May 9, 1991

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE - JUSTICE (UNEDITED)

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Len Simms, M.H.A.

for Grand Falls substitutes for Ms. Verge, M.H.A. for Humber East; Mr. Kevin,

Aylward, M.H.A. for Stephenville substitutes for Mr. Gover, M.H.A. for Bonavista

North; and Mr. Ramsay, M.H.A. for LaPoile substitutes for Mr. Reid, M.H.A. for

Carbonear.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Murphy) Order, please!

Gentlemen, at this time I would like to convene the

Social Services Estimates Committee to deal with the Department of Justice. I

want to, first of all, welcome the Minister and his staff, and the media, and

introduce to you the Members of the Committee who are here this evening. To my

immediate left the hon. Member for Stephenville, Mr. Kevin Aylward, next to Mr.

Aylward is Mr. Bill Ramsay, the hon. Member for LaPoile. Sitting next to Mr.

Ramsay is Mr. Len Simms, the hon. Member for Grand Falls, who is replacing the

hon. Lynn Verge, and I am sure his questions will be equally as sincere and

intense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know Mr. Alyward's questions

will be just as enlightening. Next to Mr. Simms is Mr. Doug Oldford the Member

for Trinity North, and next to Mr. Oldford is Mr. Jack Harris the Member for St.

John's East, and of course this evening our secretary is the Clerk of the House

of Assembly, Miss Bettie Duff. I would like to welcome the media.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Member for St. John's East

is questioning why Mr. Ramsay is here, and I sense that, he has a letter from

the House Leader which is totally appropriate under the Standing Orders. Is

there any question?

MR. HARRIS: I know that the Chair is trying to

run the meeting in an efficient manner, but surely it should not be suggested

that just because I asked who Mr. Ramsay is replacing - you did not have the

courtesy of telling the Committee who was here and who was not here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the first statement the

Chair heard was: what is Mr. Ramsay doing here?... he is not on the Committee.

MR. HARRIS: No. no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, very much. I hope it

is cleared up. There is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the point of order, Mr.

Chairman, is when the Committee was being introduced you indicated that Mr.

Simms was here replacing Ms. Verge, who is a Member of the Committee, but you

did not indicate under what basis Mr. Aylward was here, or Mr. Ramsay. You did

mention Mr. Oldford and myself as Members of the Committee so I just thought

that for the record we should know. I certainly would not question Mr. Ramsay's

credentials or seek to examine them, but it would be nice to know who is here

and who they are replacing so that we would know whether they could do as

adequate a job as the people they are replacing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your note is taken to

heart. Mr. Aylward is here replacing Mr. Gover, and Mr. Ramsay, of course, is

here replacing Mr. Reid.

MR. HARRIS: Just a matter of protocol, Mr.

Chairman, because I have been at other committees where I was in fact not a

member of the committee and the Chair, not yourself, but the Chair, took great

pains on numerous occasions during the meeting to indicate that, of course, Mr.

Harris, is not a member of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would not do that.

MR. HARRIS: I know you would not do that, but

the press is here, and for the record it would be nice to know who is here, who

is on the Committee, and who is extra, and that sort of thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, Mr.

Harris.

I think, I would at this time, like to ask the

Minister if he would be kind enough to introduce his staff and give us a brief

opening statement.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Committee was doing such a good job itself that

I did not know whether or not I should really intervene and make any comments

whatsoever. Certainly, I want to introduce my staff. On my immediate left is our

Deputy Minister, Ms Lynn Spracklin. On my immediate right is Mr. Edward Kent who

is our ADM for finances and virtually everything else such as policing and so

on. Next to Mr. Kent is Mr. Fraser Drover who is the Director of Finance and

General Operations.

I usually do not make an opening statement at these

Estimates hearings. I usually leave it to Members to get on with it. I would

like to compliment the Opposition House Leader for being here tonight and I am

sure it is because he did such an excellent job in guiding a couple of bills

through the House as acting Justice critic. Of course, he is now seconded here

on a permanent basis to deal with Justice matters and I certainly look forward

to his questions. Mr. Ramsay, I want to assure the hon. Member for St. John's

East, will do an excellent job as always in these committees and I certainly do

not suggest that he should not be here either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I

appreciate your comments. Let me give the opportunity to Mr. Harris now, who

indicated that he would like to put some questions to the Minister and his

staff.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much. First of all,

I would like to take the opportunity of publicly congratulating your new Deputy

Minister, Ms. Spracklin, whom I did congratulate privately on her appointment.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister,

some to do specifically with particular line items in the Budget. I hate to

start with such a mundane item, but being new to the examination of Estimates, I

sometimes ask questions which may not be very insightful, but come up with

different answers from different Ministers and perhaps the Minister can explain

the difference between - and this is the estimates for the Minister's office,

and I am comparing the departmental salary estimates in detail, where, in the

detailed estimates, page 171 of the Estimates, shows $139,232 for Minister's

office salaries, and yet on page 213 of the Estimates, line 1.1.01, the amount

to be voted for salaries is $142,800, it is a slight difference, there were

larger differences in other departments with different explanations; what is the

difference here, why is there a $3,500 difference?

MR. DICKS: If you go back a few pages, page

167, you will see there are permanent and other adjustments in the amount of

$4,432 to give you the total of $142,800, that appears there, although in the-

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. That is the figure that is in

this year's estimates which is up from $148,300 last year. The $142 will be

spent, I am told by Mr. Kent that is a modest adjustment taking into account

some possibility of vacancy factor and so on like that; why they occur, frankly,

I am not entirely sure, I do not know if Mr. Kent has a better explanation.

MR. HARRIS: Because there was a similar

difference in the - well maybe Mr. Kent has an explanation, fine, but the

Minister of Education had a similar difference, his was about $8,000 and he said

that that was his car. Perhaps the Minister of Justice does not have a car and

does not have that adjustment.

MR. DICKS: If you will notice in the next one

for executive support, $57,471, I believe we are carrying that as a vacancy and

in the general counsel position so some of these you will see an adjusted

figure; most of them have to do with anticipated replacement or vacancy factors

through the turn over of staff, that is certainly the case in executive support.

Beyond that, why does the $4,000 figure is there I

have no idea. The salaries are fixed in the estimates, I do not know whether it

has to do with any other benefits or if it has to do with an allotment for over

time.

MR. HARRIS: That $8,000 that shows there as

overtime and other earnings, that is the vehicle, is it?

MR. DICKS: I do not know how it is allocated

but we do of course have an $8,000 car allowance so I expect that is it, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Maybe Mr. Kent can confirm that.

MR. KENT: Yes, Mr. Harris, that is correct. All

the departmental salary accounts have either a plus or a credit in them for

varying anticipations of turn over rates and vacancy factors.

MR. HARRIS: So, this is the fourth column

(inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: An estimate of vacancies in areas

when somebody is not in. As I say, it was rather mundane, but I am kind of

interested in the answers from time to time.

Again on staffing: On the permanent staff

complement, Mr. Minister, page 171, I was not aware that you had a general

counsel, I am just curious about that. Under Executive Support you have a Deputy

and three assistants as well as a DPP below that, and then there is a general

counsel position. Who is that?

MR. DICKS: That is John Cummings. John was a

former ADM and then he was moved into the general counsel position some years

ago and he is now back as ADM. So we still have the general counsel position,

but the incumbent was made an ADM. The position is vacant right now.

MR. HARRIS: This position is actually vacant.

MR. DICKS: Yes, because we transferred the

incumbent, John Cummings. The position was created some years ago when John was

an ADM and they moved him into the general counsel position because he was

mostly doing high level negotiations for Government on Hibernia most recently

and so on like that. When we did some reorganization when Jim Thistle left, John

was put back in the ADM position and we still have a general counsel position

which we will probably fill because we need a senior counsel to be engaged in

high level negotiations. We have the Churchill Falls negotiations ongoing as you

know. Usually, the Province is engaged in some fairly significant high level

discussions, interprovincial or else economic, where you need a senior lawyer

who will probably be putting in a lot of overtime and dedicated to those types

of tasks. John was doing that and putting in extensive hours in a position that

was created specifically in recognition of that and we still retain the

position.

MR. HARRIS: That position has been around for

many years has it?

MR. DICKS: Since about 1986.

MR. HARRIS: Who else would have filled that

position?

MR. DICKS: John was the first one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might, Mr. Harris, would you

be kind enough, as you jump around, for other Members and maybe the media - I

realize you have yourself well organized there - but would you say Departmental

salary details, page and subhead, so it is easy to grab.

MR. HARRIS: I would be happy to do that, of

course, and that particular information is on page 171, on the Permanent Staff

Complement, Executive Support, the third position down.

Looking through the departmental staff estimates,

or the staff detail, page 172 under the Civil Law Services, there is a Manager

of Social Law. That is a new one on me. Perhaps, you could tell us a little bit

about that.

MR. DICKS: Last year the Department was

reorganized and in the Civil Law

section we just had approximately twenty-two

lawyers or so and there was no structure as such to it other than to have a

director, John McCarthy of Civil Law, and above that the ADM, Civil, who had

other responsibilities. At that time, it was deemed fit to organize our civil

solicitors in the general government structure so you had lawyers who had been

working in the area that would equate to the social departments of government,

lawyers organized into the financial, governmental services and resource policy.

So lawyers who would be advising those departments and working on those files

essentially were grouped together. One lawyer was appointed from among those to

be the director. This is the first time I have seen the term manager but it is

essentially director and it carries a 5 per cent salary premium in recognition

of the additional responsibilities for supervising the files. That is where that

comes from.

MR. HARRIS: So that is actually a legal

position. (Inaudible) Ms. Spracklin.

MR. DICKS: Yes, a position for a lawyer. Ms.

Spracklin was Manager of Social Law.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Yes, Manager of Social Law which

included Health, Education, Social Services and Labour. I held that position and

have since been promoted so that position is vacant and will be filled as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Simms.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would

like to congratulate Lynn as well on her appointment. I congratulate belatedly,

publicly, the appointment of Mr. Kent. And while I am at it I suppose I might as

well congratulate Fraser. I am not sure when you were appointed Fraser but....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, and belatedly congratulate the

Minister. Now, with all that out of the way, I have some questions of a policy

nature more so than financial questions. I have considerable confidence in the

financial competence of the Department having worked and trained the Assistant

Deputy Minister, Mr. Kent. So I will not have as many financial -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and having served as the acting

Justice critic on a number of occasions in the past, as the Minister would know,

I will not be asking financial questions too much, although I do have a couple.

But there are some questions of policy that I would like to flick out to the

Minister. He might take note of them. I will run down through them maybe, which

is the easiest way, and then he can comment at his leisure, because I do not

want to keep going back and forth all night long.

Perhaps he can give us an update on the status of

the contract negotiations with the Federal Government with respect to the RCMP

contract. Is the Minister still committed to maintaining both the RCMP and the

RNC for Provincial policing? I presume he is but it might be good to hear it

said again. I would like to hear whether or not he is aware or has heard of any

problems in the RNC itself, morale problems, caused mainly by the negotiations,

or lack thereof, or ongoing fuss with respect to negotiations. I do not have to

elaborate, I am sure the Minister knows what I am talking about. There are

obvious problems that have been expressed publicly but I would like to know if

he seriously has any concerns about the morale in the Constabulary in

particular. A lot of us do.

