic mining site

in Green Bay, the home town of our esteemed Opposition House Leader, etcetera. A

town much to be commended, that gave much to the Dominion of Newfoundland in the

1890s by contributing its mineral wealth when most of the northeast coast was,

as yet, unsettled.

But, Mr. Speaker, we in the outlying districts of this

Province, are losing a lot under the philosophy of this particular

Administration. It is fine if you happen to live in one of the larger growth

centres, your Grand Falls-Windsors, your Ganders, probably your Clarenvilles,

your Corner Brooks, maybe your Stephenvilles, but, if you happen to be in the

smaller areas round about, the concept of a capital of a district has now become

irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, because the only capitals around in rural Newfoundland

today, are county capitals, and the losers are the towns that used to be the

county capitals. The losers are the districts that used to be able to travel to

the capital of their district. Now, we will have to travel a far, far greater

distance to the capital of their county for services.

In the case of the courts, as we have in this Bill before the

House now, the people have to wait for a judge to come out from the town of

Grand Falls-Windsor to serve them on circuit for two or three days a week, where

they are used to having a resident judge five days a week.

Mr. Speaker, Springdale still has a resident judge, but, as I

said, he is in retirement. The Social Work Department in Springdale does not

think that is sufficient to serve the needs of the people. I have had it brought

to me at a public meeting. I am doing my duty, now, in registering that

complaint before this hon. House, and I certainly hope the Minister of Justice

will redress this matter, stop this centralization process and do justice,

please, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise and

speak on this Bill. I have a few remarks concerning the legislation and a few

remarks concerning the Provincial Court and the operation of the Provincial

Court, in general.

I want to say that there has been a great deal of change and

I suppose, on the whole, progress made, certainly in the status of our

Provincial Court judges over the last numbers of years, from the point of

magistrates, to now, the status of judges, the salary changes that have taken

place to provide a very handsome salary for judges, that they do not have to -

and, in fact, by this legislation, they are not permitted - engage in other

gainful employment if they are given a salary sufficient to support themselves

and to obtain a professional income and perform their duties of judging and

deliberation without the concerns of having to worry where their next dollar is

coming from. They do not have the life-style of the Premier, who apparently

cannot afford to live on his salary, according to what he said in the House last

week, nevertheless, they have a handsome income.

We have to get improvements incorporated into this

legislation, some of which were raised in court, court matters challenging the

impartiality of the Provincial Court judges. For example, when Government was

permitted to transfer at will, individuals from one place to another, there was

a fear, at least on the surface, a possibility that such transfers could be made

for political reasons or for reasons having to do with the Justice Department's

dissatisfaction with the kinds of decision that they were receiving from a

particular judge. They could be punished, it was thought, by being sent to some

place less desirable than the place they were, at least in their view. So, these

changes have been made and incorporated into the Act. It is not now possible to

transfer a judge without that judge's consent. The judge has to ask to be

transferred, or there must be the approval of the judicial counsel.

Now, looking at the judicial counsel and its make up, I have

not a lot of concern about it, but I do see that the Minister of Justice is

entitled to

two persons to the judicial council. I do not know why, out

of five persons, the Minister needs to appoint two - we are talking about the

role of the judicial council in terms of screening the appointments as to their

suitability as judges, to make recommendations with respect to candidates and

their ability to act as judges - when we are choosing people for their ability

to act as a judge in criminal and civil matters before the provincial court, why

the Minister has to appoint two people to screen them and, at the same time,

also go ahead and make the appointments from people who are screened from the

council. It is not very clear, actually, who makes the appoints. It appears that

the Judges' Council would screen all applicants and advise the Minister as to

who are suitable candidates. The Minister, presumably, would pick from those

persons, in accordance with

Section 15, and make recommendations as to who

should be the person to be judge of the court, and whether they should approve

or disapprove the transfer of a judge.

MR. EFFORD: There is nobody listening.

MR. HARRIS: We hear the Minister of Social Services

braying down in the back there, saying nobody is listening, but that is his

problem. If he does not want to listen, he can shut up and let others listen.

MR. NOEL: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I thank the hon. Member for Pleasantville for

his support on that point.

We have a Minister of Justice having the power to approve,

and make the appointments of judges upon the recommendation of the committee,

the judicial council, but the Minister also has two people on it. Maybe the

Minister, in his closing remarks, will explain why it is necessary for the

Minister to have two people on the judicial council that he appoints. Already

sitting on the council is the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, the Justice