PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Volume 1 Number40 5th Session 34th. General Assembly VERBATIM REPORT THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1971 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABL~ GEORGE W. CLARKE

May 6, 1971 Tape 501 (mornin~) PK - 1 The House met at 11:00 A.M •• Mr. Speaker in the Chair. HON. F •• W. ROWE (MINISTER OF EDUCATION):' Mr. Speaker . I rise on a matter of personal privilege. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks atteropts have been made both inside the House. and outside, to link me personally with a column which appeared in the Daily News on February 20, 1971, entitled "A Column of Liberal Propagenda written by Liberal Propagandists". Here are the facts on this matter: Thie,column appeared while the Honourable the Premier was in Euq,pe and while I was in Central Newfoundland.

It did not, therefore, come to my attention until several days after its publication, and this coincided with the Premier's return to the Province. I i111111ediately contacted the Premier to state that. in my opinion, whoever had written the column must have been drunk or sick , and that I could not be associated with it. The Premier was equally distrubed and. in fact, had already, as Head of the Government, publicly denouneed and repudiated this particular column.

He did this again on a second occasion , thus making it unnecessary for me, and for ot}'.lers of my colleagues, who were equally concerned, to make individual statements on the matter. Mr.

Speaker, when repudication of this kind becomes necessary it ha never been the custom for each individual Minister of the Crown to come out publicly and express his personal feelings on the matter involved, any more, for example, tha~ when .the President of the N.T.A. makes a tatement on N.T.A. policy it then becomes necessary for all the Vice Presidents and the Directors, or other members of the Executive to come out and make individual public statements supporting the President's statement. Apparently the Premier's actions on two distinct occasions have not had the necessary effect.

I deem it my duty, therefore, to state that I did not know the column was being written, I did not know who wrote it and that the Honourable the Premier in denouncing and repadiating the sentiments ezpressed in it did so in my behalf, as well as in behalf of others of my colleagues in the Government. -~--,1 -~ J _. ;:I

May 6, 1971 Tape 501 (1110rnin~) PK - 2 MR. ROWE, F,W. Perhaps, I do not need to add, Mr. Speaker, that columns of this kind are normally written by a large number of individual persons, uny of whom have no direct connection w~th the Government. Such colU111ns . are what they are entitled to be,propaganda statements in behalf of a political party. It is enevitable that such columns will from time to time contain sentiments or opinions which are not necessarily shared by the Government of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I have copies of the statement available for all members of the House and for the press.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RON. H. STARKES: (MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to Question No. 5351 asked by the hon. the member for Fortune Bay. The Question; what work has been done which requires pavement of $78,780.12 on the five mile contract Hermitage towards Harbour Bretao- Road?

The answer, exc~vation of solid rock,~985 cubic yards; excavation of other material U ·,.664 .cubic yards: overall 14~,228 units; clearing 2,582 units; grubbing 4.1108 acres; excavation foundation and other material 22.2 acres; installation of 24 inch pipe forty-two feet; installation of twenty-four inch pipe seventy-two feet. Total payment to contractor $49,936.50. Engineering $3,668.82; other charges,which include the preliminary survey,$25,174.80, the total $78,780.12.

(2) Have surveys been completed on the remainder of the road? The answer is "yes, this is included in the $25,000.

(3) When is it anticipated that tenders will be called f9r the remainder of this road? Now in connection with this, Mr. Speaker, tenders may not be called for the remainder. If the contractor presently working in the area will accept an extension of his present contract at the same units prices, this is what we intend to do. HR. EARLE: Mr. Speaker, on the figures given on the so many cµbic yards and so on.the work that is done; how many miles of rough based road is conatructed1 It was given in cubic ~ards and so on of removal of dirt, how many miles does that cover? MR. STARKES: Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you exactly, I think that at the present moment, he is working on the third mile.

Hay 6, 1971 Tape 501 (morning) Pk - 3 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. EARLE: Before we ~o to Orders of the Day, May I direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Financer In view of the present monetary situation in Europe,where there is a run on American dollars, has the Government taken the precaution of buying forward Deutschemarks at the current rate to protect our loans, the cost of our loans from Germany, which have to be repaid this year? HON. E.S. JONES:(MINISTER OF FINANCE): Yes, Mr. Speaker, MR.

SMALLWOOD: I cannot resist informing the hon. gentleman that __ not only did we do so, but we made the best part of a million dollars profit in doing so. A bit over $1 million, not the best part of $1 million, but a bit over $1 million profit we made yesterday. The Newfoundland Government yesterday made a bit over $1 million profit on the financial transactions that occurred in Europe. Because we had been advised by our financial advisers and we had taken the precaution to obtain the Deutschemarks and made thatta very good profit. HR. EARLE: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, if that is the case, what is the cost - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SMALLWOOD: I do not know the details. ORDERS -OF THE DAY BON. L. R. CURTIS: (MINISTER OF JUSTICE): Order 18. Motion: Second reading of a Bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Education Teachers Pensions Act, 1962." (Bill No. 59) HR. ROWE,(F.W.): Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Education Teachers Pension Act, 1962 is not a very complicated amendment, but it is important in three respects. It will be recalled that the origiil.al Bill seeks to protect the interest of wives and children of pensioners.

This has been done fairly effectively except in one instance, and that is the children of broken marriages. I am sure that everybody realized, everybody feels that the children of broken marriages should not be penalized through accidents entirely beyond their control anynore than the children who are the unfortunate

May 6, 1971 Tape 501 (morning) PK - 4 MR. ROWE: F.W. victims of death on the part of one or both of their parents. So this Amendment here seeks to protect the interest of those children and gives the parent concerned the right to elect, as is the case in other cases, the right to elec~ one of the two schemes available either the three percent or the four percent. That is the first amendment here.

The second amendment is indiditive of the changes that are taking place in our international relations.At one time there was a protection and as a matter of fact there still is at this moment protection for teachers who teach temporarily in other parts of the British Col!llllonwealth. This was brought into effect became thete were schemes of one kind and other whereby teachers from Newfoundland would go to England and teach in exchange or would go to Austriala,theoretically at any rate their rights were protected during their temporary absense.

In recent years, Mr."Speaker, there have been many more international arrangements of this kind, whereby teachers from Canada would go to other non-Commonwealth countries, as cultural exchange programmes or as aid to underdeveloped countries and the like. There has been up until now no protection for such teachers and this amendment seeks to protect them as well.

This is particularly important because you have the Armed Forces.in some cases stationed say in Germany, Canadian Armed Forces in Germany,and among those Canadain Armed Forces the~e would be,by the law of averages,some Newfound­ landers and this would protect any Newfoundland teachers who might ge~ involved in that re~ard.

And, the third amendment of the three principal amendments here, the third one takes cognizance of a new development with regard to the N.T.A. that is the decision of , that body to appoint a permanent salaried president.in the past it is well know that the presidants have been active in teachers or active in the education field. Their rights have been protected. of course, during their temp~rary term of office. Now with ~ -s·1 ~ ;

May 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 1 -- apb MR • ROWE (F • W. ) : this new development the N.T.A. wishes, we,and the Government concur in this, that, in the event that a permanent teacher as has already happened, the principal of one of our West Coast schools has been made the permanent president of the N.T.A., and it is important of course that that gentleman and anyone else so concerned might have his pensiQn rights protected, so that the new president, the permanent president will have the right to make bis contributions in the same way as if he had remained in the teaching profession.

There are perhaps a half dozen or so very minute form,of technical amendments here and there, they are not worth even referring to really, they are the sort of thing that lawyers and others detect after a year or two or three years after the original legislation has been adopted. In some cases, they amount to the placing of a comma, and in s0111e cases the - use of the semi colon. In other words, all these things that lawyers think are important. There may be some questions on these in Committee, and at that point we could deal with them. I have much pleasure Mr. Speaker in moving second reading of this Bill. MR.

CROSBIE1 Mr. Speaker, there does not appear to be anything objectionable in the Bill. I have not had a chance because of the regime we are working under here to compare it with the original Bill, but, the minister has explained it as best he can. There is a point however,,Mr. Speaker, in connection with teachers' pensions that I have stressed in this House before, and that I think should be made again. That is, that the teachers' pensions are contributory.

The teachers,as the minister knows,are r.;· .. contributing persists, Mr. six percent of their salary to their pensions and the Government i Speaker,in taklng the teachers' money, the six percent of their salary,and putting it in the general revenue. If the members of the House will look at the estimates for this year they will see that it is estimated that teachers of Newfoundland are going to pay in $1,200,000.00 in contributions towards their pensions this year. The Government shows that as revenue to the Government 1 on pa~e (7) of the estimates.

In other words, this $1,200,000. in trust funds,are going to go into the general - ~ - ' ) -~ u : ~

May 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 2 - apb revenue for the Government to spend as they wish. This year,according to the estimates,the Government is going to pay out in teachers' pensions, $760,000. and is going to pay out in refunds to teachers $150,000, which means," that the Government, if these estimates are correct,will receive $1,200,000. from the teachers this year and will pay out to teachers as refunds or pensions $910,000. leaving the Government in, and amount of $290,000. Mr. Chairman, we had two Royal Commissions in the last ten, twelve, thriteen years on civil service and teachers' pensions.

Each one of those Royal Commissions reco111111ended that the contributions of the teachers and the contributions of the civil servants be paid into a fund, -. fund from which only the monies contributed could only be used to pay pensions. Both commissions reco111111ended that the Government make an~ equivalent contribution each year to this fund,so that the fund would be available to meet pensions in later years.

In other words, what should be happening this year is that the teachers' $~,200,000. should be matched by $1,200,000. from the Government, should be going into a fund, and the part of the fund not used for pension payments invested and the income used in future years to meet pensions. Instead of that, we have the Government taking the teachers' contributions, it is their money, it is part of their salary, putting it in the general revenue, using it for any purpose whatsoever. It is not restricted to be used for teachers' pensions, and this is entirely wrong.

If the Government will not make a contribution each year to meet this cost, if the Government does not want to do that, at the very least it should put the teachers' contributions into a special trust fund. The same with civil service contributions, ~his years there is $3,300,000, going to be contributed by the civil servants of the Province, $3,300,000. and only $835,000, is going to be spent on public service pensions and retiring gratuities. Death gratuities $10,000., marriage gratuities $55,000., that is about $900,000. so the civil servants of this Province,Mr.