In addition to that, the position of Chief

Electoral Officer has been vacant, I guess, since Mr. Whalen left. Does the

Minister know when that position is going to be filled, and what process will be

used? Will they be using the Public Service Commission, for example, to publicly

advertise? Or will it be done by Cabinet appointment or what? Perhaps he can

tell us that.

And I will just throw out one or two other ones and

then I will stop and the Minister can respond - I do not want to pile it up too

much there. Mount Scio House: I understand the Crown attorneys have moved out of

that location, now moved down to Atlantic Place -which incidentally I suspect is

a good move as they are closer to the courts. I presume they have. I ask the

Minister in his capacity as a Minister of the Cabinet what is going to happen to

Mount Scio House? Has the Government decided what it intends to do there? Does

the Department sort of have any responsibility any longer? Is it just Public

Works or what?

Just a couple of quick financial questions and then

I will clue up, if I might. I am sorry I did not give you the pages of all those

items but I guess I could have. The revenue from lotteries: In 1990-1991 the

revenue was $19 million; 1991-1992 the revenue projected I think is $20 million?

Does not seem like a lot, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) could you give -?

MR. SIMMS: Can I give you just one final

question, then I can sit back and listen to you respond to all these things?

MR. DICKS: Okay, yes, go ahead.

MR. SIMMS: Maybe I am wrong. If I am then you

just tell me. The final one is: the revenue from the Registry of Deeds. In

1990-1991 it was $7.8 million. Well, the projection actually I think in

1991-1992, is $9.5 million, which is a sizable increase. I wonder what it was in

1989-90, for example? I do not have that number myself at my fingertips but I am

sure Ed does, or Mr. Kent. Maybe he could tell us. I am just trying to figure

out how big a tax grab the Department of Justice has put on through the Registry

of Deeds fees over the last couple of years.

I will leave it at that for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: I will try to answer them as briefly

as the questions were posed, Mr. Chairman.

First of all the contract negotiations with the

RCMP have been really troublesome, and to say frankly, the real problem in my

view was, in part at least, the former Solicitor General, Mr. Cadieux. I say

that not from any personal observations alone, but that is also the sentiments

of other people who have met with him, Jim McCrae who is the Solicitor General

of Manitoba, Ivan Messmer who is the Solicitor General for British Columbia, so

it is not a partisan political comment because they are of other parties than

the Liberal Party. Mr. Cadieux was singularly difficult to deal with and as it

happened myself, Mr. Messmer, and Mr. McCrae, were asked by the other Solicitors

General to try to settle the contract negotiations with Mr. Cadieux and we had

several meetings with him. The best thing that has happened in the contract

negotiations with the RCMP is that we have Doug Lewis, the new Solicitor

General. I knew Mr. Lewis when he was Minister of Justice, then he was moved to

Transportation, and now he is back as Solicitor General, which is essentially a

legal function. Because of that I am very optimistic that the pace of

negotiations will increase, and I expect that there is a significantly improved

chance that we will get the thing settled. As long as Mr. Cadieux was there, I

think, his stance and his tactics as he conveyed his instructions from his

colleagues to us, any prospect for a negotiated agreement was very slight. I

think with Mr. Lewis things have vastly improved because I think he is a fine,

decent fellow and he will go back to Cabinet and probably put our position

clearly and frankly. I did not have the confidence that Mr. Cadieux was doing

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. DICKS: I can tell you that there was

recently a meeting in Vancouver with Mr. McCrae, Mr. Messmer, and Mr. Lewis, but

I really cannot say what came of that, but I understand it was a good meeting

all around. That was Monday past. I was invited to go but obviously I could not

make it, and it could not be justified for me to go out there for one day. It

was an informal meeting.

The contract negotiations with the RCMP essentially

are stalemated. I have canvassed many times the amount of dollars involved but

it could mean an increase in the RCMP contract of a minimum of 15 to 25 or 30

per cent. Those types of figures would be extremely difficult for the Province

to find and it would mean an increase of possibly $5 million or $6 million. It

is problematic for us, but I expect with Mr. Lewis at the helm we have some

better prospects to negotiate something reasonable that I could bring into the

House, or to my colleagues, and say, look, this is a reasonable request. Some of

the positions the Federal Government have put forward are, I think, reasonable

but certainly others are not. At the present time nothing is happening until Mr.

Lewis gets a better handle on it, and I think we have to give him a period of

time to do so. We are committed to having both the RCMP and the RNC as

provincial police forces. They both police a significant portion of the

Province. The RNC right now has approximately 350 members and the RCMP have

about 420 dedicated to provincial policing. They have more staff on the Island

but the ratios are different and the RCMP a significantly larger portion of the

Island but that is made up by ratio. We are committed to both police forces, and

for policy reasons have two police forces, because if there are difficulties

with one you can always invoke the other to help out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there any plans to extend

the RNC at the moment?

MR. DICKS: No, not at the moment.

Are there problems with the RNC morale? It is like

everything else, I suppose. I hear rumours that there are problems with morale

in the Opposition ranks, things like that.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) you should not -

MR. DICKS: The point I was going to make is

that it is very difficult to pin down. I suppose you could say there are morale

problems in any group, or whatever, but I do not think the question is whether

or not there are morale problems so much as, are the police doing their job as

well as would be expected under the circumstances? Frankly, I have not seen

anything to indicate that any of Government's negotiations with the RNC over the

past couple of years have caused any significant problems. In fact I have been

very pleased with the manner in which the RNC has discharged their duties. I

believe they are an excellent police force and they have done an excellent job.

It is very difficult for me to say whether or not

there are individual morale problems or not. And I suppose when you are dealing

with 350 members on any given day I am sure some of them are having a bad day as

much as the rest of us. But I do not see anything in our relationship with the

force that would lead me to believe that there are morale problems that would

affect policing. In fact the salaries of the RNC have been raised significantly

over the last couple of years as relative to the changes in pension. So, while

on the one hand people may see a detriment, on the other hand you can see a

significant benefit on the other side as well.

So I think in the long run these things balance

out. And from the standpoint of policing I have no reason to believe that

policing of the RNC areas is impaired for any reasons having to do with morale

or otherwise.

The Electoral Officer: Mr. Whalen, as you know,

retired, or resigned. Right now under the statute the appointment of a Chief

Electoral Officer is the prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The

decision has not been made as to if it will be filled or when. There is a new

Elections Act being drafted and whether or not that would provide for a

different method of selection I am not at this point able to say. But I know

that Cabinet has not yet addressed that question, and whether it will be and how

it will be filled I really cannot say yet. It is not my decision as you know,

and would have to be a decision of Cabinet.

Yes, go ahead.

MR. SIMMS: Is there some question that

(Inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: No. The point I wanted to make was

there will be a Chief Electoral Officer, but I am not sure if the appointment

will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or in some other method, and

Cabinet has not yet made that decision. And it is not mine to make, so it is not

my choice as to how to fill it.

Mount Scio House has been given over to Pippy Park

for use as a headquarters. The lottery revenue - I need to check on that. Is

that in our - I do not think that is in our estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Department of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is in the Department of

Finance. We only regulate lottery revenue. In other words, we pass the

regulations but essentially the majority of funds raised for lottery revenue

comes into Finance vis--vis the Atlantic Lottery scheme, on which the Deputy

Minister or the Secretary of Treasury Board - as you know, they sit on the

committee. But what we do is, we have small licensing fees for bingos and things

like this. So the $19 million that you are referring to is I think the payback

from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, rather than anything in the Department of

Justice. So why the figures would be - the figures are close this year and

perhaps those questions might be better addressed to the Minister of Finance and

possibly Treasury Board.

Yes, excuse me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Our lottery licensing revenues from

the fees we charge is $635,000. That is from the fees we charge. The payback

comes into the general revenue from Atlantic Lottery Corporation and as I say

that is not in the Department of Justice itself. That is in - Treasury Board,

Lew White, the Secretary, sits on the board as does Gilbert Gill, the Deputy

Minister of Finance.

MR. POWER: Can I just ask the Minister while he

is on lotteries a question? For a long time I think those lottery regulations

have been much too stringent. I know when we brought in those regulations a long

time ago they were designed primarily to prevent private shopkeepers and club

owners from making a fortune on illegal lotteries, which they were doing, but I

think in the process we went too far with it. We have made it downright

difficult for a lot of - whether they are Girl Guide outfits, whether they are

political organizations - to actually go out and do what is regularly charitable

volunteer fund-raising. Is there any intention to lessen or reduce some of those

regulations to make it easier for charitable organizations to raise money?

MR. DICKS: Yes. There is conscious effort. The

real problem with the lottery licencing regulations is that they are not in very

good order. I think the points you make are valid. For instance one that is

often made is that in relation to, say, softball, if you are sponsored by one

distillery you can go out and raise money - or not distillery, I guess brewery,

or brewery group if you are sponsored by another one, softball tournament, you

cannot, so in fact, a paper was recently passed through Cabinet that will change

the regulations in some respects, so I am concerned about the inequities that

are between sports organizations, but you do have a policy difficulty in point

of view as to how far you should extend what is state licence gambling, and

particularly in sports areas. Should you allow, you know, Princess Scuba Club,

that does not compete in competitions to be able to raise money by virtue of

selling tickets, so there has to be some control over it because it is a

potential for fraud.

But we do have a lot of concerns; these organized

commercial bingo halls are a real problem, we are changing those regulations as

well; in fact what we have done with those is that we have only temporarily

extended the licences, as I recently instructed the Department of Consumers

Affairs, they have extended them to the end of March.

It ran out about the 20th of April so I consulted

with them and have extended them to the end of July, but it calls for a gross

return of $15 million but if you look at the experience on bingo itself, it is

supposed to return 15 per cent to charity; the experience has been that since, I

believe October of 1987, there has been over $11.25 million spent on bingo;

there is a net loss to charity of $79,000, I think the figures are, so these

bingos are a problem.

The reason it can be is that the fee charged by the

people who own these bingo halls are excessive, for instance, I think $500 or

$600 a night to use a hall, then if you have two bingos, they charge you $1,200

or $1,000, whatever the ratio would be, so it is a real problem you see, so the

middle man or the middle group gets the money, so if you ask me if there are

problems of what we are licensing, there certainly are; as a matter of fact, I

have a meeting with Consumer Affairs tomorrow at 2:30 to get a briefing on the

whole re-draft of the lottery licensing and regulations and in my view they need

extensive work and we have had great difficulty in trying to come to terms with

it.

The other thing being that the charities are not in

favour of having their licences pulled because they make money by virtue of the

sale of these strip tickets, Nevada tickets and so on, so we have to examine

what a proper return to charity is and whether or not we should include both the

direct return from the bingo, receipts as well as the other gambling that goes

on there in terms of the selling of the strip tickets and another figure might

be appropriate, but on the face of it most of these bingos are in violation;

then you also have to consider the price structures, is $3,500 too much, plus,

yet it may be just competition; maybe too many have them licensed and only a

certain number of people in say, St. John's who will be going to bingo in any

one night, so it is not a simple issue and it is very difficult to find a way to

resolve it easily. But the sports thing: we are going to bring in an amendment

having to do with anybody who is sponsoring a tournament that leads to a

provincial or national championship and who will probably be able to run a

lottery too to offset expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Sure.

MR. POWER: Is that like the Ferryland P.C.

Association, which cannot raise money through a lottery? We cannot or, you are

not supposed to, but, the Ferryland Senior Men Softball Team, if they want to go

to PEI to a tournament, can raise money. I mean, the public has the ultimate

control, because the public can choose to buy a ticket for a softball team or

not buy a ticket, providing it is done within the regulations and I just think

that there are a whole bunch of things out around that are quasi-charitable, not

necessarily church oriented, but are regularly supported by the community and

are now not allowed under the new regulations and I just think we really went

too far when we did it.

MR. DICKS: Well these were the old regulations

and I agree with you-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: Well, it is supported by the public

in lots of ways, through volunteer -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. POWER: - we do not all have unions, unions

do not donate to all polititcal campaigns.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not going to have

committee members debate among themselves. We are here to question the Minister

on Estimates primarily, but the Chair is of course very accommodating to

Members, but I am not going to let Members debate among themselves I can assure

you of that right now.

Has the Minister addressed all the questions?

MR. DICKS: I just want to finish on Charlie's

point and I have one more to do with respect to them.

The first is that I agree with you; you know there

are legitimate things that you would like to licence in individual

circumstances. For instance, a Girl Guide Group locally might want to do it but

the test prescribed is that you either have to be a legitimate charity or a

church group or else, if you are a sports group it would have to lead to a

provincial championship.

For instance, a group in my constituency or close

by, a scuba club called the (inaudible), I know they are legitimate, in fact one

of the fellows is an RCMP officer. I have known him for a number of years but he

did not come within the regulations so he could not get a licence. They were

trying to raise money to refill their tanks. A lot of these guys when there is a

need to look for a body will go out and search. So, there is a genuine public

interest in it but the trouble is when you try to draft a regulation that will

be confined enough so as not to open up so much that we will have to give a

licence to everybody, it is very difficult. I have looked at expanding it but

frankly if you can give me any idea of how to do it, we will do it. But the

lottery stuff is a difficult thing for us.

The other question was revenue from the Registry of

Deeds: The increase there to $9.5 million from $7.8 million relates to increases

in the base price of registration of deeds of conveyance. We raised the minimum

from approximately $10 or $11 to $50 for registration of any conveyance and that

has raised, I think, the $1.25 million of the dollars we are looking at there.

So, I think in answer to Mr. Simms last question, most of that money is related

to increase in the fees for the registration of deeds and there is also some

monies coming from late registration fees or late filing fees for notices in

companies and so on like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr.

Minister.

Mr. Aylward.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to sit with your Committee

tonight. I would also like to congratulate the new Deputy Minister, Ms.

Spracklin, and welcome her to her position. I also welcome the Minister and his

officials.

I believe the Minister is doing a very honourable

and respectful job in the position he is in. I think he has brought a great deal

of effort to it and I believe there are many positive changes occurring within

the Department.

I would like to just go through a few items and

identify them through the estimates and maybe you could comment on a few of

these for me.

In the area of correctional facilities: In

Stephenville we have two facilities a women's centre and a men's centre. I think

last year or a year and a half ago a computer programme was instituted into the

men's correctional centre to help with literacy and literacy training, I think,

for people within the system. I was just wondering if I could get the status of

how that is going? If it is working out, or if it is under way and so on, to see

where that is going. I thought it was a very good idea and I would like to see

it happen in other institutions. I know they were pretty excited about it out

our way at the institution itself.

Also in the area of community corrections: I would

like if you could outline for me exactly what that entails? In our area we have

the John Howard Society for example and I was wondering if that comes under that

area? Does the Province have any involvement in the administration of the John

Howard Society?

In Stephenville, we have a corrections course at

the college that is also being offered to students who are trying to get into

the corrections field. So, it has really become a centre for corrections in the

Province actually in the last number of years.

The Victim Services under 4.2.06: I wonder if the

Minister could possibly give us an update as to how that is going. I know I

heard some comments made during the last week or two that there are some

counselling services being offered for the first time, I believe, to victims and

I would just like to see where that is heading. I think it is very positive that

it is occurring and I congratulate the Department on being able to get that off

the ground.

So, if the Minister could comment on a few of those

items it would be appreciated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Aylward.

Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: Yes. Thank you.

The area of corrections is one that I think the

Department has been justifiably proud of over the years. We have a very good

correctional service and most people have a rough idea of how difficult a prison

environment is to regulate. I think it is probably attributed to the (Inaudible)

not in the people who work in the penitential service that we have not had a lot

more difficulties than we have had. And if you follow the news in other parts of

the country let alone around the world you know what difficult circumstances

guards find themselves in, as well as prisoners who are sent there.

The emphasis in our system is on the aspect of

rehabilitation. Because the first effort has to be to return individuals who

have offended society back to society as productive members. The first thing you

mentioned, the (Inaudible) system of computer instruction was, I think unveiled

about this time last spring. The Federal Government contributed a significant

amount toward acquisition of the system and basically supplied most of the

equipment. It is computer assisted learning. Part of what you find in the prison

system is that a lot of the people that are there are less literate than the

general average. So part of our efforts to rehabilitate people is that when they

leave they will have acquired some significant skills that can enable them to

get a job, essentially.

So that system is in place. Part of it is

administered as well and we work very closely with community colleges as you

know - in Stephenville, you have mentioned. Also here in St. John's, the Cabot

Institute and their instructors have taken a very active role in providing

instruction to people. As well, to give you an example, in Goose Bay, Labrador,

I was up there this January and one of the things that is done there is to

instruct people in small engine repair, for instance, skidoos and so on, also to

enhance people's personal skills as well as their job skills. You will find that

generally in our correction system there is a great deal of emphasis on

retraining and trying to help people learn something that will be a benefit to

them.

The John Howard Society is supported by the

Department of Justice with a $72,000 grant each year. They have approximately

1,000 clients that they help each year, we are told, and I met with them not too

long ago and we went through their budget and some of their services. They are a

very productive society and I think for the amount of money the Province invests

we get a very good return.

I mentioned the community college. In Stephenville

in particular it may be worthwhile noting that one of the changes we have made

is that now it has both a male and a female facility for inmates. Part of the

problem we have is that the female facility is running at a very low occupancy

rate. It is able to take I think twelve or fifteen, and the average is about

six. And weeks at a time there will be no one there. And we have fifteen staff,

I believe it is. So from the standpoint of cost alone it is difficult to justify

keeping the facility operating at maximum capacity. But the superintendent of

the prison there, Mary Ennis, has recently been put in charge of the male

correctional facility too. That was effective May 1. So I am pleased to report

that because I believe she is the first superintendent in our system who is a

female.

The other thing is Victim Assistance. This is

something that has received a lot of attention over the years, in the last few

years at least. We are pleased that in this year we were able to obtain money in

the estimates to provide a programme. Essentially what we hope to do is to

provide individuals on a regional basis to coordinate services. Because you have

a lot of volunteer groups who are interested in providing services as well. I do

not envisage that the Department of Justice is the repository of such wisdom

that we can counsel people through difficult emotional situations which often

accompany trials, particularly criminal trials for sexual assault. I think part

of our role should be to make people aware of where these services can be

obtained, and try to coordinate their availing of them as well as instructing

them as to what they might find in the system. As well we hope to provide

brochures to people that will be instructive as to what court is all about, how

to comport themselves, and some essentials of the system.

So hopefully we will have that up and running. We

have the job descriptions completed. In the larger St. John's area we will

probably ask for proposals from the private sector to provide that service and

we will have coordinators here in Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Oldford.

MR. SIMMS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

MR. SIMMS: I do not know if the Minister

brushed over one of the questions. I asked about the Registry of Deeds and the

increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not listening.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, perhaps I was not.

MR. DICKS: No. I answered the question. I think

you may have been engaged in another topic there but the increase in revenue

comes essentially from increases in the fees for the registration of

conveyances. The minimum charge was raised from approximately $10 to $50. We did

not change the rate per $1,000. Take the base rate: to register any conveyance

it is $4 per $1,000 so the difference on a $100,000 conveyance or deed would be

insignificant. It might be $450 opposed to $410, let us say, plus $1 or so for

each affidavit, but where you find the impact is that people who are registering

one document instead of paying a fee of $12 would pay a fee of $50-odd, which

frankly is probably a fair charge when you consider the protection that people

acquire by registering a convenance -

MR. SIMMS: How many of those would be done in

the run of a year?

MR. DICKS: Pardon me?

MR. SIMMS: How many of those would be done in

the run of a year?

MR. DICKS: I am not sure, but I can tell you

(inaudible) -

MR. SIMMS: Hundreds, thousands.

MR. DICKS: Oh, thousands and thousands. I could

get the figure for you but let us put it this way, of the $1.5 million that we

are raising, I would say about $1.25 million comes from that additional $50 fee

alone. Divide $1.25 million by $50 and that will give you a rough idea. It is

not only deeds but it is also mortgages, debentures, and all those sorts of

things really. We had a little thing on releases of mortgage, I think there was

a hiatus period.

MR. HARRIS: There was a little problem with

that, if I may.

MR. SIMMS: Could I just finish?

MR. HARRIS: I know it is out of order, but if I

may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like Mr. Harris to

understand that his microphone was not on.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, thank you.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish

my question.

I also asked the Minister, if he will recall, Mr.

Kent perhaps might have the numbers from 1989-1990 revenue from the Registry of

Deeds. Does he happen to have that number there?

MR. DICKS: No, we do not have it but we can

give it to you from the other estimates though.

That is the bulk of it now, for instance -

MR. SIMMS: You can give it to me when?

MR. DICKS: Tomorrow.

MR. SIMMS: In the House you mean.

MR. DICKS: I have a copy of the old estimates

up in my office and it would be in those.

I should say that is where the bulk of the money

comes from. There are also some additional filing fees, I think we have a $50

late penalty as an extra charge if you fail to file corporate documentation by

April 1, but by and far the vast bulk of it comes from the registration of

documents in the Registry of Deeds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I just wanted to touch on three or

four subheads and look at some of the figures in those subheads. On page 215,

number 2.1.01 Civil Laws, they show in the revised 1990-1991 Budget the figure

of $582,400 as provincial revenue and yet there is nothing included in 1991-1992

Estimates. I wonder what that figure represents?

MR. DICKS: Yes, what happened is that last year

there was a figure budgeted of almost $2 million to pay the costs of the lawyer

who represented Quebec in the water rights reversion case, I believe, it was.

The Province took that case and lost it. When you lose a case the costs of the

other side are often awarded to the winning party. So, in that case because

Newfoundland lost -

MR. SIMMS: Who was the lawyer for the other

side?

MR. DICKS: I do not know who the lawyer was.

Jim Chalker was our lawyer. And I think it was a Quebec law firm. I could check

it. But in any event they had claimed almost $2 million as an amount of

taxation. We had put that in the estimates because that was our potential

liability. We started at $1 million and I think we must have settled for around

$1.4 million or $1.35 million. And the $600,000 roughly, you see there the

$582,400, is a difference between what was allocated and the amount we were able

to beat them down. So we beat them down by half a million dollars on their claim

for costs.

MR. OLDFORD: Okay. Subhead 2.2.01 on page 217.

You have increased your salaries under Criminal Law by $500,000, approximately.