Speaker, are going to contribute this year $3,300,000. and ~- ~ . '° ,., D.;:,

May 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 3 -- apb Morning. the Government is only going to spend $900 thousand of that on civil service pensions, meaning that the Government will retain and use $2,400,000. of the contributions of the civil servants. MR. SMALLl.JOOD (J.R.): Mr. Speaker, to a Point of Order. My Point of Order is. that when an amendment to

an Act is brought before the House for second reading to amend

an Act that already exists, it is quite out of order to discuss the Act, but only the part of the Act that is to be amended, but not the principle of the main Act. Otherwise, the House of course can debate a Bill and make it

an Act. Passed, it becomes the law of the land, and then thereafter, forever, as long as amendments are brought before the House,subsequently, the principle of the Bill · itself can be the Act, not the amending Bill, but the Act. It was settled and disposed of by the House previously,can it then be discussed every time there is an amendment,no matter how minor? A comma, bring in an amending Bill to change a comma, to change a punctuation mark. Any kind of an amendment, and then the Act itself ,passed maybe five years, three years, two years ago, ten years ago, is open for discussion.

This of course is completely,it seems to me, completely contrary to Parliamentary practice and is therefore out of order. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, on that Point of Order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! I think the hon. member for Burin wants to comment. MR. HICKMAN: On that Point of Order Mr. Speaker. It has been my understanding and certainly it has been the practice of this House during the last four or five years, that on second reading of any Bill a pretty wide-ranging debate is permitted. Mr.

Speaker will recall)! am sure very vividly, that at the last sitting of this House there was a Bill introduced bv the hon. the Minister of Education simply to change the name of the Department of Education to the Department of Education and Youth. That is all that was in the Bill, nothing else. The hon.the Premier launched into a great debate on that -,, s-· o ;. '

Hay 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 4 -- apb Moll.11111116- principal Bill just last year. Now Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but what I do ~uggest,~r. Speaker, is that it is not wrong. It was not wrong then, it is not wrong now. How can you possibly debate this Bill without referring to the main Act that is being amended. That is what the Bill is all about. The principle of this Bill, Bill.no. (59),is

an Act further to amend the Education (Teachers' pensions) Act. Surely, if you are going to sensibly debate this Bill then obviously up to this point at least the hon. member for St. John 1 s West has not broken any rule and has not strayed beyond - in fact he has not gone close to straying beyond the rules of and that he is now following. ~!•.~ •. e . that -..... . . permit him, - MR. ROWE (F.W.): Mr. Speaker, on that Point of Order. I recall very well the debate last year to which the hon. gentleman refers. It was an al!N;ndment to two Acts.

It had to be an amendment to two Acts. because it took the Division.of Recreation and Youth and Physical Activities from the Department of Provincial Affairs and transferred them to the Department of Education. The hon. the Premier did speak at some length on that, and be confined himself entirely to the amendment. The amendment was that we would transfer youth with all its implications from one department into education. The hon. ~he Premier spoke on the significance of that transfer.

The idea of linking up youth activities with education with all that meant, 1 would suggeat,Your Ronour,that the hon. the Premier was not breaking the principal which he has just annunciated with regard to amendments when he did discuss that matter at some length last year. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier has risen on a Point of Order. He has cited no authority for Your Honour whatsoever. Whenever an amendment to a piece of legislation is brought before this House, it is quite clear,in my submission,that we can debate the principle of the Bill - the Act which is being amended. Quite clear. MR.

SMALLWOOD: No, no. MR. CROSBIE: In committee we can only debate ••• Z6~'1

May 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 5 apb MR. SMALLWOOD: No. ---- - --- MR. SPEAKER: Order please! MR. CROSBIE: If I can be heard, we can only debate the various clauses u the clauses come up. When a piece of legislation, a Bill is brought before this House to amend any previous Act, we are entitled to discuss the previous Act. MR. SMALLWOOD: No, no. MR. CROSBIE: We are entitled to discuss the principle of it. MR. SMALLWOOD: Not in this case. MR. CROSBIE: The Premier does not want to hear about the contributions he is taking into the general revenue. In this case,Mr.

Speaker, we are discussing pensions, teachers' pensions. We are discussing increasing certain benefits for those pensions, and I am discussing the fact that these teachers are contributing 11100ey to the treasury and it is not going into a trust fund. It is quite relevant, even to this amendment. I submit to Your Honour that the Point of Order should be overruled. MR. SMALLWOOD: Before Your Honour rules,may I remiad the House and Your Honour that this Bill now before the Bouse has a principle, that the Act ••• MR. CROSBIE: What is it? Tell us what it is. MR.

SMALLWOOD: That the ~ct hacl a principle, and what is before the House is not the principle of the Act, but the principle of this Bill. MR. CROSBIE: That is right. MR. SMALLWOOD: In debating this Bill we are not permitted by all the rules, and every ruling that any Speaker has ever made in any House ••• MR.. CROSBIE: Cite one, cite one, Where are they? MR. SMALLWOOD: In hundreds they have been made. MR. CROSBIE: Oh yes, sure. MR. SMALLWOOD: Ah, be quiet! MR. CROSBIE: It is a ••• MR. SMALLWOOD: The rulings have been made •••

May 6, 1971, TApe 502, Page 6 -- apb Morning. MR. SPEAKER: I can only listen to one person at a time. MR. SMALLWOOD: The rulings have been made,Mr. Speaker,times beyond number, that when an amending Bill is before the House it is out of order to discuss the principle of the Act which it would amend, unless there is a Bill brought before the House to amend that principle, to repeal the Act for example, or to change the principle altogether of the Act. When a simple amendment is brought in, it is entirely wrong to discuss the principle of the Act itself. This Bill does not change the principle of the Act. MR.

CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House five years and I have never yet heard this ruling, of which ther~ has . been hundreds the Premier says, that you cannot discuss the principle of a Bill when an amendment is before the House. It has never been ruled in :.this House. MR. SMALLWOOD: The principle of

an Act. MR. CROSBIE: The hon. the Premier does not cite any authority for it. He has not cited Beauchesne or any other Parliamentary authority to that effect. MR SPEAKER: Before the hon. the Premier goes on with this Point of Order, I was about to interject and have asked the Clerk if he would be good enough to pass me . a copy of the Bill.

As I see it - and I have said this before - it is plainly laid down in the rules and precedents that,when there is a piece of amending legislation before the Bouse, reference can be made to the Act, obviously, but it must be in a relevant manner, relevant to the amendment which is before the House. All debate must be relevant to the principle and to the items contained in the amending legislation. A wide-ranging debate on the principle of the Act which the Bill seeks to amend is not permitted. I think that is clear or it should be and be fairly understood by -everyone.

The debate must be relevant to the Bill, the ,:-:, 6'"·' 3 .:, ~

May 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 7 -- apb amendment itself, therefore, reference can be made to the Act, but not to go into wide-ranging debate on the principle of the Act which the Bill seeks to amend. I think that that · is clear. I do not think there is any further debate or anything further that I can say on it. It is clear that we must speak within the principle of the amending legislation and if reference is made to the principal Act, it must be relevant to th~ amending

section of the Bill that is now before the House. ~- CROSBlE: Mr. Speaker. that is exactly what I am doing. Here we have amendments to the principal Bill. The principal Bill is the teachers' pension Act, 1962. Each one of the persons concerned in this Bill, the teacher who marries, the teacher who becomes a widow, or a widower, a person who commences or resumes employment as a teacher, each one of those teachers is making that pension contribution of six percent.

What is the Government 4oing with their contriubtionst It is putting it in the general revenue and using it to pay all k~nds of bills and this is wrong,Mr. Speaker, ~- SMALLWOOD: Point of Order Mr. Speaker. MR. CROSBIE: Point of Order againt MR. SMALLWOOD: Yes • MR. CROSBIE: Do not let the facts come out, if you can avoid it. MR.. SMALLWOOD: The principle of the Act is now being attacked by the hon. member, not the principle of the Bill. Be is now attacking the principle of the Act itself.which is the law of the land, and which is not debatablej except by proper procedure. Mr.

Speaker, the principle of the Act is that there shall not be a fund. MR. CROSBIE: That is right. MR. SMALLWOOD: Now he is attacking that principle. MR. SPEAKER: I have already said that we must confine ourselves to the amending legislation, or the amending Bill,and not go into the

May 6, 1971, Tape 502, Page 8 -- apb details and the principle of the main Act itself. This Bill sets out, . to read the explanatory note, what the Bi~l seeks to do, let us confine our remarks to

May 61 1971. tape 503. Page 1. Morning Session. what this Bill is seeking to do,without debating the principle of how oniea should be distributed or how"they should be handled. It is a different principle altogether. MR.CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, the ruling you are just making is a bit differe~t from the ruling that you made before. There is a

section of this Bill Mr.Speaker, that says, "if any monies are payable to the Crown by any person, the Minister may reduce the spend or withdrawal of future payments of pension or other monies payable to that person under this Act, until the Amount payable has been recovered. Now, this provides for certain payments out in pensions to teachers who go on pension or otherwise pensionable. Similar monies are being paid out this year,Mr. Speaker, A total is going to be paid out of $910,000 in teachers contributions this year. Or the Government is going to receive from teachers $1,200,000 in contributions.

The difference of $290,000 the Government is going to spend on other items, it is going to spend on roads or it is going to spend on Mothers' Allowance - MR.SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is defying Your Honour's ruling completely. _he insists on debating the principle of the Act. That is what he is debating. That matter was settled by this House.

The Act is the law of the land and it is being amended now not in the principle of that Act but in a minor, relatively minor detail, Be is ignoring Your Honour's ruling and he insists on debating here now, on this occasion,the principle of the main Act. He is attacking the principle of the main Act and the principle of the main Act is not before the House today. MR.HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, on that point of Order. May I direct Your Honour's attention to

section 6, the Bill that is presently before the Bouse.

Section 61 of the Bill that is before this House deals with moni,s coming into the hands of the Crown and deals with the setting up of cross claims or cross charges o£lmonies coming ipto the bands of the ?. 6 ~· 6 ,.,, .

May 6 0 1971. Tape 503, Page 2, Morning Session. Crown and this is the principle that is before this House right now. Monies going into the Crown, MR.CROSBIE: In addition Mr, Speaker, under

Section 4 of the amendment,

section 4 of the amendment discusses the p~emiums paid by teachers and it says,ln respect of pensionable service counted under paragraph(Jn) of

section 1, of

Section 10, the person concer~ed shall pay all premiums due under this Act into the Government and a sum equal to all such premiums into the Government if he transfers from other pensionable service. That is what I am talking about,Mr, Speaker, the premiums that the teachers are being required to pay under this amendment and under the original Bill are being lumped into the general Treasury into the general revenue of the Province and not into a Trust Fund to be used only for teachers pensions. MR.SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, to a Point of 6rder.

Again, he is debating the principle of the main Act which does not fund the income the premium payment. He is demanding that they be so funded,which is an attack on the main Act which is not before the House. Mr. Speaker, it is as clear as the daylight. The hon. gentleman has no intention of obeying Your Honour's ruling, none - p.CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, on that point of Order, I had just explained what I am discussing,the premiums that this amendment provides and the monies payable to the C_rown. and what happens to itr and complete obedience to the rulings of the Speaker, and this silly series of points of Order is getting boring - MR.SPEAKER: Will the hon. member continue? MR.CROSBIE: Thank you. MR.SPEAKER: I would suggest that in this matter of the

section that he bas just quoted,when we should not be dealing with the Bill

section by

section anyway -"shall pay a sum equal to all such premiums"and so on, confine it to the matter of payment but not on the principle of what the Z6~- 7

May 6, 1971. Tape 503. Page 3. Morning Session. Government does with the money or whether it is funded or unfunded. HR.CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for payments for p~emiums to be paid to the Government and there is absolutely no reason why we cannot discuss what the Government does with those premiums. No reason in the world - no parliamentary rule in the world - what the Government is doing with these premiums is using them for all kinds of purposes not just for purposes of the teachers pensions, and that is quite relevant to this piece of legislation. HR.SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, to a Foint of Order.

He is not going to get away with it. The principle Act which is not presently before the House, only an amendment to it a minor amendment, the principle Act sets forth precisely what is to happen or not to happen with the premium receipts. They are not funded. That is the principle of the main Act. Now he is complaining that they are not funded. He wants ~hem to be funded. That was a proper argument for him to use when the Act was be~ore the House, that is not a principle that is before the House today and he is out of order in discussing it.

Apart from Your Honour's point that what has to be discussed in second reading is not a clause by clause debate but the general principle of the Bill that is before the House­ and the general principle of the Bill that is before the House today has nothing to do with funding or not funding. That matter was settled in the main Act. KR.HICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, on that P,oint of Order there is a principle in this Bill that has a great deal to do with fundirlg,and I direct again to the principle that is set forth in Clause 6 of this Bill,that whole principle,and it is a new one,that says, "that debt due to the Crown by any teacher in this Province shall be set off against any monies received into the General Exchequer Account which are payable to the teachers." This is a new principlt on the funding of the teachers pension, and I

May 6, 1971. Tape 503. Page 4. Ma,rning Session. could submit that there is nothing more relevant to this particular Billthar,what the hon. member for St. John's West is now saying. MR.SPEAKER: The hon. member may continue - MR.WORNELL: May I - MR.SPEAKER: The hon. member may. MR.WORNELL: Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit,Sir, if there is any reason at all for argwnents in debate the arguments must be relevant. The arguments must help those who have to vote to make up their minds how to vote, As I see it Sir, the argument put forth by the hon. member for St.

John's West 1I very humbly state this, I do not think that that argument er that reference is relevant. I think, myself, that it would have 110 bearing whatsoever in helping make a judgement as to whether or not one should·.vote for this amendment. MR.SPEAKER: Will the hon. member continue. We have had I think 3Dd I have had enough assistance from various members of the House in this mat­ ter. Vill the hon. member please continue and keep his remarks as relevant as is possible.

It is a difficult thing to draw the line when you are talking about pensions and how the funds are being distributed and so on and so on• Ir is extremely difficult to be exactly relevant at times,but I would ask the hon. member to continue and to keep it as relevant as he possibly can to the principle contained in this amending legislation. MR.CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would have concluded my remark long ago if it bad not been for this constant silly interruptions. Obviously it is a very sore point with the Government that they are taking these contributions and keeping them, not keeping them in trust. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Bill deals with, as I see it,improving certain •·benefits under the Education(Teachers Pensions) Act, It deals with allowing certain time spent by a teacher not in actual teaching to be included as pensionable time. It deals with allowing the full-t:lJue president :::-5-·9 ... .

May 6, 1971. Tape 503. Page 5. Morning Session • •• of the N.T.A. to have his servicesAfull-time president included as a teacher. It deals with, including pensionable service, if you move from some other service like the Civil Service you pay in and make up your contribution- all of these contributions. for example.the the con~ributiomof the Preaident of the Newfoundland Teachers' Associat:on go in the general revenue.

Instead of being used just to pay his pension, be kept to pay his pension inlfuture years, to earn interest in the fund and to be used to pay his pension and others. in future years,it will earn no interest, it will go in the general revenue and can be aaed for any purpose of the Government. That is a completely objectionable principle. There is a futther part of thia Bill 1 wbicb the hon.member for Burin bas referred to,wbich appears to me to be obnoxious. perhaps the minister has some explanation for it.

That is the statement that if any monies are owed to~payable to the Crown by any person who is going to get a pension, the minister can reduce the pension or suspend or withdraw future payments of that pension payable to that person. Under the Act, the 11111Dunt payable is being recovered. Why lbis is being introduced I do not know, but certainly 1 Mr. Speaker,a pension is based on what a person can live on in relation to the salary be got when he was in active service.

If there is to be a wholesale or even if ~here are to be many pensions reduced because those persons owe the 6rown some monies.it is going to work a considerable hardship. Not only that,Mr. S?eaker, but supposing that the pension is not going to the actual teacher, suppose it is going to his widow, or suppose it is going to other dependants, as I see this

section here, the pension that goes to the widow or to these other dependants can be reduced because there a father or mother or whatever the case might be owes the Crown some money, or is alleged to owe the Crown some money. Why 26~0

May 6, 1971. Tape 503. Page 6. Morning Session. is t~e minister insisting on that? The position is, Kr. Speaker, that these people who pay their six per cent all through their working life are lending that money to the Government without getting any interest back. Their six per cent of their salary is going to be taken by the Government, the Government is not even paying them interest on it. Now the Govert1J11ent has a clause in this amendment saying that if they owe the Government any money their pension is going to be reduced when they become pensionable.

No mention at all of the Government paying them more because they have had the use of their money. for twenty or thirty or forty years. The teacher who starts teaching now at eighteen and teaches for forty years will contribute six per cent of his salary all for those forty years and the Government will take it for those forty years and use the money aqd not pay him a cent of interest on his six per cent. His salary is being reduced by six per cent a year to pay this contribution and the Government is going to take his money, use it and not even pay him any interest on it, and use the money to pay past pensions.

It is a bad principle,Mr. Speaker, ~hese monies should be kept in a trust fund and interest paid on them at the very least interest paid on these contributions. The Bill itself,with the exception of the clause I mentioned, which I question,I would accept but the

section here,

Section 6,would certainly have to be explained in more detail before I would vote for that in committee. MR.HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, most of this Bill .obviously should co111111end itself to hon. members. I suspect the Bill and most of the provisions contained therein came as a result of recommendations of the Newfound­ land Teachers ~asociation. There is one

section that has already been referred to by the hon. member for St. John's West1which is quite unprecedented and is hard to unaerstand how or why it got in there, lf we try.,and looking at that principle Mr. Speaker, to extend it to aee how it can work. As I see it, if,for instance, some Newfoundlander Z6J1

May 6, 1971. Tape 503. Page 7. Morning Session. today, say he is operating a bulls-eye shop or he is in business and he finds himself indebted•for SSA Tax to the Crown,tben be becomes a teacher and one of the iftducements for him to enter the teaching profession is that he shall be paid a pension.

But he finds that under this principle, this new principle that is advocated in this Bill,that should any of bis dependants seek ,.a pension in the future and some alert person in the department of finance discovers that there is an outstanding SSA Tax from years pas_t and the statutes of limitations does not run against the Crown. the deputy-minister of Finance is obligated then~under the Revenue and Audit Act,to whithold payment of these pensions, This is contrary to every pension principle that has ever been ennunciated even the principles that were contained in the main Act.affected and greatly affected by this section. 'lbe other thing,Mr.

Speaker, and as I say this has already been covered by the hon. ,member for St. John's West. The other thing in this Bill that should be of great concern t~ hon. members is that this Bill is a very discriminatary piece of legislation.

This Bill very deliberately.;. and I use the word "deliberately" because it was brought to the attention of Government when the Bill was being prepared_ this Bill very deliberately discriminates against veterans of World War 11 who are now in the teaching profession and the veterans of World War 11 are very concerned over the discrimination contained in this Bill and they have asked me to bring it to the attention of hon. members. They have also, not the Boer War, World War 11 I am talking about,and it ia a very discriminatory Bill. Now, we have in this Province,Mr.

Speaker, about, I think the figure that was given to me was fourteen, certainly not more than twenty teachers, who fall into that category. These are men who were not in the teaching profession prior to -

May 6, 1971 Tape no. 504 Page 1 MR. BICKMAN. World War II. The law now is that if a 1!1811 taught for one day in 1939 or any time during World War II, then joined the Armed Forces and served for six years, when he comes back his six years of service are counted towards his pension.

But if a man did not serve that one day but rather when he came back he availed of the veterans' benefits,as so many did, and grants that are available and i111111ediately entered Memorial University and embarked upon his teaching educlld.on and completed it and then entered the teaching profession, he is not entitled to any credit or any pension for the years that he served overseas.

If you accept the principle that runs through so many of these pensionable Bills that have been passed by Canadian Parliaments, Provincial Parliaments, the Parliament of Canada ince World War II, all of these Bills take care of that group of loyal Can~dians or loyal Newfoundlanders. We are talking about a small number. It will not affect - it has no real political effect. But it has a very serious fundamental effect when you realize that this constitutes gross discrimination against these people.