And you have reduced purchased services by about $850,000. Is there a

relationship between those two?

MR. DICKS: Yes, very definite relationship.

What happened last year was, you will notice that we had budgeted $1.8 million.

We only spent about $1.5 million. I am just rounding the figures off to the

nearest hundred thousand. The reason for that was we were unable to recruit

lawyers in certain areas. It is very difficult to - we mentioned earlier about

some of the vacancy factors - but it is often very difficult to recruit lawyers,

particularly outside St. John's. The upshot of that is that if you have to pay

members of the private Bar to do what staff lawyers would do you pay an

expensive premium for it. So while we saved approximately $300,000 on salaries,

you will notice that our professional services went from $500,000 to $1.15

million. So we saved about $300,000 there but on the other side we were up by

about $650,000.

The reason we have reduced it this year is that we

hope to be able to recruit enough people and thereby reduce our reliance on

members of the private Bar which is more cost effective for the Department. So

the two are directly related, and this year we have put up our salary estimate

and put down our professional service, hoping to be able to retain the people we

have and recruit to fill vacant positions.

MR. OLDFORD: Okay. Subhead 2.3.02, Legal Aid.

Under the Federal contribution in your revised budget for 1990-1991 the Federal

revenue that you are showing, the Federal contribution is $3,311,900. Even

though the grants and subsidies have gone up in your 1991-1992 estimates, the

Federal contribution is only $2.5 million. Could you explain that to me please?

MR. DICKS: Yes, and two points. One is that the

Federal Government last year froze their participation in Legal Aid. They said

that they would not pay any more in the Federal contribution to Legal Aid then

they had paid in the fiscal year 1989-1990, I believe it was. It was frozen at

that level. Before that they had participated by funding us 75 per cent of what

money was spent on criminal law, 100 per cent of what was spent on immigration

and 50 per cent roughly of what was spent on civil law. When you take that mix

into account the Federal Government contributed approximately two-thirds of our

Legal Aid budget. They froze it, and of course what that meant is any increase

in Legal Aid would have to be funded by the Province.

So what you see here in the current year is that

whereas last year we were able to manage the legal aid system with a budget of

$4 million - well it was budgeted at $4 million, $3.9 million - we actually

spent about $4.3 million. And the excess was mostly immigration, which we picked

up 100 per cent from the Federal Government. But the Province's share of that

was $1 million. This year we have upped it in the Budget by $500,000, from $3.9

million to $4.4 million. But the Province's contribution has almost doubled to

$1.9 million, if you follow the figures across.

So really what is happening is the growth in Legal

Aid is being funded solely by the Province at this stage, you know, the growth

as opposed to the overall programme. The revenue last year was up somewhat

because of the immigration being funded 100 per cent.

The other thing I should comment on legal aid is

that the Province was well behind in terms of auditing its figures for legal aid

and I think at one point we were two or three years behind in actually getting

the amount of money that was owed from the Federal Government. Since Mr. Kent

came on staff, I guess a year and a half or so ago, he has taken the problem in

hand and legal aid is now up to date, so you know that was a factor as well

because what was happening was, we were not getting our claims for process and

audit and we just were not receiving the Federal contribution.

I think at one point in 1989, we had not received

the 1985 contribution or something in that order; we were about three or four

years behind in that case, so we have done quite a bit on the revenue side to

improve our systems and also to bring in the revenue on a more timely basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank

you, Mr. Oldford. Before I give the floor to Mr. Ramsay, I would ask that one of

the committee Members move the minutes of May 7th, please.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), that went on that

night and just that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what you are basically

looking at, Mr. Harris, is something that has gone in Estimates for a great

number of years; these are usually just the minutes because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of course, we use Hansard and the

transcript carries every word.

MR. HARRIS: I noticed that the 10:20

adjournment, takes into account all the extra questions that the Vice-Chair was

trying to get in at the end, so I guess that it is sufficient to note that

circumstance.

MR. SIMMS: I did not even get a chance to say

'nay.' Can you have Divisions in Committee?

MR. HARRIS: I have not had the experience of

the Speaker of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, I would like to

say, which I should have done earlier, that the vice-chair, Mr. Charlie Power,

the hon. Member for Ferryland, joined us about thirty seconds late, but I

understand he had a problem getting down from the Southern Shore, so Mr. Power,

thank you.

Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We welcome

Mr. Minister and his officials here tonight and although I do not know, Ms.

Spracklin I do say to you that I am sure that the faith and support given to you

in your appointment, a well earned appointment I understand from speaking with

people in the legal community, will be borne out in the future.

Also to Mr. Kent, I might add that in the past you

have been very corporative during these estimates proceedings in having the

figures right at your behest and were always very forthright in providing

information for the Minister to answer the questions.

The other gentleman I do not know either we may

have had the opportunity in the previous estimates committee to meet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Previous life.

MR. RAMSAY: - previous life, yes. Mr. Minister,

I just have a few things within the body of the estimates. If you will remember

the Opposition, whom I have just provided with copies of the estimates -

MR. SIMMS: It is the Budget I wanted, but it is

okay.

MR. RAMSAY: Oh, I see. In the past, I did often

mention purchase services as something that might possibly be a way that we

could save money I guess, as a Government, and I have often been of the opinion

that there is a certain amount of purchase service that has to be done in a

given year to make sure your equipment is maintained at a a high level of repair

and that replacement does not cost you more and more down the road.

I note for the record a certain spot which has a

significant amount of purchased services. On page 214 in the estimates I note in

1.2.02 an amount of $168,300 which is significantly below the budgeted amount of

last year, although the expenditure last year was not that high, it was

$130,000. I also bring your attention to a decrease in purchased services in the

Sheriff's Office, which I understand may have an explanation, something to do

with the administration of that, and in various other places throughout. Maybe

in going through you could highlight just what services are purchased outside of

Government and to what end. And then maybe a better understanding of how come

these are important expenses and why they should continue in the manner in which

they are slated in this Budget document.

That is all I have right now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr.

Minister.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes,

Mr. Ramsay, purchased services covers a broad category of evils. For instance in

our criminal end, and where we are dealing with lawyers for example, the

purchased services there would be professional services and in that area,

frankly, dealing with lawyers it is cheaper to have permanent staff than it is

go out to the legal community and ask them to do it on an hourly basis. So to

that end I would probably favour diminishing the purchased services and upping

the salary account, because I think the cost benefit to Government would be

positive.

The other one you mentioned there, 1.2.02,

Administrative Support, is printing, I am told, and that was less because we

have less printing requirements. But generally what we try to do is balance two

factors. One is that in many cases we are party to union agreements, so we

cannot contract out services contrary to collective agreements. But in areas

where we do have a legitimate right to determine whether we try to get it done

in-house or outside we will do a cost benefit analysis. One area where we have

been able to make some improvements is at the Penitentiary, for example. The

food there is contracted out by I think Versa Foods or one of the large - is it

Versa or...?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a combination of

companies across the Province.

MR. DICKS: Yes, a combination of companies. And

come to think of it there is a small one in Corner Brook, a little restaurant,

that provides it. And it is cheaper to do that in some of our facilities, just

have someone to bring the food in.

Sheriff's Office, which was the other one you

mentioned, purchased services there. That was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, that was last year. We had to

pay to get the juror's list done. So sometimes what you see in purchased

services can be misleading because there is sometimes -

MR. RAMSAY: It fluctuates according to the....

MR. DICKS: Yes, one time expenses. So it is a

category that in our Department is probably not equivalent to what you would

find in Transportation or Works and Services, where they contract out for quite

a bit of their engineering work and design work and so on like that. But your

point is well taken. We do a cost analysis on each item where we have an option

to determine whether we should hire people permanently when we may not need them

on that basis just for singular transactions.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible) just one more, Mr.

Chairman, with regards to these support enforcement services. I deal with quite

a number of constituents who are clients of the Support Enforcement Agency and

as the hon. Member for Humber East often focuses on this programme, I just

wonder what kind of analysis is ongoing as to the capability of the Support

Enforcement Agency, and just how efficient it operates, and how good a service

it does provide to the individuals served by the agency. Insofar as a quick

turnaround I guess in the case of spouses who habitually are avoiding the

judgements that come in for attaching maintenance payments from a variety of

sources. If they change profession, if they go from one job to another or they

move from unemployment on it just throws the whole system right out of whack. I

wonder is there anything in the administration of the Support Enforcement Agency

that may improve that area?

MR. DICKS: Well, the Support Enforcement Agency

has been a real success story in a number of ways. First of all, as you know the

payment of maintenance orders across the country was very delinquent when the

Support Enforcement Agency was set up a couple of years ago, if my memory serves

me correctly of all the maintenance orders given in the Province only 15 per

cent were being adhered to. Last year, if my memory serves me correctly, that

default rate had been - we assumed the default rate was about 80 per cent to 85

per cent - reduced to 40-odd per cent. At the present time the payment rate is

78 per cent. So, we have reduced the delinquency rate, we have turned it around

in fact. If in fact before only 15 per cent were paying now we have only

approximately 22 per cent not paying. So, it has been a very successful

programme and it is something that we may look at expanding in certain ways. In

the meantime, the caseload has increased in the last year from 2,000 cases to

3,000 cases. Now that may be misleading. That does not mean they have 50 per

cent more work, because if we have improved the payment it is a lot different

than going after delinquent accounts. So, that does not necessarily transpire

into requests or a need to expand it in terms of the number of people we have

there. That figure is increasing and we are adding to it at the rate of about

seventy-five per month.

Overall the Support Enforcement Agency

notwithstanding, individual complaints relate to certain files, because no

matter how good we are in that aspect there are some people you are never going

to collect from because they are not working, they have no assets, and they have

no intention of paying besides. But, in general terms where the money can be

obtained I think they are doing a very good job.

I do not know if that answers your question, Mr.

Ramsay, but for example in 1990 the Support Enforcement Agency collected $5

million. There were some complaints at one time about the telephone service,

that it was hard to get through there, but we have a toll free number, as you

know, and we put some money last year into changing telephone systems so that

messages would be recorded and returned and since then, I think, quite a number

of the complaints have been diminished. There is concern over the turnaround

time, let me put it that way, for the certainty of people getting money and

service we are probably doing as good a job as can be expected on that end of

things, not to say at some times we could have done a little better but I think

that is one thing that is working very well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Power.

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have one general question for the Minister and

one very particular question.

One of the basic things, I guess, that keeps all

our society together is that under the law everybody is supposed to be treated

equally and fairly and there is not supposed to be a two-tiered system for sure

or any tiered system. One of the cynical things that has happened in

Newfoundland and probably in other Provinces of Canada as well is that some

people have lost faith in our justice system. I think the Hughes Commission

here, the whole Mount Cashel thing, the Ontario police coming in and

investigating what happened up at the Lester Hotel, I think Chief Justice

Hickman's incident of being investigated and being suspended for a period of

time, I think all those things cause some individuals to begin to lose faith in

our justice system. I would not want the Minister to give a long drawn out

speech but I think it is important that people have confidence in it.

I would like to ask the Minister: Is he confident

himself now, that at least in the Newfoundland judicial process those kinds of

things are in the past and that we will have a pretty fair justice system in the

future?