These men have made formal representation to the Newfoundland Teachers' Association to have their time in active service counted toward a pension. The Newfoundland Teachers' Association in turn have made similar representation to the Government of this Province. It has been rejected. It is wrong. It is totally wrong.

This is a very discriminatory Bill against a group of individuals who, through no fault of their own - I should not put it that way, because it one sense it was of their own initiative- ~hey sp~nt anywhere from one to six years serving this country in World War II and now they find that they are being penalized as a result of it. They want to be included in this Bill. They should be included in this Bill. They are discriminated against by not being included in this Bill. Thei~ wishes were made known to Government. Their wishes were made .. :known to the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. It bas the approbation.

I am sure of the veterans throughout Newfoundland. It moat definitely has the approbation of the 26J3

May 6. 1971 Tape no. 504 Page 2 Mr. Bickman Newfowtdland Teachers' Association. I would like to see,when we get into committee stage, I would like to have a firm undertaking from the Minister of Education now that when this BilL goes into committee stage that these fourteen,to twenty or whatever the number is that these veterans will have th~ir service recognized, regardless of the fact that they did not start teaching until after they came back from overseas. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member speaks now. he closes the debate. MR. ROWE (F.W.): Mr. Speaker, if no one else wishes to speak.

I just have one or two comments to make, There have been two principle points that have been raised legitimately in this debate. One is the Section (6) which refers. to money, Perhaps in introducing the Bill I should have explained this point or at least . I should have given this background. We, too have a standing committee. I say. we. the Government and the N. T. A. do have a standing co11D11ittee on teachers' pensions. In fact it is no secret at all. The N. T. A, members of that committee are Mr. O'Driscoll,who i~ a permanent officer of the N. T. A.,and Mr. Buffett - Mr.

Lloyd Buffett who I believe, speaking from memory now, is or was a Vice-~resident in the N. T. A. Certainly he is a senior member of the executive. He was, in fact, on the salary negotiating team as well. We have two other members who represent. I suppose, the Department of Education and the Government's point of view,in the person of Mr.Robart and then Mr. Jones. Mr, Robart being the Associate Deputy Minister. They make up the committee. They. in tum. have the advice and consult with officials in the Department of Finance and in the Auditor General's Department and particularly the Department of Justice.

They are not alone. They proceed very carefully and very cautiously. They do not come with recommendations until u·sually they are unanimous. I can report to the committee that all the measures in thia amendment here now have the unanimous approval of thetcommittee. They are recommended without dissent by that committee, half of which represents the N. T. A. So, we must assume or I must as~ume, as a minister I - 6 -, 4 ~ ,.i

May 6, 1971 Tape no. 504 Page 3 Mr. Rowe (F. W.) have no choice but to assume that all these amendments here have the approval from the N. T. A. as well as the approval of our respective departments of Govemment; Justice, Finance and the Department of Education. I must assume that.

When matters of that kind are brought to me, I do make a point of inquiry on whether or not there has been any dissent, whether or not there has been unanimity I did in this particular case, in this particular Bi~l,and I find that not only is there unanimity with the committee but all of these matters,since they impinge on Government policy, are submitted to the General Advisory Committee which, I would remind the House,is the most important educational body in the Province in that it has the right,under the law.to be consulted on all matters of education policy.

It has the right also to advise the Govemment on all matters of educational policy. The composition of that committee i• made up as follows, by statute: The Minister of Education ex officio is the thairmaa. The deputy minister ex officio is the deputy chairman. The three other senior officers of the Department of Education sit on that General Advisory Committee. They are ex officio members. The churches are represented through the executive officers of their denominational educational committees - Dr. Tracey. There is another Bill before the House, Mr. Speaker where.this point comes out. Dr.

Tracey represe~ts the_ Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Hatcher represents the integrated churches -the integrated educational bodies. That is the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Salvation Army. Pastor Shaw represents the Pentecostal Church. In addition the N. I. A. ia represented ex officio by by the President of the N. T. A. B~ sits in - he has the right to sit in. He has the right to vote. He has the right to speak. He has the right to be notified of •etings and he does sit in.

As a matter of fact, I would be safe in saying that only one or two meetings have taken place, We do have mnthly meetings, in addition special meetings

May 6, 1971 Tape no. 504 Page 4 Mr. Rowe (F. W.) in the history of that body without the President of the N. T. A. or some other person sitting in for him. Also the University is represented and the University representative is Dr. Warren, whose knowledge of education and interests are well known. Now all 118.tters of this kind,such as this Bill right here,before going to the Govemment, it is the moral duty, if not the legal duty, probably the legal duty of the Minister of Education to submit those matters to the General Advisory Committee and this is done invariably.

Now the committee may or may not approve but,if the committee disapproves or if there is any wide-scale dissent on the committee, I regard it as my duty to so report to my colleagues in ·the Goverament,and this is done. I am happy to say that I am not aware of any occasion when the Gov~rnment have adopted a measure which has been opposed by the General Advisory Committee. This particular amendment was brought before the General Advisory Committee and again it was approved. This has the unanimous approval.

I am able to report that .it has the unanimous approval of the General Advisory Committee on which body, again I repeat, the N. T. A. is represented, the University is represented and all the denominational educational committees. In other words, the churches are represented, Now one reason I think for bringing in Section (6) here is the fact that very frequently we run into eases where teachers have obtained grants from the Government. This House is well aware of the fact that all teachers in Newfoundland, I think without exception,take advantage of the Government's pretty generous indenture policy.

In addition to any other help they might get through scholarships, through bursaries, through student aid, through the Canada Student Loan, in addion to any of that . they are able also to get an indenture grant of $600,which money they do not have to repay, if they teach for a said number of years.;I think it is two years they have to teach. However,there are teachers who break their contract one way or the other, that is,they do not teach the said number of years after they have received the grant. In which case: they owe that 1/ 6 ': C .~ - ...

.. -~ ,-• .,,.., .. May 6, 1971 Tape no. 504 Page 5 Mr. Rowe (F. W.) a,ney to the Government. They Government have a right to collect. I am told by the committee that it was.primarily this fact that leads them to have this Section (6) put in•here. I am quite prepared however, in view of the points, I am quite prepared, before we go into co~ttee (I do not imagine it will be today), I am quite prepared to report back to the committe the feelings that have been expressed in regard to that matter and to see what their reaction is.

How I conceive it is theoretically possible that this may be the trappings of an elephant here in order to slay a flea. It could be interpreted that way. I do not know. Frankly, I do not think it is important. However, I will report back. The other point made by the hon. member for Burin with regard to recognition for years, tbis is a matter that has been given very dee~ consideration by the committee, by the General Advisotyr Committee, I&' the Government and the various Government departments. It is a matter which has very important implications. It is true there is no reference to it here.

But I can say that it is a matter that has been under consideration for lome time and the matter is not dead at this particular time, But it has very serious implications. It is a matter that those,who advised us on such things, feel that we should not rush into it at this time. MR. RICKMAN: Wo\lld the .hon. miDiater permit a question? D-14 the fi:eneral Advisory Committe and the H. T. A. recommend that provision be aade in this Bill to take care of the fourteen veterans. _MR. BOWE (F.W.): I am sorry, Kil.

BICKMAN: Did the General Advisory Committee,to which this draft'Bill vu presumably submitted or at least the principle of it was discussed prior to its being brought to this House, did the General Advisory Committee and/or the Newfoundland Teachers• Association request thAt there be a provision in this Bill to protect these fourteen or so veterans that I referred to?

Hay 6, 1971 Tape no. 504 Page 6 MR. ROWE (F.W.): I cannot answer that question categorically at this point. But I do know that the matzr was discussed by at least one, if not both,of these bodies. I do know that there was some difference of opinion. This was one of these matters where there was not unanimity. This I can assure the hon. gentleman, There was no unanimity in any quarter where this particular matter was discussed. Again it is not so much the few teachers. I grant you they are important. One case is important, of course. It is not so much that he mentions twelve or fourteen.

This may be the correct number. It is not so much that number as it is the implications for a lot of other - for everybody connected with Govemment Pensions, for everybody the implications are there. There are some important implications there. · All I can say is here there is not unanimity on it. The feeling iA that we are certainly not in a position at this point to recommend any actiOD, any cancrete action on that matter relating to the time subsequent. teachers are teachers who became teachers subsequent to their war services. nat is a matter that has a wide, very wide­ ranging implications.

It is a matter that I would not say the door is closed on it either. I would not want to give the impression that nobody is concerned about it or interested in it. I do say that it is a matter t"at has been discussed and there is not, at this moment, unanimity,as to what if anything should be done about it at this time. I think these are the two principal matters that have been raised and Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss these matters further in committee. MR. CROSBIE: Would the hon. minister permit a question.

Does the minister haft ay views on what happens to these premiums after th~y are paid as to whether they should be funded or not? Are they just put in the general revenue? MR. ROWE (F.W.): My view, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not a matter that it would be proper for• to discuss at this time. I have expressed my views at the appropriate occasion here in this Bouse on that matter. The Bouse and the hon. gentleman. I am sure,ate familiar with my views. He is familiar with the fact that there is a wide divergence of opinion on that matter throughout the world - thrnughout the world. HR. CROSBIE: Yes, sure.

May 6, 1971 Hr. Rowe (F. W.) the world - throughout the world. MR. CROSBIE: Yes, sure. Tape no. 504 MR. ROWE (F .R:2._: Including other provinces of canada. As i said, Mr. Speaker, having 111&de t}Jat Page 7 ?6 ~=9 -~ •J

May 6, 1971 Tape 505 (morning) PK - 1 MR. ROWE: F.W. admission, I do not think it is proper for me to discuss it at this time. On motion Bill read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. MR, CURTIS: Item 11. Motipn: Second reading of a Bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health.'' RON, E, M. ROBERTS: (MINISTER OF HEALTH): Mr.

Speaker, the Bill,which with great pleasure I now move for second reading, I think is probably the single most important piece of legislation that has come before the Rouse of Assembly at this session,to date and 1with the exception of the Bill which the Government are to bring in to confer upon our fishermen the legal right to bargain collectively, I think, it will be the most :Important piece of legislation th•t we will be asked to discuss this year.