MR. DICKS: You would have to answer yes and no

to the question because there are really two parts to the justice system. One is

the process. I think in point of process you are not going to find a better

system than the system that has been devised over the last thousand years in the

where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other systems, such as

the French system you have to prove yourself innocent. So, of the two principles

I think we have espoused the better one from the point of view of individual

liberties. If you work in point of process I think our system has good process

and it is difficult to fault it. Along with that process comes a need, as I say,

that justice seem to be done, and that really raises the question of perception.

What happens, to take an individual case, that is not only that you do a good

job, and do it properly, but that you be seen to have done it. To take a recent

example of the police investigating themselves: the reason the OPP was called

in, which was one of the things you mentioned, was not because I did not have

confidence that the RNC would do a good job, but I think the problem was, even

if they did a good, because the police force in this case was investigating its

own members, people would assume that a good job had not been done. In point of

process and perception sometimes you have to address that and make sure that the

process being followed is completely objective and will withstand public

scrutiny. In most cases it is as important that it be seen to be done as in fact

it is done. I have complete faith in the system of justice we have. Beyond that

you have to recognize that every system of justice functions with individuals.

The Department of Justice itself employs about 1700 people. As I mentioned, we

have 350 constabulary officers, we have another 400 and some RCMP. We have

members of our staff and you have the judges, and so on, like that. Because the

system is good and works well, and there has not probably been a better one

devised, does not mean that everyone who has a function in that system is the

best person, or can withstand absolute scrutiny, so you have human failings that

are understandable and you have, I suppose, from time to time, people who act

below a certain standard of behaviour and we try to tolerate the normal human

frailties that people have but beyond that there is a system and a standard of

conduct you expect and really have to get people to adhere to. To that extent we

will always have problems with an individual who does not come up to the mark.

We will have police officers who will be charged with theft or sexual assault

and who will be convicted and go to jail, but because individuals within the

system fail should not cause people to lose confidence in the system. If

anything, when people are arrested, tried, and found to have done something

wrong that should restore their confidence because, to an extent, it shows that

the system of justice, if not entirely self-correcting, at least has the ability

to scrutinize itself. From that point of view I do have a lot of confidence in

our system and I think we have to recognize that within it the people who work

there have greater and lesser degrees of integrity, and so on like that, but I

think they are generally up to the mark.

MR. POWER: Could I ask the Minister a question

on the Hughes Enquiry which he does not have to answer. How much money has it

cost, when will we get the final report, and will the final report be made

public even with all the ongoing court cases there? Is that going to happen or

not?

MR. DICKS: First of all the Hughes Commission

has cost about $2.5 million. The exact figure is, I think, about $2,582,000 or

something. There may be a few odds and ends to clean it up, but it is probably

going to come out to about $2.5 million, give or take $100,000 or so. The second

thing is I expect Mr. Justice Hughes will be here on the 29th to deliver the

report. Following that I will have to bring it to Cabinet because, of course, it

effects other Government Departments, and to allow Government Departments a

chance to scrutinize it. Once that is done we will release it as soon as

possible. The only additional matter I will have to consider is whether or not

there may be anything in the report that is specific to individual trials which

are still outstanding and then we may have to consider if that would prejudice

those trials and if we should keep the report back, or if there was some method

by which we could delete those portions. We will, to the maximum extent

possible, make the report public.

MR. POWER: One final, and it should be a very

brief question. I remember one time sitting around the Cabinet table finding out

that the Sheriff of Newfoundland was making a very decent salary and a very

hefty salary on fees besides. It was something like twice the Premier's salary

the year that I saw it. I think that system was rectified.

Has it been rectified so that the Sheriff now makes

a normal income?

MR. DICKS: Oh, yes. The whole question of fees

in the court system has been corrected. I think we had one registrar who made

$250,000 one year, which is probably three times what the Premier of the day

made, so the system of fees is one that goes back eons. What it was, the state

paid a very low salary but they collected from the individual litigants and that

has been changed. What we have done is all fees now are paid into the general

revenues. The only exception I should say is, that is for the Sheriff's office

and are people who are permanent employees. We might find incidences of deputy

sheriffs in small places who do it on an ad hoc basis and who are paid a fee. If

you need to get a writ served in Glovertown or Woody Point you might have to pay

somebody locally to go out - but those rates are controlled - and they charge

you a certain amount for mileage and what not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: They have been there for years in

most cases. They are not political appointees. I mean, I think the Sheriff gets

them. As a matter of fact we tried to formalize a little more. A lot of these

people have been out there for years so last year we organized a training

session for them which cost about $15,000 and I went out to Gander and spoke

with them. They were there for about three days. But mostly they are just people

in a community.

MR. SIMMS: They got their monies worth when you

went out there, that is for sure.

MR. DICKS: I had a group in the other day and

it is not something you can readily get someone to do. You know in a small

community you do not want to be walking up to your neighbour and handing him or

her a writ. So, they do provide a service and they are doing something that a

lot of people find distasteful as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that the Chair was complaining the other

night that he had lost the protection of this hon. Member but I am glad to see

that the Chair is protecting me nonetheless despite the efforts of Mr. Simms to

be as vigorous as the one he is replacing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will not tolerate that Mr.

Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

On the subject of fees, Mr. Minister, Mr. Simms was

asking about the fees for registration, and your explanation was that the basic

fee went up from $10 to $50 and, of course, this has had a big effect on some

single documents that have to be registered whether they be releases or

whatever, and in some cases it may be four or five releases or quick claim deeds

or tidying up some of our pretty nasty titles that we have around. It strikes me

that was a fairly big increase for the single documents that may be deeds of

confirmation or whatever. In some case it could be four or five of these things

having to be registered with one title and that struck me as a rather serious

increase. I know there was a problem with the lack of notice. I think the

Minister was trying to explain when Mr. Simms was questioning that that would be

cleared up by putting a grandfather type clause on older releases. So, that

strikes me as a very big increase there, 400 per cent or whatever, a four times

increase for these minor deeds, if we can call them that.

In another area of fees, one of my colleagues at

the Bar sent me a list of all the fees that were increased, the old and the new,

which I do not have with me tonight, but particularly the Sheriff's fees, the

fees for execution and enforcement of judgements. There were a lot of increases

that go there and these end up getting paid. People think they can go ahead and

do these things because nobody will notice these are just legal fees or lawyer's

fees. But, in the area of collections, if the court is involved or the lawyer is

involved in collection from debtors, it is the debtor, the poor old fellow or

person who cannot pay his debts who gets nailed with these fees ultimately

because they are all tacked onto the bill.

MR. DICKS: Or the rich old age person who will

not.

MR. HARRIS: Or the rich old person who will

not. I think it is probably fair to say that the people you are chasing after

with collections are not the rich old people who will not pay their bills. If

you get to that extent, where you have collection agencies running through and

doing these things, can you justify those increases? They were massive

increases, in some cases from $2.00 to $50.00. For example, $2.00 to $40.00 for

execution orders, fee increases of that nature that were nominal before but are

now substantial.

MR. DICKS: In calling them nominal you put your

finger on the point. I think they were nominal and they were not increased for

twenty years or more, and I think they did not reflect the cost of the Sheriff's

office in carrying out these functions. As you know to properly do an execution

order on a house you have to go out and attach it to the premises and so on. I

know the Sheriff's office searches were increased from $2.00 to $25.00, but we

changed that. Remember how you would do it, $2.00 for each name? I used to go

back three years, or whatever, and now it is not $2.00 to $25.00 because it

might be $6.00 to $25.00, for example, because it is on one particular property.

The execution orders went from $5.00 to $25.00, so I think to start with, the

fees were reasonably low. The justification for it in my view is that the

Sheriff's office, and you may see it less in St. John's, but when I practised in

Corner Brook if I had to close a transaction today I would call the Sheriff's

office in St. John's and they would not give me a Sheriff's certificate as of

today. They would only give it to me when they received the letter. What I would

have to do to close the transaction that day was to get the deed into St. John's

and register it. I had several instances where between the time you tried to get

your deed registered and the time you got the Sheriff's certificate a execution

order may have been issued. In fact I got caught on one transaction like that

myself so there is a difference as to where you practice in the Province as to

what it is. If there is a justification for the fee increases what it is, is, we

have put a lot of money into computerizing the Sheriff's office and we are

getting to the point where you can walk into Corner Brook or other parts of the

Island and have immediate entry to the computer and get a read-out of all the

ones on the Island. It was generally easier in St. John's because the Sheriff's

office in St. John's kept record of the ones that were outside but did not work

the other way. In Corner Brook, and in Gander you did not have access to the

ones in here. I think they are substantial increases but they reflect the fact

that over the years they were not increased. For instance, at the time we did

this we did an analysis in Wisconsin where they charged $12.00 to $15.00 to do a

search and we were still charging $2.00 and we were bringing in new computer

equipment and so on like that.

MR. HARRIS: Is the fee set now on a cost

recovery basis, or user pay basis? Is that the theory or is it still a service

in other words?

MR. DICKS: It still is a service. We will

collect revenue of $425,000 from the Sheriff's office and this year we are

allocating $755,700, so it is approximately a little better than 50 per cent,

perhaps 60 per cent, so it is still not completely recovering the cost of the

Sheriff's office.

MR. HARRIS: But that includes the cost now of

the Sheriff serving jury lists or serving jury summonses for criminal trials and

all other aspects of the Sheriff's office?

MR. DICKS: It does. That is right, which, by

the way, is also a service to the Bar. They are not charged for that. If you

elect a trial by judge and jury the defendant is not charged for doing that.

MR. HARRIS: I would have to disagree there is a

service to the Bar.

MR. DICKS: The service is to the public.

MR. HARRIS: I suspect that it is a service to

the accused who is entitled to a jury trial.

MR. DICKS: The point I am making is that when

you speak in terms of service and cost recovery I think you have to take it as a

public service and not only as a service to the individuals who are going to use

it at any particulare point in time.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, that is what I say. The whole

administration of justice requires this type of activity and -

MR. DICKS: Sure, and the public benefits from

that as well.

MR. HARRIS: Why are you picking on St. John's

in terms of cost recovery of policing services? I mean, one is symbolic I

suppose, the traffic cop down on the corner of Prescott and Duckworth. But the

Regatta, for example. Surely crowd control, if there are thousands of people

together for whatever the event is, the policing of that event and the policing

services, we are not talking here about directing traffic. We are talking about

crowd control. The fact that there is a massive number of people together may

require a little bit more of a police presence. And why should that be a

municipal cost as opposed to the general cost of delivery of policing services?

Law and order, if you will, or generally keeping public safety and security at

events or where people gather for whatever reason.

MR. DICKS: Well, if I could... I'm sorry, are

you finished (Inaudible)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: To start with, we are not picking on

St. John's, this is a Province wide policy. The only thing that was unique in

St. John's was the traffic cop at the Prescott Street intersection. And frankly

if we are going to do it at the Prescott Street intersection we should do the

West Street in Corner Brook, Main Street in Stephenville, and - what is the main

street in Grand Falls, High Street? If you are going to do it there for St.

John's you should do it for every municipality. And not only that, but St.

John's has sixteen or fifteen municipal enforcement officers And you do not need

a PhD to direct traffic. It is not something that is made out and should not

result in any additional -

MR. HARRIS: That is a slur on Frank Miller.

MR. DICKS: Oh no, Frank was an exceptional

individual. But what I am saying to you is that any person could be trained to

direct traffic at the Prescott Street intersection. So what I am saying is that

it has been seen or been portrayed by certain people as additional cost to the

City of St. John's and it is not that. What we said to them was if you for some

reason want the Constabulary to continue to do it we would have to recover our

costs. Because we cannot justify doing it for one municipality and not the

others. So our suggestion was that they can train - they have their own people

on staff whom they can train. So there is no need for the municipality to incur

additional cost. So from that point of view, yes, that was a particular measure

in St. John's, but that was only because St. John's is the only area in which it

was provided. And I do not see that taxpayers in the rest of the island should

subsidize municipal traffic direction in St. John's.

The second thing is that the item of police cost

recovery is an item that is Province wide, that is not only St. John's. For

instance, it applies to a rock concert in Grand Falls and festivals elsewhere in

the island. But you have to recognize that there are a number of criteria before

we apply that policy. The first is that the event must be revenue generating. So

if something is being done for which there is no charge there will be no charge

if there is extra cost of policing. Note I do not say that it is profitable,

that it has to show profit, but is revenue generating. So there is an ability to

collect money toward it.

The second thing is that... revenue generating....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The other thing too is it is only

our additional costs of policing. It is not our regular staff that we have on on

any given day. St. John's will benefit from this because with our shift changes

at the RNC we will probably have an increase from thirty members on during the

day to approximately forty-eight, because we are shifting them from the back

shift at night to the day time. So as of yet we have not quite determined what

if any additional cost there would be.

Now as for crowd control: I would expect that our

crowd control could probably be maintained by our normal complement of police

but last year for example we had to recall eighty police officers on overtime

and double time to come in, and what a lot of them were doing is standing at

barricades for most of the day saying go here go there. These are the sorts of

things that could be done by volunteers. Part of what this will do is have

groups address what is really a police service. The other thing too is that when

you are not paying for something it is very easy to demand or expect that you

will be given this, that or the other thing but at the same time I think some of

these services now people have to look at and say because we had to pay the

police to do it perhaps we can provide it ourselves or volunteers will do it

more efficiently.

MR. HARRIS: One final question: The Public

Utilities Commission in its late hearings would attract interveners and these

interveners mostly did not have funding for representation. I know the

Federation of Municipalities used to have Mr. Hutchings in Corner Brook for many

years and Noel Clarke and others, I did some occasionally myself over the last

couple of years. I notice you have the office of the consumer advocate here in

your Justice Estimates on page 231 with no salary unit but professional services

of $85,000, is that to pay people to act as interveners or is that something

else?

MR. DICKS: No. I can probably clear that up. At

the time this was looked at that amount really should have been in salaries.

What we intend to do is to hire a consumer advocate representative and we have

in fact in the past week or so conducted interviews for people to apply for

that. But that figure should be moved up into Salaries and should not have come

under Professional Services.

MR. HARRIS: My point was going to be that is

not something you can do on an adhoc basis you do have to have some expertise

and experience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr.

Harris.

Mr. Simms.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Getting back to some questions asked by the Member

for LaPoile on Purchased Services, 1.1.01.06, page 213, the Minister's Office,

Purchased Services 90/91; $4,700 budgeted, revised $10,200. On what was that

spent?

MR. DICKS: I do not know exactly. That was

Purchased Services, for example: when we took office, the amount of purchased

services was cut dramatically. For instance the previous Minister, in her last

year spent $12,000 in purchased services; when we took office we reduced it

significantly. That pays for things like meals when you have to entertain

people, meetings that you have to arrange when you are travelling, conferences

and things like that, so it is a mixed bag of different things, but that figure

is significantly below in most departments what was spent or allocated by the

previous Government.

MR. SIMMS: But it is also three times almost

what you budgeted?

MR. DICKS: Yes, and $2,000 below what was

spent.

MR. SIMMS: So, why would that have been?

MR. DICKS: I beg your pardon?

MR. SIMMS: Why would it have tripled?

MR. DICKS: It was an estimate that was not

realistic.

MR. SIMMS: And this year you have estimated

$4,700 again?

MR. DICKS: I beg your pardon?

MR. SIMMS: I said this year you have estimated

$4,700 again, even though the last time it was not realistic?

MR. DICKS: Well considering that allocation,

frankly it is unrealistic as well. Look, some Ministers do not because of the

nature of their portfolios, but other Ministers are called on to entertain, have

more meetings and travel more. In fact this year my travel is up significantly

because of the RCMP negotiations; I had trips to Vancouver, Ottawa and so on.

These are the best estimates that the Department does, if anything, we have been

excessively modest in determining what amounts are appropriate.

Frankly, my own estimate is the whole thing should

be about $12,000 if a Minister is going to do a lot of travelling, and going to

have a lot of meetings out of the Province in particular, and if you are going

to have meetings here as well.

MR. SIMMS: Sorry. Did the Minister say the

estimate should be $12,000 and not $4,700?

MR. DICKS: Yes, you know it is a blanket, it is

an allocation for the Department and if you look at all the ones between the

different departments - you see these are not ones that I particularly make up

myself, but it is almost similar for all the other departments.

If you look at when the previous Government was in

power, I mean significantly more was spent that we have spent. I frankly do not

think that $4,700 is all that realistic.

MR. SIMMS: I notice the Minister keeps coming

back to the previous Administration, but of course that is not the question I

asked; why was it tripled, that is the question, simple and straightforward, why

would it be tripled?

MR. DICKS: Why would it be tripled? It was

estimated as I said, because the estimate was unrealistically low.

MR. SIMMS: So does that mean this year's

estimate is unrealistic then in that area?

MR. DICKS: Yes, in my view. The other thing to

do is, to generally look at the Budget of the Province as a whole -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not tripled, but roughly

doubled.

MR. DICKS: It is roughly doubled, yes, doubled.

MR. SIMMS: Two and a half.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: So the Minister said this estimate

is unrealistic; I wonder, are there any other estimates in his Department that

he thinks are unrealistic or is it just that one?

MR. DICKS: It depends, in the course of the

year you see, what is estimated at the outset of the year is different from what

happens during the course of the year. For instance, if you look at the RCMP, if

we get a contract we have allocated the same for this year, that could be

anywhere from three to five to ten million dollars higher, depending on what the

final outcome is, so, if you go through it item by item, it could be as well.

The same thing with purchased services for legal

services and so on like that. You have to recognized that they are estimates and

you know -

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Well of course we saw an

example of that in last year's Budget, the estimate was a $10 million surplus

and it ended up with a $120 million deficit, so I guess it can happen as you

say.

MR. DICKS: Yes, but you will notice that last

year was the first time that the Department of Justice came in on budget-

MR. SIMMS: There were l4 other departments that

did not follow your lead.

MR. DICKS: In any event, I take some pride, and

I speak for the people who are here, last year was the first year the Department

of Justice, in living memory, came in on budget, and the first time in living

memory it did not have to go back for a special warrant, which is unusual and I

do not say we will do it again this year. I take absolutely no credit for that.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of

other questions.

What is the status on the gun issue for the RNC? Is

that up in the air now because of the negotiations or anything? Was there

suppose to be some kind of a trade-off, as I recollect, in the negotiations?

What is exactly happening on the gun issue? You know the one I am talking about,

without elaborating.

MR. DICKS: There is no trade-off. We do not

trade guns for money or anything like that. We are not in that type of business.

What happens with the police force is that you have to do an ongoing evaluation

of what is necessary for the security of the public and the members themselves.

There was an arbitration this year dealing with salary negotiations and other

things. One of the issues that comes up every time we get in discussions with

the RNC, as you know, is whether or not they should carry side arms and have

total access to firearms. The last time the RNC put it on the table the

arbitrator said: I do not have jurisdiction to deal with that. That has to be a

policy matter for Government. He made some general recommendations

notwithstanding, that is to increase the number of cars that would be available

in which weapons would be sealed in the trunk. If my memory serves me correctly

I think we had roughly three vehicles that were there and that was increased to,

he said, seven or eight. We reviewed the whole thing and what we decided was

that we probably should equip each vehicle. If you are going to have seven or

eight and you have eighteen vehicles, or fifteen vehicles on shift you may as

well have them all. These are street patrol vehicles, by the way, and not just

the ordinary vehicles that are used. The arbitrator required as well that we

provide the police with bulletproof vests, kelvar, these lightweight things. It

has nothing to do with the monetary issue. The police will not carry side arms

but it is something we have to look at and I would not rule it out. At some

point or other we may have to do it, depending on the level of violent crime.

MR. SIMMS: So, is it done now then? Do they

have the guns they are suppose to have in the cars?

MR. DICKS: I do not think we have gotten them

in yet. We do not have all the bulletproof vests, but in another week or so we

hope to have the weapons available.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister is also responsible for

consumer affairs, of course. We have not really touched on that area tonight but

I have a question, perhaps of a parochial nature, but perhaps I will be

permitted to ask anyway. It is very unusual for me to do that. The Department

closed out the Consumer Affairs offices at Grand Falls and Goose Bay, I believe,

but certainly Grand Falls is one I am familiar with. I want to ask the Minister

if he can give me some statistical information. I do not know if he has it at

his fingertips. If not, maybe he can table it under Answers to Questions in the

House tomorrow, or something like that. It seems to me I recollect a couple of

years ago, when the previous administration was there, that there was a study

done at the time by the Senior Expenditure Review Committee and in that study my

recollection was that if there was a Consumer Affairs office to have closed in

central Newfoundland the one that had the less activity was the one located in

Gander as opposed to the one located in Grand Falls. Therefore the Minister

would understand my surprise when the announcement was made that the Grand Falls

office would close. In fact I am researching it now, because I think I have a

copy of that report, which showed that information. At the time the previous

administration decided not to close either office. If the Minister has some

stats, or some information that shows comparably why one office or the other

would have been closed I would appreciate hearing it.

That is a representation from the Member, I guess,

as well as the Committee. While he is flicking through that, if he would like,

under Consumer Affairs, and I might as well stick with a couple of questions I

have under Consumer Affairs which he is also responsible for. Some time ago I

think there was some kind of an indication given, either by the Minister or his

colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, that the Government was considering

bringing in some method for controlling, or regulating, gasoline prices in the

Province. I presume they are working together on it or something. Maybe he could

tell me where that is now because it seems to me that was quite a while ago, a

considerable while ago as a matter of fact. And the other question I wanted to

quickly ask is the consumer's advocate on PUB that Mr. Harris referred to; how

long has that position been vacant now? Anybody know offhand?

MR. DICKS: Do you want me to answer all three

questions in that order?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, okay.

MR. DICKS: The Consumer Affairs offices: part

of what happened was the Department had to save funds. In the normal course of

things no one likes to close out an office or diminish service, and it was an

unfortunate aspect we had to choose in our Consumer Affairs department where we

would save money. We felt that the only thing we could do in the central

Newfoundland area was consolidate on a regional basis. And if my memory serves

me correctly the person in Grand Falls had retired. But the analysis that was

done showed that there was more activity at the Gander office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, I should have that available.

Ed, can you have it ready for me to table tomorrow? Yes, it is no problem, I

will get you those figures. The second thing is, on regulating gas prices, the

Minister of Energy and I have met with the oil companies on a number of

occasions. We have had our staff working on it, we have a paper that is going to

go to Cabinet dealing with various alternatives as to what if any regulation

might be appropriate.