I think this Bill is a tremendous step forward, Sir, because it will give us in Newfoundland the le~al framework wit~in which to offer Mental Health Services, the legal framework within which we can offer Mental Health Services that are comparable anywhere in Canada. I think that is terribly important, Sir. The problems of mental illness are a problem, a substantially s!sed problem in Newfoundland, •s they are elsewhere in :;:•, Canada. Our programmes are good but they are not good enough. In a few minutes perhaps I can touch upon that aspect. Our le&islation, Sir, is not good enough.

The legislation under which we now operate are.the mental health provisions of the old Public Health and Welfare Act, which is qq:l.te old, indeed some of the le•islation under which we are operating datesback to 18S3, which was two years before this House established. The legi lature at that time passed

an Act to grant funds for the establishment of a lunatic assylum at St. John's. Perhaps, it is noteworthy that our present legislation, Hr. Speaker, till provides for the existen~ of a board called "The Commissioners in Lunacy." I think that is ayaptomatic of too much of the thinking which underlies our legislation. Our legislation is out of date, is not kept up to date with modern treatment method. It is not up tc date with modem concep~ with modem beliefs and modem practices in this important 26;)0

May 6, 1971 Tape 505 (morning) PK - 2 MR. ROBERTS: field of medicine. I suppose, Sir, there is no field of medical knowledge which has come as far and as rapidly, as has the paychiatric field. A few years ago p•ychiatry was almost mumbo-jumbo, it was almost something that in the eyes of most people was witch doctors, witches from ~tacBeth shouting, "double, double,toil and trouble." Today phychiatry is an important branch of medicine. It is a highly regarded branch of medicine, a branch of medicine that deals with problems that affect a great number of people.

Phychiatry has come a long way from dealing with people who are" insane." Paychiatr;J.c pt>obleu now deals with problems of mental illness, which effect hundreds, thousands,perhaps,hundreds of thousands of our people now or will at some time and across Canada will affect millions of people. This Bill, Sir, will give us the legal framework within which to operate. Mr. Speaker, we have now in Newfoundland about 890 beds devoted to . the treatment of psychiatric illnesses. About 740 of these are at the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases here in St.

Jphn's, the remainder 150 will be found in hospitals dotted throughout this Province,including the hospitals in St. John's. It is not generally .realized, Mr. Speaker, that far more people are treated for ,sychiatric illnesses in our general hospitals than are treated in our institution, our Mental Hospital on Waterford Bridge Road. While I am on the subject of the Mental Hospital, I will have to refer to it as the Mental Hospital, because that is how we all refer to it. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the , time has come for a change of name.

Some years ago, I believe it wu my friend and colleague, the junior member for Harbour Main,who suggested,in the House, we should change the name of the institution. I think we should and I hope we can get it done soon. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: No, I would rather, Mr. Speaker, see it named after one of the men who have contributed to the development of public health facilities or particularly to the development of mental health ·and phychiatric facilities. I do like the tradition, we do have in Newfoundland, Mr.

Speaker, of naming our hospitals after men who gave years of effort, we have the James Paton 26 ~· 1

May 6, 1971 Tape 505 (morning) PK - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Hospital in Gander, we have the Templeman Hospital named after Walter Templeman. Dr. Walter Templeman,as we all knew him on Bell Island. We have the Jackman Hospital in Labrador West, Labrador City itself, named after a Newfoundlander who saved twenty-five, thirty mens lives,one night in a storm on the South Coast of L.abrador. We have, of course, the Grenfell Hospital at St. Anthony, and the Charles S. Curtis Hospital. I hope this tradition here will continue, Mr.

Speaker, and be expanded and, I think, we should apply that tradition to the present Mental Hospital. Mr. Speaker, aside from the facilities we have in there, it is not gnerally realized we have facilities throughout the Province. There are twenty-eight psychiat-ric beds in c'ome-r Brook,at the Westem Memorial Hospital. There are ten beds at the Central Newfoundland Hospital 1 in Grand Falls. There a-re ten beds at the Charles S. Curtis Hospital,in St. Anthony. There are eighteen bedil at the James Paton Hospital,in Gander. In St.

John's itself, we have thirty beds at the Grace General Hospital, w have thirteen beds at St. Clare~s, iie have another fifteen beds at the General Hospital, and the Dr. Charles A. Janeway, ithe Child Health Centre,has an additional thirteen beds devoted exclusively to the problems of children with mental illnesses, And as the Government have announced, Sir, we are already well involved. well advanced in preparing plans for an addition to the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Dieases here in St~ John's • That addition will provide an additional one hundred beds.

It will provide 200 new beds, a hundred·of them will replace ~ld beds. We think, this will enable us to give very much better service. MR. CROSBIE: Will the hon. minister permit a question? MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course. MR. CROSBIE: At the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases now, he gave the figures last year, I think, but I have forgotten them~ How many are active treatment beds, and how many are for untreatable patients, mental, gross defectives and this kind? What is the breakdown? MR. ROBERTS: I do not have the precise figures before me, Mr.

Speaker, but I have the general recollection. tf I am wrong I will check and confirm

May 6, 1971 Tape 505 (morning) PK - 4 MR. RORERTS: back, but about one-third of the patients now in care at the hospital are, if you wish, active care. the other two-thirds about 500 would be patients who are extremely long term and in some cases will need institutional care. The Leader of the Opposition, am I wrong? MR. MURPHY: Oh, no, I am just saying it is sad. ~. ROBERTS: It is • It is indeed. It is quite sad. I mean this is nnP of the facts of life. some people are bom with a crippled arm and some people are born with mental illnesses, you know. I guess that is life, 6u~ it is very sad.

That is very true. ~r. Speaker, along those lines of long term patients, the House mi~ht be interested to know that within recent years we have been expanding and improving upon a ervice offered by our Mental Health Services, and it wAa unique in Canada, it started in 1946, when my uncle at that time was Superintendent of the Mental Hospital, he since went on, if you wish, to grea~er things.he is now head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa. We started then one of the two hospitals in Canada.

Ve were then not part of Canada•~en we •tarted an out-patients programme centering about home boarding care. We now have, at any given time, about 200 to 250 patients in home care, These are patients, Mr. Speaker, who have been discharged from the . hospital to the extent that they can tive outside of the hospital, and they come in and get care on a daily basis. Not only does it give as better utilization, Mr. Speaker, but the :Improved care is dramatic.

Let me just take one ex9111ple which strikes me: From the period February 3, 1970 until ~irch 16, 1971, a little over thirteen months, to show you the improvemeats that have been made in the R9Deral count of the mental care, we discharged thirty-three patients from the hospital, not one of whom had leas than ten years treatment in the institution. And, indeed, some of them, Mr. Speaker, had over thirty years hospitalization.

Being a little more precise, five of those patient• had been in the hospital for over thirty years, ten of them had been there for 1110re than twenty-five years: and an additional six had been there for between twenty and twenty-five years ~6 ~-3 ·"' _._•

May 6, 1971 Tape 505 (morning) PK - 5 MR. ROBERTS: and eight for fifteen years and more and four between ten and fifteen years. Now the staff at the hospital, I think, I .have every reason to be very proud of that, Mr. £peaker. If hon. members will reflect for a minute; what it could mean to a pe~aon, and,indeed, the tragedy is simply, it is simply in years passed p•ychiatric treatment had not come sufficiently far to enable patients with that type of mental illness to be discharged and treated or rather discharged and cured or discharged for treatment in a day care programme.

Mr, Speaker, during the last year.. to show you the numbers involve4 about 900 people were treated at the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases, some of them maybe overnight, some for a week, some for a month. That is in addition to the 740 who are in the hospital at any given time. In our General Hospital about 2,000 patients received in-hospital paycniatric treatment. Now the House may well ask, Si~, why 740 beds look after 900 people and why 150 beds look after 2,000 people?

The answer is, of course, under the integration of our services the patients needing longer term care go to the Hospital on Waterford Bridge Road. The patients who need relatively short term care,a perio~ of days or weeks or sometimes a little longer,receive treatment at the general hospitals. MR. MURPHY: Inaudible, MR. ROBERTS: Yes, indeed I had not realized until recently the whole

section in the old Act on the admission of alcoholics. It is incredible to read it. I assUDte'. tt is not followeq It is arch~ic. I think one has to be more than drunk to get in. It is a terrible problem, we are now working actively with the Salvation Army, Mr.Speaker, to develop a half-way house, an institution where a person wh6 does .not need hospital care but should not be on his own, where he needs a degree of care. The Salvation Army have done noble work in this field across Canada, Sir. The name, I think, generally applied to it ia "Harbour Lights," or "Harbour Light Centre," I believe it ia called.

These people have done incredible work. We are delighted they have agreed to work with us. They are doinp. the work and we :, 6 -, ,t .'-, .... • \I

May 6, 1971 Tape 505 (morning) PK - 6 MR. ROBERTS: are putting up the cash, and we are now working out details and indeed, I believe, that my assistant Deputy Minister and the Commander of the Army in Newfoun61and will be meet~ng either this day or very ahortly,within a matter of days.to hammer together some details. Mr. Speaker, with all we have done, we still need much more. We are deficient in the number of paychatric beds we have. We have about half of the national average per capita. Interestingly enough,in the short-term beds in the general hospitals, we are doing fairlt .well.

We are not too far off the national average. In the longer-term beds, we are very deficient. But the institution of the half-way house, which my colleague the Minister of Social Services will ••minister, will help with this. What we are / doing, Sir, is we are going to integrate all of our~ Mayb_e not organizations : but integrate all of our operations in this type of field so that a patient who may need treatment at any one of a number of institutions can be I admJtted into the system and then move to the institution which can give him the particular treatment he needs.

That is quite an advance fo look forward to, not dramatic, but a tremendous advance. My Colleague and I, through our officials 1 are now very deeply into that aspect of operations and the half way-house which wil~ add, from memory, between 150 and 200 long-term.beds to the system, will be a aigni,ficant advantage. But I we are short, we are all too short in people, Sir. I think there are probably many more people available than we have been able to hire.

Tbe new · School of Social Work at the University, the psych~logistsgraduating with training from the University are beg1..~ning to be available in quite reasonable numbers. I am receiTing very stronr representat _ions from the paychiatrica-and from hospital administration about

May 6, 1971 (Homing) Tape No. 506 NC - 1 MR. ROBERTS: conditions about the need for more paramedical people, psychologists and social workers,in particular in our general hospitals, and,as soon as we get free of the House and have some time free for more detailed departmental duties, my officials will be sitting down with me to review this. we· are also quite short of psychiatrists, Mr. Speaker. HR. CROSBIE: How many are there, by the way? MR. ROBERTS: I have not got the figures in front of me. It is of the order of fifteen. It is closer to fifteen thaa it is to fifty.

There are about fifteen and there is one in Comer Brook, one in St. Anthony. we have one coming for Gander, but I do not know if he will be here this year, Se is in training, I believe there are eleven in practice in St. John's and I aw in a newspaper the other day where another gentleman had joined Dr. Body and Dr. Williams. We are quite short of psychiatrists, Mr. Speaker. It is an area of medicine that has been growing by leaps and .bounds.

That may be a commentary on modem society but a few years ago psychiatrists really were the odd man out now they are coming to the stage where most patients admitted to hospital receive a form of psychiatric assessment as part of the general treatment that is given to a person admitted-to hospital. Now Mr. Speaker, the Bill embodies all these concepts. It is the legal framework within which we can operate. I think it represents the best thinking that can be gathered in Canada. It has taken ua a long time to put this Bill together~Sir.

It has been put together primarily by a committee of officials, officials representing my own administrative staff, representing the Department of Justice, who are lawyers,but also with no less than five psychiatrists on the committtee. ?6 ·;5 ;. .

May 6, 1971 (Morning) Tape No. 506 NC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: To show you how long it has been, Sir. It was in October ,1968, two and a-·half years ago, that The Newfoundland P~ychiatr~c Association met and nominated Dr. Giilespie and Dr. O'Brien,tvo well known psychiatrists, to represent them on .this committee. The committee has been chaired by Dr. Clarence Pnttle,who is our Director of Mental Health Services, a man who has devoted his life to improving the mental health facilities in this Province. They produced a good Bill, Sir. It is a Bill which, in effect, makes mental illness a medical matter not a legal matter.

Under the present legislation, being admitted to a mental institutiou~other than voluntarily, is a matter of law. One must go to court, one must have magistrates, and I have nothing against magistrates but I do not think doctors should tell the magistrates how to run the law and I am not so sure magistrates should be telling doctors how to treat mentally ill people. This Bill, Sir, makes it entirely a matter of medical opinion. It changes basically the definition of what·is a mental illness. There are no long involved

definitions, Mr. Speaker. A mental illness is simply defined as a mental disorder which is any disease or disability of the mind. That,Sir, is the best definition that can be found, I am told, anywhere in the world that has legislation that covers this type of thing. It struck me as absurdly simple,but it does represent the best thinking that can be found. A MR. CROSBIE: It is used elsewhere, in other Provinces? ""'- MR, ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wil~ come to that in detail. The Bill.

Sir, provides that a person wluf_.fs mentally ill,as defined, can be admitted to an institution, any sort of institution designated by the minister as being an institution for treatment of psychiatric illnesses. That is the change, !he present legislation specifies the institution on Waterford Bridge Road,

May 6, 1971 (Morning) Tape No, 506 NC - 3 MR~ ROBERT~ The Bill also provides, Sir, and I am very proud of this, for very advanced civil liberties protecti6~. No longer, Mr, Speaker, if this Bill becomes law. can a person be committed to a mental institution for an indefinite period. The Bill has very specific provisions. A person must be assigned to a specific position,not admitted as a patient at large. There is a physician who by law is responsible for the treatment of that· patient. The patient may only be held for treatment if the physician issues a certificate Mr.

Speaker, those certificates are only for short periods of time, The longest time for which a certificate can be issued is one year, the Act, Mr. Speaker, as members will see from their reading of Section (9),your Honour, that would be the fifth time that a certificate was issued that is a person must-you know there are no less than five separate review procedures before a person can be confined for even a period as long as a year, ihereafter,every year the matter must be reviewed with a personal examination of the patient and the physician must state that, in his opinion, the patient needs continuing care.

In addition, Sir, we have provided very detailed, comprehensive and I think very sound provisions for review, There will be a review boatd appointed, Its powers are spelled out in the latter part of the Bill. There is a provision for representation by Council or by a friend, and ex-friend of the patient, as provision f~r who ~ay apply.

The Review Board must conaain a physician, it must contain a barrister, and then it must contain somebody who is neither a physician nor a barrister, Perhaps, speaking as a barrister with some connection with physicians, the third person must be put there to insure thaJ there is some little common sense injected along with all the expertees. I think it is a good provision Sir. In addition the Bill provides for a procedure whereby a person may be,in effect, arrested and brought before a magistrate and the magistrate may issue a warrant, in section (14). your Honour,he may order that a person be examined.

May 6. 1971 (Morning) Tape No. 506 NC - 4 MR. ROBERTS: The Magistrate has no power to order a person to attend the mental institution unless the person has b~en charged with a crime ia which case the matter is not. strickly speaking, one for us it is a matter that falls within the preview of the criminal code. We have some provisions to compliment the criminal code of Canada in that respect. Finally, Mr. Speaker. in introducing the Bill, I want to touch upon a feature which I think will cause some discussion, indeed I hope it will.

The Bill provides that a pattent 11ay be admitted to a hospital on a certificate of a physician. It does not provide that the person may be kept. No so-called commital order,from now on, Mr. Speaker, there will only be authority to take a person to a hospital. It is entirely up to a physician in the hospital. the medical director, whether that person stays a minute, an hour, a day, a week or whatever is necessary. But the Bill does provide that the order to take a person to a hospital may be issued by one physician. Now, Sir,that is an important change in the present Act.

The present Act, as hon. members know. provides in effect for two physicians appearing at a trial before a magistrate and they give their evidence and they sign the certificates. My colleagues and I have debated that provision at considerable length,Sir,and we have put it in the Bill which is before the House. I think it is fair to say we have not done so without considerable thought and ~ithout a great deal of consideration. I think -.it is fair to say as well that we are moat anxious to have the views of the House as a whole on this, Sir.

The provision we have in the Bill is the recommendation of the best expert advice we can get and I can assure your Honour that I have searched very widely and I believe my colleagues have also seached equally widely. It is the best medical advice that we can get, This is a good provision, that it is not liable to abuse, that will not provide that one doctor can say that,for example, tour Honour is mentally ill and must be taken forthwith to an institution. There an detailed provisions put in the Act. the physician must examine the person 26J9

May 6, 1971 (Morning) Tape No. 506 NC - 5 MR. ROBERTS: individually. The physician must issue a certificate stating that he has examined him and so forth. These 1 we believe, protect the individual. The certificate, as I have said~Sir, only allows the patient to be taken to a treatment facility as defined, from then on it is a matter for the medical director of the institution. We put it in,Sir, because of the medical advice we aot but also because in administering the present leg_islation, as I think any hon. member from an outharbour district will realize, great difficulties arise. I think the member for Grand Falls, Mr. Speaker, (

a) can speak for himself and (

b) I have always heard him speak with pride of his outharbour origin, indeed he has discouraged iae because I had the lack of wit ., to pick a set of parents who chose to live in St. John's the time I was born. I can assure your Honour, and for the benefit of the hon. gentleman from Gander, I had nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with it at all. You will have to speak to my parents. Yes, Mr . Speaker, I would arranged with a number of my other colleagues to be born in Gambo, that is the place is it· not? Gambo or Bethle~em, yes. As my hon. friend from White Bay South says,the press is now free. Mr.

Speaker, to carry on with this, because I think it is a crucial point - MR. CROSBIE: You should have been born at Come By Chance.

May 6th, 1971 Tape 507(Morning) JM - l MR. RORERTS: Well, no, Mr. Speaker, in view of my views on planned parenthood that would be most inappropriate, Mr. Spea~er, I think the fact which finally swayed the Government in our decision to bring in this provision that just one physician would be able to issue a certificate was the fact that we were not alone and this was not something unique. No less than five Provinces of Canada, I am told, have similar provisions in Legislation which has been · adopterl recently. It has caused no problems in Ontario which was the major place where this Act was developed.

The Act was brought in in 1967,and our provisions,both as to definition of the mental illness and the provisions for the certification or the admission of a patient on an involuntary basis,are copied, I would not say word for word,Your Honour, but are copied in substantial.I~ similar terms from the Ontario one. That pattern, Sir, has been followed also in the Province of Quebec, in the Province of New Brunswick, in the Province of Prince Edward Island,all within the past two or three years.

I think.on the basis of that.we felt that it was reasonable to come to the House to present the Bill in the form in which it stands. I do not know how strongly I hold the view or my colleagues hold the view that we should stand by this. We have the strongest possible medical advice. We have the example of Ontario, Quebec, N~ Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and I am told Nova Scotia are in the process but I do not know that. MR. MARSHALL: Would the hon. Minister permit a question? MR.. ROBERTS: Yes, of course. MR.

MARSHALL: Has the provision -of the two medical practitioners, the certificate from two medical practitioners in the past caused any problem here in Newfound­ land? MR.. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am told it has. I am told that in the more remote rural areas in effect what happens is one doctor will say;put the patient on the boat and then the next place the coastal ~~oat stopped,where there was a doctor,the second doctor came down, examined the fellow, signed the second form and sent him on in to St. John's. But in the past,furthermore,

Hay 6th, 1971 Tape 507(Horning) JM - 2 MR. ROBE'R.TS: certification orders were for indefinit~ pe!iods. It has caused problems, I am told. I have no personal knowled~e but my officials have told me this and indeed my own general medical knowledge confirms that. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have brought it into the House. We have had the strongest possible medical advice. We have had the example of other Provinces. We are concerned about the possibilities of abuse or of affecting a persons civil rights.

I think on balance we feel that the weight of medical advice and the experience in other Provinces is sufficient to justify us requestin~ the Legislation in · this form and I think the other provisions in the Act will enable the effective, speedy and good protection of our Newfound­ landers civil rights. But as I have said, Mr. Speaker, we would very much like the views of the House on this. Laws are made by the House of Assembly not by medical advice. ~hey are not made by other Provinces they are made by this House for this Province. It is a Government Bill but the Government are anxious for advice on it, Hr.