The third thing, office of Consumer Advocate: The

office has never been vacant because the office was only created in the PUB Act

last year. What happened was there was a consumer representative appointed as a

commissioner of the Board of Public Utilities. So there never was a consumer

advocate as such.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) other guy in the

Department (Inaudible) after Andy Wells.

MR. DICKS: No, we hired Brian Casey to

represent the Department on an ad hoc basis until we are able to fund the

office.

MR. SIMMS: So when did he retire from the

position (Inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: No, he did not retire. We just hired

him on an agency basis to do a hearing, to appear on one hearing.

MR. SIMMS: One case?

MR. DICKS: One case, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, so since you created the

position there has been nobody in the position, is that the - ?

MR. DICKS: That is right.

MR. SIMMS: And that is about a year?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SIMMS: Oh. You said last year.

MR. DICKS: The PUB Act was passed last summer,

I believe it was, I am not sure when it was proclaimed. There was no consumer

advocate position, it was established by statute. And if my memory serves me

correctly it may have gone through last June. I am not sure when the

proclamation date was. June, was it? Anyway, some time last year. I would have

to check.

MR. SIMMS: So it is nearly a year.

MR. DICKS: It is nearly a year. No, it may have

been earlier. I am trying to think. The appointment of Gordon MacDonald expired

February 15. Maybe it was January or February of last year. But in any event, we

intend to fill that position.

The other thing to recognize is that we have been

trying to balance the timing of it. Because the other thing too is that the

activity at the Public Utilities Board has decreased significantly because of

the lessening of jurisdiction, and the absence of jurisdiction now, over

Newfoundland Telephone. It is basically now only Newfoundland Light and Power.

There will not be another hearing until the fall. But at the same time we expect

the consumer advocate to intervene at hearings of the CRTC on cable

applications, possibly, and telephone applications and so on like that. So I

guess to sum it all up, there has been a moderate - it is not the most urgent

thing on our agenda. We are looking at our overall salary estimates to see when

the best time to fill it is. But I expect we will have it filled within the next

month or month and a half.

MR. SIMMS: How many staff are down there by the

way at PUB now?

MR. DICKS: PUB? There are two full time

commissioners. Mr. MacDonald retired, we will have to appoint a third. There

were six part time positions of which we have filled four. One has retired so

there are three. They are just used as required. And beyond that I do not know -

MR. SIMMS: Staffing.

MR. DICKS: Staffing, yes. How many more staff

do we have at PUB?

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of them were transferred

to the Transportation (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: A number of the ones who were down

there were transferred over to Transportation because of changes in the Motor

Carrier Act. And I am not entirely sure. Is it six or nine? Does that number

sound right? Fraser, do you have the number there? We can get that number for

you.

MR. SIMMS: My point is, Mr. Minister, if it is

between six and nine for argument sake or whatever it is, and you have just said

yourself that a lot of their jurisdiction has been transferred elsewhere, do

they need that many staff down there? That is the question that would pop into

anybody's mind, I suppose, especially if you were looking at areas of saving.

MR. DICKS: Also, the consumer advocate will not

be attached to the PUB. It will be funded through the PUB but it will be in the

Department of Justice, Consumer Affairs Division, so that we can use that person

for other things such as other rate applications in other agencies or agency

hearings. The only thing about the PUB that you should not underestimate is the

amount of activity may not be all that great but the importance of what it does

is significant to all the rate payers of the Province. So, we have to balance

off the need for staff against the need to have those staff there when they are

required to have experienced people on these rate hearings.

You may be right there may be room for some

diminishment there but as of this point no one has made a case for it to me. I

understand that the study is under way on the staffing and that Treasury Board

and Justice are looking at it.

MR. SIMMS: Just one final question, Mr.

Chairman, thank you for your patience but this is an interesting and important

area. It is much better to deal with them tonight rather than have the Minister

and his staff come back another night. There is no real need of that if we can

deal with it tonight.

The Minister talked about philosophically, I guess,

earlier in a discussion with my colleague the Member for Ferryland about

perception. I think it is fair to say, now he may not agree with this, that the

perception out there is that the idea of having a consumers advocate as a public

servant within the Department of Justice, Consumers Affairs Division, could

easily give people the impression that that public servant will be taking orders

somehow or another from the director, ADM, or DM and ultimately the Minister.

You know the way the system works. If that individual is meant to be there to

represent independently the views of consumers, is there a better place to have

him or her placed as opposed to within the Department? I know that has been an

argument made by politicians but I am just wondering if it is not a reasonably

sensible perceptive argument, I do not know. Personally, I am not sure in my own

mind, but I think there is some room for doubt.

MR. DICKS: You have raised a good question. The

problem as I see it is that there is a need for the public to have confidence

that the consumer advocate will be free to make representations at the hearings

that are independent of any particular governmental influence. So, there is that

element to it. The type of hearings we are talking about are not ones where the

Government will have a vested interest necessarily in subjecting the person to

influence. For instance, what would Government gain by trying to influence him

or her if they are going to appear before a rate hearing for Avalon Cable

Television or A1 or whatever it is called, or Newfoundland Telephone and so on

like that, but there is an element of that in it.

The other concern is that because there are a very

few number of hearings down at the PUB someone has to bear the responsibility of

direction. In other words, should we leave it to the consumer advocate himself

or herself to determine when they are going to intervene or when they are not

going to intervene? So, someone has to have direct concern and say: look we want

you to do this to intervene at this hearing or that one and also keep control of

the budget as well. But you get someone there and they see themselves in a

totally autonomous position and the next thing they are going to Washington, DC

and hiring someone to do a $500,000 study as to the rate structure of this and

that. So, there has to be an element of control and I have thought about that

and at this point I feel comfortable with leaving the person rather than putting

the person at the PUB, where he would be subject to some regulation there as

well, I think the direction really would be best in the Department of Consumer

Affairs. Now, if that is a wrong judgement, that can be changed at some point in

the future, but I feel comfortable with that for the time being at least.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Well thank you very much,

Mr. Minister. I think it might be appropriate now that we have a ten minute

break for coffee. The Government common room is to my left. Yes, it is the room

that was build by the previous Administration for themselves, it is rather

luxurious to say the least, so we will break now for ten minutes.

RECESS

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much and welcome back

after that short recess.

I would now like to give the opportunity to Mr.

Aylward.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just

have one question relevant to the monitoring of the insurance related agencies

in the Province.

A number of months ago, I believe, I had some

discussions with the Minister concerning the monitoring and regulations

governing insurance and related companies.

It has been brought to my attention by a couple of

constituents that they have experienced problems with seeking medical disability

pensions with private insurance companies. There seem to be problems in the

sense of distinguishing whether or not the claim was being accepted or not by

the company and there were problems of lack of retro-active pay once the

decision was formed and other similar problems. It really made it difficult for

individuals who are in a very vulnerable position once they have had an accident

and are supposed to be covered. They ended up having to get into a legal battle

to find their way through and to get their proper compensation. I believe you

were reviewing it and looking at possible changes and looking at the

implications, so maybe, you can comment on that, if it is possible. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Aylward. Mr.

Minister?

MR. DICKS: Yes. I guess the difficulty most people

have with insurance companies is that until you try to collect on a policy, you

do not know how good or bad or fair your insurance company is and it is one of

the most difficult things in practice. The law has tried to collect money from

insurers when they do not want to pay.

It is a very difficult problem, but let me just say

that the thing we are trying to do with insurance law across the country, is

maintain model acts and uniform regulations and so on. Most provinces are a

little careful about getting out of step with what the other provinces are doing

in terms of uniform regulation, the main reason being that the policies apply

generally across the country and have the same rules that apply in them.

But I am not sure that I fully understood what your

question was directed to. If you meant the difficulty of getting insurance

companies to pay up when the person feels he has legitimate claim, or if it was

the amount of benefits that are prescribed by the standard policy, say for an

automobile insurance and so on.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The point that was identified to

me was that provinces differ as for example, the requirement for retro-active

payments. If you were pursuing legally to get your claim approved, the insurance

company, once it is found that, yes the claim is medically valid, in some

instances in some provinces, the insurance company has to pay retro-actively,

but in other provinces they do not. That has just been brought to my attention

and I do not know whether or not that is something you are familiar with or not.

MR. DICKS: My recollection is that your

entitlement to benefits and damages starts from the time of the accident. That

is generally the rule across the country, and if you made your claim within that

period of time. Where people run into problems sometimes is that the insurance

policy, say in the case of automobile insurance policies, provide limits. One

notorious example, I suppose, is that you are given $35.00 a week, I believe is

the limit, for lost income, income supplement, or whatever, and have prescribed

amounts if you lose an arm or leg, this sort of thing. Other than that, the fact

of trying to collect from an insurance company, having to sue them, and that

sort of thing, is very difficult. Again, you can come back to a point of

process, the onus is on the person who claims to have been injured and who wants

to claim from an insurance company to prove that the accident was the fault of

the person who carried the insurance, the general agent. By and large insurance

companies will, for the most part, refuse to pay out monies until such time as

you take them to court, which makes it very difficult for some plaintiffs who

find that the court process is slow. They are losing income, or they do not have

the means to earn it because of an accident, and the insurance companies, in my

view, often use it as a means to get leverage to get individuals to settle for

less than what they might get if they went to court. Other than the fact that

the system is there, there is very little protection and most people are better

off taking their claims to court - at least the court will force the insurance

company to come to terms with whatever amount it is ultimately prepared to

settle for. From the legislative point of view there is not a lot we can do to

force insurance companies to pay out without having it adjudicated by a court

first. Then of course if it goes to court there are a lot of things that follow

in terms of being able to collect from an insurance company, segregation of

claims and so on, like that. The only other system that has been tried is the

no-fault insurance system. I believe it was brought in in Manitoba some time

ago, and in the States, and Ontario was looking at bringing in a very, very

complicated system. I am not sure if that ever got off the ground. BC was the

first one to do that type of thing, when Barrett was in there, the NDP. It has

gotten very mixed reviews and at this point we are not considering bringing in a

no-fault insurance scheme whereby we would substitute, for the most part

Government insurance for private insurance. I am not convinced that the benefits

of no-fault insurance are such that you would eliminate all the evils associated

with private insurance industry, such as it is.

MR. K. AYLWARD: In most cases insurance companies

pay what they are suppose to pay, and they pay out, but you are seeing

increasingly more private individuals who are taking our disability insurance

for their own protection and it can become more of a concern in the next little

while. It has been identified to me as a difficult situation to tackle but one

that I just want to make you aware of.

MR. DICKS: You are right. I think it is a real

problem for anybody who is injured in an accident, the length of time it takes

to acquire benefits. The problem is it is difficult to deal with it because

there is a presumption in the counterpart of the criminal principle that you are

innocent until proven guilty, and until a claim is litigated and you are judged

to be at fault you do not have an obligation to pay as such, so the insurance

companies stand behind that.

MR. RAMSAY: May I, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: I have just a few quick questions. I

wonder why the new act to amend the Queen's Council Act did not abolish the

Queen's Council designation as it has in other jurisdictions? I will not get

anywhere with the lawyers with that one. Secondly, as to the matter of

paralegals: I just wondered what if anything is happening in that area in the

Province today?