Speaker. Finally,let me just make one brief reference: There is no detailed reference in this Legislation to a voluntary patient, a patient who choses of his own volition to enter a mental institution. The reason for that is quite simple, Sir, you know he, in the same resp~ct as any other patient who goes wluntarily into hospital, is treated for his illness and when his illness is treated or resolved he .~oes ho~e. A voluntary patient, of course, can become an involuntary patient under the provisions of the Act. Mr.

Speaker, in closing let me say that I think this is a very good piece of Legislation and I think it is one that will benefit the people of this Province. It gives us mental health legi_slation that is modern, that represents the best thinking across Canada. It substantially reduces the power of the judiciary in what is a medical matter. We feel that that is right. We feel that the medical matters in the judiciary have no business being in.just as medical people have no business beinp. in judicial matters. It provides for very strict and very strgng 27 ~,2

May 6th, 1971 Tape 507(Morning) JM - 3 MR. ROBERTS¾ mandatory reviews at certain specified pertpds, the first of them as short as a month and none of them longer than a year and it sets up an appeal procedure which I believe is effective and can be readily used and which will protect the rights of the people. We still must do much more to help with mental illness in Newfoundland, Sir.

That is where our effort must go, I hope that the House will adopt this Bill and give us the legal framework to go on so that we can carry on with the major job,which is reviewing our programmes, integrading them, co-ordinating them and then trying to find the money we are going to need to expand them further. It is with very much pleasure, Sir, that I move second reading of the Bill. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister,first for his ptesentation on the Bill which was very clear. I am sure it is a very worthwhile piece of Legislation.

The situation in Newfoundland,with respect to the care of the mentally ill,certainly needs improvement,as the Minister realizes, I am delighted to know anyway that this year it is planned to spend $1. million at the Mental Hospital here in St. John's,to improve its facilities. I think the Minister said that there will be 200 beds constructed of which there will be a net gain of 100,si~ce 100 of the old beds will disappear as they are no longer fit for use. One of the great problems_! would say, Mr.

Speaker, with the mental health care in this Province,is that there are other facilities needed on the Western part of the Province and more facilities needed in Central Newfound­ land because,as the Minieter's figures show#there are only twenty-eight beds on the West Coast at Western Memorial Hospital for those suffering.:from mental illness and only ten at Grand Falls and eighteen a~ Gander, twenty-eight in Central Newfoundland. It is a pity that the hon. member for St. Barbe South says they do not need any more on the West Coast of the Island 1 but we will see whether that is so or not by the election results.

It is a pity that if 27fl3

Hay 6th, 1971 Tape 507(Morning) JM - 4 MR. CROSBIE: people are mentally ill that they have to ~c:_,m.e to St. John's and go to the Mental Hospital,on Waterford Bridge Road,that is a long way from their family and friends. So the Minister mi~ht tell us,when he is replying,whether there are plans.1.or example,in the new expansion of Western Memorial, are there plans there to increase the number of psychiatric beds1 I would think that probably the West Coast could do with seventy-five or eighty in any event or perhaps even one hundred. And whether there are some plans for Central Newfoundland as well?

One of the great defects, Mr. Speaker, in our hospital care situation in Newfoundland.is that we have too few custodial beds. In the present hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases, as the Minister said, about two­ thirds of the patients are custodial patients, that is there is very little likelibood that they are ever going to get better, they cannot be improved by treatment.

TherE area tremendous number included in the 800 odd patients at the Mental Hospital here who are suffering from senility, who are suffering just because of age and t~ is ;eally custodial care they need, Then there is another large number of gross mental defectives, These are people who will never advance beyond the mentrl age of per~aps one or two and there is nothing that can be done to treat them medically so that they will recover, so it is cuatodial care they need. So I would think th~t wha~ is needed is an institution. Custodial institutions are a lot cheaper, Hr.

Speaker, than active treatment institutions. You can build a custodial care institution, I am sure, for at least one-third of the cost of an active treatment institution and therefore, not just in mental health but in the ordinary health facilities of this Island, what is needed now,:Ln my ~ind,to a great extent,is not more active treatment beds but more custodial institutions. For example, places where patients can be moved out of the, say, General Hospital when they no_ longer need active treatment but they may still need to be kept under watch. You would have a far greater

May 6th, 1971 Tape 507(Morninp,) JH - 5 MR. CROSJHE: utilization say of beds at the General Hospital if there was a custodial care institution in St. John's here to which the patient could be moved when he no longer needed the active treatment,releasing the active treatment bed for another patient. The Government are planning to build a new General Hospital in conjunction with Memorial University, I wonder if that is necessary, Mr. Speaker. The medical reports that I remember seeing indicated that St. John's had enough active treatment beds. MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). MR.

CROSBIE: Well, the present General is not going to be used at all for active treatment beds. MR. ROBERTS: Not as an active treatment hospital, no. MR. C~OSBIE: Because, Mr. Speaker, we have enough active treatment hospital beds in St. John's now for this area. There is no need for any more active treatment hospital beds in St. John's at this time. Now if the present General is going to be - MR. ROBERTS: But the hon. member will agree that the doctors would fill more if we had them. MR. CROSBIE: Oh yes.

One of the problems though is that we, I do not know what the figures are like now, but we had a very low tumover. MR. ROBERTS: A very long length of stay. MR. CROSBIE: A long length of stay,parti~ularily in the General Hospital

May 6, 1971 Tape 508 (morning) PK - 1 MR. CROSBIE: Probably it is not all political reasons, but partlJ for that reason. Partly for the reaaon;that there is no cust~dial, you cannot send eome person who has just an appendix, he .may be able to go home in two days, but it is pretty difficult to send him on a long car ride down to say St. Mary's Bay or somewhere like that. MR. ROBERTS: That is not custodial, that is convalescent. MR. CROSIBE: Well convalescent. Well, there is .a:_need for that one. When I say "custodial" what I mean is, I should have had said"convalescent" in connection with that point.

But what we need:is a lot more custodial and convalescent facilities_, and not necessarily just a lot more active treatment beds. In fact, I doubt whether we need more active treatment beds, except perhaps in the Carbonear area and to replace old facilities. HR. ROBERTS: Tvillin~ate, Corner Brook. HR.. CROSBIE: Well that is replacing old facilities. • The minister never mentioned, Mr. Speaker, either.when he was introducing this Bill, what has happened to his White Paper. le was going to present the House with a White Paper on Health last session.

He was going to present the House this session with a White Paper on Health, and we still have not got it. I do not know whether the minister still intents to present iuch a White Paper or not. HR. ROBERTS: Read it

section by

section in the Bills. HR. CROSBIE: This is one of the chapters from the White Paper. It is being called the tattle-tale grey paper by some people. A bit long. the White Paper has turned tattle-tale grey. HR.. ROBERTS: I have been told, and indeed the hon. member may have heard this, but if I get sick I am going to have to leave Newfotmdland to get medical treatment. MR. CROSBIE: No, the minister is more popular than that, I believe. There is at lease one doctor on the Island who will treat him. MR. NEARY: His father. MR. CROSBIE: His father. MR. ROBERTS: But he is ~oing out of practice for a year.

May 6. 1971 Tape 508 (morning) PK - 2 MR. CROSBIE: Oh, is he? MR. ROBERTS: On medical facts, my father and I disa~ree. MR. CROSBIE: To get back to the Bill ,Mr. Speaker, the point that the minister mentioned at the end, 1 think, the fiundamental point about the Bill,and that is under this new Bill, a fundamental defect in the Bill. Under this new Bill, one physician, not one paychiatrist,,Mr. Speaker, but any doctor on the Island, general practioner,

section six, who decides that a person is suffering from mental disorder to such a degree that he requires hospitalization in the interest of his own safety, safety to others or safety to property, may commit you to a mental treatment facility­ one doctor. Now the minister says that this has been done in other province, and sure · perhaps it ,has. But, 1 still think, and I am., the Government are na~~•8Ying ' that is going to be the way it is and there is still no _other way. Beca,6se, Mr.

Speaker, 1 think this will make a great many people uneasy that, if this Bill is passed and proclaimed, any general practioner on the Island can ~ommit a person to a mental institution, mental treatment facility, by examing him and by signing a certificate. It seems to me to be giving any one doctor too much power. Now it does not even say one psychiatrist. After all a psychiatrist is a person trained in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. A general practioner is not, a surgeon is nat, a radiologist ia not trained in mental illness, diagnosis nor treatment. But under this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, any doctor can give a certificate that the Speaker, vi,nd sometimes I would not blame the doctor) _ that the Speaker,or whoever the person is.requires hospitalization; off the Speaker .would go to the hospital and he would have no choice,without his consent, it would not matter what his family thought. ,: While it is true that the . person involved might get out ~n fifteen days or thirty days or might be permitted out by the Medical Director, still your liberity 'is being taken away from you for a number of days.

You would suffer tremendous embarrassement, shock, and I think, this is too wide a power to ,ive. Under our ol~ arrangement you had to have two doctors certify that a person was mentally Z7'i7

May 6, 1971 Tape 508 (night) PK - 3 MR. CROSBIE: ill. I believe, they had to go to a magistrate also. They had to satisfy the magistrate. Well that was only prefunctionery, the magistrate could not go beyond the doctors opinion, but at least it was two doctors. And, I think . that it shou1d remain two doctors, Mr. Speaker.

If there is a problem that in cer~ain remote areas of Newfoundland you only have one doctor in that vicinity, let us provide in the Bill that,in an area where there is only one doctor, some appropriate form of language, that he can give a certificate which must be verified by a second doctor when the person arrives where there is a mental treatment facility. And then if the second doctor then does not ~so give his certificate, that the person is released. I mean ,we can find a way around the problem in the remote areas. Let us see what areas would that be; perhaps. the Hermitage area, that district.