Thirdly, The Insurance Agents, Adjustors and Brokers

Act which was passed through the Legislature back in 1987 or 1986 and has yet to

be proclaimed with regulations, I wondered where that is in the system?

MR. DICKS: QCs, I guess there is a divergence of

opinion as to whether or not they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. Someday Jack you may join us.

No, it is matter of distinction. I suppose, it depends

upon your view of society and whether or not you think there should be any

honours whatsoever accorded to individuals. So I suppose someone could make a

case that you should abolish QCs, should abolish the Order of Canada, as we did

away with knighthoods and that kind of thing, and abolish the use of the word

honourable for Cabinet Ministers and all those sort of nonsensical views. You

can make a case issue to abolish the QCs. I think there will come a point in

time that if the people who receive them are not worthy of the honour or if it

is done blatantly and politically, if you debase the coinage that you are using

then, of course, it becomes meaningless and people do not see the benefit of it.

MR. RAMSAY: Certain people would be given the QC

title, is that the kind of thing that you imply?

MR. DICKS: Yes. Well, I guess, the bottom line is

that I do not think it has been so abused in Newfoundland that it has become

meaningless and that we should do away with it. But on the other hand I do not

think people pick a lawyer because he or she has a QC and figure that they are

smarter or better than others. Although in England it is interesting that a QC

can charge more and you need a QC to conduct a murder trial, for example, and

stuff like this; so it has very important implications in England but we do not

have them here. All you do here is that you end up sitting at a different table

perhaps and wearing a silk gown and that kind of thing. You can make arguments

both ways but I am not convinced that it adds anything to a lawyer's income

although it looks nice after their names. At this point in time, I have not been

persuaded that we should abolish it in Newfoundland but I really do not have my

mind set on it one way or the other.

Paralegals: a lot of law firms use them for in-office

work. I suppose you can say some of the RCMP prosecutors are paralegals and I

think there was one fellow here in St. John's seven years ago who wanted to

appear in traffic court. I forget what happened. I think we allowed him to, did

we not?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, he has been applying to the court

to do it.

I guess there is no legislation governing it; they are

a fact of life, law firms use them and anybody who works in a law office or say

in the Department of Justice is in some sense a paralegal because you are

required to have a particular knowledge. I am not so sure there is a legitimate

area in Newfoundland where we would want to licence them to give them rights to

certain things that lawyers do. I am not really sure if that is what you are

getting at in terms of the question, Mr. Ramsay.

But paralegals exist and beyond that I guess there is

not a lot we can say as to whether or not there should be additional rights

given to people who are not lawyers as such.

The third question was: Insurance Agents, Adjustors

and Brokers Act, that has been on the books. There is one

section we wanted to

get cleared up. We were to Cabinet with it and I suspect it will be proclaimed

in the not too distant future. In fact, we may already have a Cabinet minute

enabling us to proclaim it. But I think we may want to come back to the House on

a clarification as to the extent of liability that one

section imposes on

directors and officers for the acts of each person who is in the brokerage, the

sale of insurance, and its very broad scope liability. I am not really sure if

that is what was intended by the Legislature. But what it essentially provides

is that any person who is a director of a corporation will be liable for every

act of negligence and everything else of any person who is acting in the name of

the brokerage.

MR. RAMSAY: Was that adjusted because of the

Rideout case, possibly?

MR. DICKS: No, it has nothing to do with that. The

Rideout case posed a different set of problems in terms of regulation of estate

planners which no other jurisdictions have come to terms with yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: The question of the registration of

deeds came up a little earlier this year in the context of the fees being

raised, and one of your back bench colleagues offered the opinion that the real

problem was that members of the legal profession were charging a lot of money to

people for certifications of titles.

Now it was made obviously as a political swipe at me

and the members of the bar, but the member did have a serious point and I have

in fact taken it up with him, and the question that I have is: has the

Department given any consideration and will it have a look at the registration

system that we have, with a view to making it a little bit more efficient, not

from the point of view of computerization which is progressing and I would not

say apace, it is progressing at a slow pace, but from the point of view of

providing a point at which at least a title is certified and some how or other a

lawyer does not have to go in and do it all over again; that if a lawyer for

example, has certified title to a particular property, that somehow or other,

that certification either sticks to that lawyer or the insurance system covers

it so that if another purchaser comes along he does not have to pay a different

lawyer the same amount of money as the last one got, to say yes, to the mortgage

company, yes, this is good title; that perhaps if a member of the bar certifies

a title, perhaps he could file a certificate with the registration, saying: I

certify this title as a marketable title and that other lawyers or consumers

should be able to rely on that, that is just one idea.

My question is a broader one. Has the Department given

any consideration to our registration system which is a rather ancient and

cumbersome one? Is there any consideration being given to some way of making it

less expensive for people to transfer land?

MR. DICKS: I do not know if we are so concerned

about making it less expensive for people transferring land per se, as making

sure that our registration system is an appropriate one for the Province. I do

not think that the expense of transferring land is undue when you consider the

transfer taxes in other jurisdictions.

People say: well our registration fees are higher and

such and such and they do not realize the fact that there are registration fees

or, that instead of registration fees in other jurisdictions, you have land

transfer taxes, but on that, we are open to suggestions as to the improvement of

the system and if any thing in that improvement would enable us to save cost,

then that may be something we could look at, reducing the cost of our fee

system.

The other problem to which you alluded is an

interesting one and that is to do with certifications. The problem with it is,

as every lawyer knows, something you certified ten years ago which was

marketable then, and no one is accepting it now. There is nothing more

embarrassing then to have someone call you about a file you did ten years ago

and now you have to go back and explain why you now have to do new work on it.

The worst thing about that is, I do not ever see a point at which we probably

would be able to have a certificate system on which every one could rely on when

one of the judges of the Supreme Court some years ago set aside a Quieting of

Titles certificate on the basis that the affidavit was not correct. And I think

at one point I always believed that if a certificate of Quieting of Title was

filed with the Registry that you did not even have to search beyond that point.

And once one is set aside that opens the floodgates. So the judge in question -

who shall remain nameless - was heard to remark after, he was wondering why the

hell he had ever done it to start with, because of all the issues it raised.

But one thing they have in Florida I am told is that

you can actually insure the title through a separate company. But I think you

would have to find a company that was prepared to do it. And I think the legal

fees down there are diminished. But I am told that for instance you go to

Florida to buy a condominium, you go to see your lawyer. And then you go to

someone else to do the search, and then someone else to - you buy certification

of title or some sort of insurance. We are open to suggestions on it and I do

not say our system is perfect.

But the other alternative is they have out west to

implement a Torrens system. It would probably be a little more difficult here

for us because we do not have that tradition. And what you would have to do -

and I know it was discussed some years ago - you would have to first of all have

a comprehensive list of all the property owners and proof of their title, get

them all on cadastral plans and then regulate it down to each individual piece

of land and who owns what. And not having started out that way as they did out

west it is very difficult to try to block it all in now, particularly when you

cannot have any real assurance that the title deeds that are registered are good

title to the property in question.

It is a good idea. It is the easiest system. But to

work back the last 200 years would be difficult.

MR. HARRIS: So what you are saying is that you are

welcome to ideas for improving it as long as it is not too cumbersome. Perhaps

we should -

MR. DICKS: Well, even if it is cumbersome, if

there is a better way of doing it we are open to it. I think the trouble with

the Torrens system is - the Torrens system works because when it started out it

started out with grants based on that Torrens system. And what you do is if you

have a grant to a

section and then someone sells a portion of it, it is all

blocked out and you just go in and you change the - I have done it. I have sent

the deeds off (Inaudible) I forget how it works. There is a land transfer thing,

it is a very short form of conveyance. But here our Province is not mapped out

like that, and you could have two conveyances that do not appear to be related.

And then you find out that they have overlapping surveys or something. You know

the problems with our registry system.

MR. HARRIS: No, the Torrens system basically

decides who owns this particular piece -

MR. DICKS: And you block it in.

MR. HARRIS: - whoever is the registered owner of

that piece of land is it, no matter who is on it or whatever.

MR. DICKS: Well, Lynn may have some thoughts

because you had a substantial practice. Lynn, what are your thoughts on it?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I am a bit stale at this point to

be honest with you on the various systems. But your notion of tagging on to

solicitors who have already certified, I do not think works for a lot of

reasons. Not the least of which is professional liability insurance and one's

professional relationship with people that deal with you. I just cannot imagine

that I would be liable ad infinitum to people that I have never dealt with at a

time that I am not dealing with them. For reasons that Mr. Dicks stated - you

know, standards of practice and all sorts of things.

I have thought about this a lot actually, how you

could improve it. I do not know how you could do it in Newfoundland with the

possessory titles in all honesty. And there are combinations of systems that may

work. I need to read up on the various systems again and refresh my memory. I

had at one point some familiarity.

MR. HARRIS: One of the other suggestions that I

have heard from time to time was that perhaps there ought to be a regulation

that if a landowner or developer is proposing to subdivide a piece of property

into two or more parcels that there be an obligation that the certification of

title be acquired. Because I and anybody who has practised law have seen some

real messes in subdivision - new subdivisions, old subdivisions - trying to sort

out where this actual piece of land was at one time, especially when they are

assembled from various other pieces as well.

And that would be simple - not simple - but something

that could be regulated and require a certificate that would assist a speedier

and more certain title system.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Are you thinking about a

certificate from a court, you mean a - ?

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MS. SPRACKLIN: I see.

MR. HARRIS: To require that the person be a -

MS. SPRACKLIN: A Title Quieting in other words, of

sorts.

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. SPRACKLIN: A Title Quieting certificate, is

that what you were you referring to?

MR. HARRIS: No, a certificate of Quieting

associated with a -

MS. SPRACKLIN: Particular subdivision.

MR. HARRIS: - subdivision or development. That is

another suggestion that I have heard from time to time.

MR. DICKS: The only thing with that, if I may, is

that a certificate of Quieting of Title is only necessary - you know, if it

comes out of a Crown grant for example, if the title is good, I would not see

the sense of requiring every person who wants to subdivide to have to go back to

court to get a certificate of title in respect of land that is obviously clear.

You know, something arising from a Crown grant and so on. I do not know if you

are suggesting that a certificate be obtained in all cases.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I am just, again, there is

another suggestion that had occurred. That you run across these problems

particularly when there is an assembly of land and then a subdivision created.

Where one never necessarily knows exactly where the plot of land you are now

given - especially when it is done in a different surveying system with

different meets and bounds and put on a grid, as opposed to the older grants be

on something else. There seems to be a very cumbersome process.

MR. DICKS: But you know what the problem is? The

problem is not with the registration system, the problem is with the lawyers.

Because what happens, I always found in practice, is that you get someone who

considers themselves a hotshot in real estate practice. So you know, for years

in Corner Brook we had the old subdivision, CMHC subdivisions, lower town site?

And everyone accepted the old conveyances that were basically meets and bounds

descriptions. And then someone decided that that was not good enough. Everyone

knew where the boundaries were and the titles were good but they wanted a new

survey, up to date. And then someone else decided it had to be from a fixed

starting point. So every time the title would change someone would require the

vendor to go out and get a new survey. And you would have to explain why when

you certify a title h