It would not be White Bay North, until you got down around Rodaicton or some area like that, and even then, you have got all kind .a of doctors at St. Anthony. It might be Labrador South. In fact, there is not any doctor at all, they fly in I ~eas. But, there are anyway some areas where perhaps this creates a difficulty, but that can be gotten around. Labrador North has a number of doctors. AN HON. MEMBER: Not up on the coast. KR. CROSBIE: Not up on the coast, no. But­ lcl(.BON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: Yes, that might be a problem there. MR.

MURPHY: 1f there is no doctor at all, what would the situation be? HR. CROSBIE: Well, no, no, say you would not be certified, unless the doctor flys up the Labrador North Coast. I mean one of the Grenfell doctors would be visiting up the coast and he can certify him I and then he can be brought in to Northwest River or into Goose Bay, and he can get a second doctor to look at him. HR. MURPHY: A nurse could not look at hilll. MR. CROSBIE: Ho. a nurse could not certify a person under this legislation or under the present law. I feel 1111ite seriously, Mr. Speaker, there is a

May 6. 1971 Tape 508 (moming) PK - 4 MR. CROSBIE: definite possibility of abuse in this. You see the doctor himself can suffer fr0111 s0111e mental illness. I mean everyone of the doctors we have in this Province or other provinces are not one hundred percent riRht mentally. We have all heard of doctors becoming sick, just the same as you or I. Well, suppose some doctor got a mental disorder of his own, it is not easy recognizable, and he starts charging around certifying people. We have a doctor a member of this House, what is to stop him from certifying the whole crew here. MR.

ROBERTS: Surely• the hon. member would not object to that. MR. CROSBIE: In fact there are some moments in the House where there would be no doubt that he could get a second doctor to comply with it. MR. ROBERTS: Or a second hundred. MR. CR9SBIE: But, there is, I am ~efinitely uneasy about this. Perhaps, they.are trying it in other provinces. But I have met some doctors who I ' have had my qualms about, as to whether they were all there in ~he upper storey, and I am sure every member has. And I have met lawyers like that. MR. MURI'HY: Inaudible. MR.

CROSBIE: No, general doctors and politicians too, Now what the ' ' question really is, Mr. Speaker, MR. SMALLWOOD: Inaudible, MR. CROSBIE: The Premier does not like to hear me speak. I had to laugh the other day, Mr. Speaker, I think I was listening to the Premier on radio, and he was describing a speaker in the House, who all he did was speak. when he was not speaking he went outside and ~hen he came back. It was a perfect self-portrait. Only, he said it was me. But to get on with the Bill. I believe, Hr.

Speaker, quite seriously,and the minister has asked us to express our views, that there is too great a poaaiblility o! abuse to allow any physician to decide whether any person suffers from mental disorder, so that he requires,without his consent,to be admitted to a treatment facility.

May 6, 1971 Tape SOR (morning) PK - 5 1'1lt. CROSBIE: Definitely I feel that it should be two. The minister should consider some new wording and that in certain remote areasJor perhaps the Bill could even say what electoral districts , wbere one would be sufficient until the patient was brought to an area where you had a second doctor. The minister said that the Act provided that once you were taken to a treatment facility you had to be referred to a specific physician. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. I think, if the minister checks

section 8 of the Bill, he will find that on the admission of a patient to a treatment facility, the Medical -Director may assign the patient to · an attending physician. When this ~oes throu~h committee, I think the minister whould agree to change that word to"sha11:• That on admission of a patient to a treatment facility · the Medical Director shall assign to the patient, AN BON. t-ln1BER: What page? MR. CROSBIE: Page seven. an attending physician. Because the word "may" as the minister knows is permissive. And if you are taken to a mental treatment facility, you should definitely be - assigned a physician.

So what can happen under this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is that, if you have a physician, whether he thinks he is actin~ properly or whether he is suffering from mental disorder hiself, if he decides to have you committed, he can have you committed by signing the certificate that is provided under this Act. Once he ~rants a certificate that ia authority for him to call the police and have you taken to the Grace Hospital, Mental Wing,or the St.

Clare's Mental Wing.or the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases, and . their the Medical Director can assign a psychiatrist to you, and if you get out or not it is only going to depend on those gentle1um 0 You may be in there for a week before they can l~ok at you properly or two weeks before they can decide whether you have a mental defect or not. These are not easy thin~s to decide. They are very difficult to decide. So you maybe quite innocent and be in a mental treatment facility for a month, or you can be there for a year.

But suppose that it is quite clear that you are not suffering a mental illness, look at what is happening in the meantime. You have .S7:·: 0

May 6, 1971 Tape 508 (morning) PX - 6 MR. CROSBIE: been taken against your will, taken away from your busi~ess, taken away fr0111 your family and bJ"Ought into a mental treatment faci.lit}'. And if there is someone who is just on the edge, that might be enough to put him over the edge. So I feel that this definite!:, I cannot support I I will say let us wait and see half this works out in Ontario for another five or six years. before we Z 7 -~ 1

May 6, 1971 Tape no. 509 Page 1 Mr. Crosbie. take the chance on doing it her~. The minister pointed out that there is a Mental Health Review Board. There is now, Mr. Speaker, a Board of Commissioners in lunacy. I believe that the junior member for Harbour Main is one of the membeJSor he was, There is 'to be a Mental Health Review Board consisting of three persomwho can hear appeals as to whether the patient wants to be freed, when the medical directior does not feel that he should be, you can appeal to this board to decide the question. They also look after the property of Mental Hospital Patients.

I would like the minister to consider changing something there too. These people are only to hold office during pleasure, which we have had before the House before. I feel that they should hold office for a specific term.during good behaviour. If there is a Mental Health Review Board and there is going to be a politician on 1~, I think that is dangerous also. If the junior member for Harbour Main is still on, he should now come off that board. But this board here should not have any politicians on it.

Because, for ex .. ple, if one of -;•his~ - opponents were brought in and launched in the field, he might have an interest in keeping him in •. I mean there . are allkinds of sinister implications. We know in the modern age, Hr. Speaker that it is very difficult to say who is sane and who is not. Anybody that watches television these days has a grave problem in knowing who is supposed to be inside the hospital and who is supposed to be outside. We do not get much chance in this House to watch television. So by and large, I do not want to be too critical.

My only criticism of it is this point which the minister himself mentioned. I think that there is going to be a great uneasiness among the people of Newfoundland ,who are concerned with public affain or notice at all, if this is left so that just one doctor can, against your consent, have you detained. I believe that that is a danger to civil liberties,Mr. Speaker,and should be reconsidered. In fact, I would like to see the minister consider that it must be one doctor and a pkycbiatrist. I do not know·whether the minister is listening. The minister is psychoanalyzing

Hay 6, 1971 Tape no. 509 Page 2 Mr. Crosbie the Minister of Education, I would like the minister to consider, Mr. Speaker, not the Minister of Education's mental stability, but whether or not we could require two doctors one of whom must be a psychiatrist. That is what I would like to see in there. Yes that would be all right - two physicians and one psychiatrist. So the minister's mind is open, and I do not want to flog the horse here. Perhaps two physicians and one psychiatrist or some other formula, that 1 want to refer tc, legislation, It is needed.

So, I think that these are the only two points I mean,I think it is a very good piece of 1 am delighted to see that the minister is going to spend money on the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases this year. My main question about the Bill is the point that 1 have already mentioned, I think a lot of other members are going to be quite uneasy too, MR.. MARSHALL: It is 1:00 P.M., Mr. Speaker, . MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we would rather adjourn the debate. HR. SPE'I\KER: It is moved and aeconded that this debate be adjourned, Carried, MR SPEAKER: It beina now 1:00 P.H •• I leave the Chair until 3:00 P.M.

PR.OVlNCE O.F NEWFOUNDLAND AND ~fb\POR HOUS~ OF ASSENfBlV Volume 1 Number 41 5th Session THl,laSDAV.,, lVIAV 6, 1971 ..

Hay 6, 1971 The House resumed at 3 p.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order! MR. CURTIS: No. 7. Tape no. 510 Pagel MR. SPEAKER: Before we go into the orders,with leave of the House I would like to welcome on behalf of all members of the House of Assembly some sixty students which we have in the galleries this afternoon. They are students of Sunnyside Integrated, Grade VII, VIII and IX. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Reg Gardener. MR. W. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Health has quite rightly noted that this Bill is merely to establish the legal framework with respect to the improvement of the facilities for mental health in the Province. As such, it is a good Bill and goes a long way towards that end, with sertain reservations. However, at the outset I should like to point out th•t the power given in this Bill to recognize certain hospital facilities, mental health treatment centres. as the MiniRter well knnvs, in effect. is not going to create these facilities.

There is a need in this Province for much more expanded facilities of this nature, not just in St. John's but all around the Island everywhere. One area of mental health, in particular, to which one would have to address one's thought when thinking of this subject is the treatment of senior citizens who have become unable to live in their own homes because of certain attention that they need, because of advancing age, their minds are not alert as they have been in the past.

There is a crying need for this type of facility, a greater amount and a greater quality of facilities for treating senile people in the Province. There are places being set up for the purpose where people may live together in the community, older people, but I am thinking particularly of the semi-ambulatory and the non-ambulatory type of .person who needs much more help than has been afforded to him, the people in the hostels and the infirmies as such. In this connection, I would have to point out that the policies of the Federal Government~ I believe. it is, do not tend to help

May 6, 1971 Tape no. 510 Page 2 Mr. Marshall the situation in this Province. They make it worst. In the case of a senior citizen who is confined or requires hostel type of care, if that person needs assistance he comes under the Department of Social Services and Rehabiliation and under the Canada Assistance Plan. As such, the Federal Government will pay money towards the capital cost of that facility, this hostel facility. Yet when the infirmy care is needed that comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and under the Health Insurance Plan of the Federal Government.

Unfortunately the Federal Government, under the Health Insurance Plan, will not make money available with respect to the capital construction or the capital cost of the facility involved. Consequently, we have a lack of infirmy facilities of this nature which we ought otherwise to have.

It makes one rather impatient and makes people rather impatient, when you consider that governments ought to look after the overall needs and are charged with looking after the overall needs of all the citizens to know just because a certain condition or a certain degree of a condition comes under one particular plan or one particular department of the Federal Government that you get assistance towards the construction of the facilities required, hut if the situation becomes more aggravated, you do not get it.

So, therefore, to my mind this is one area of mental health that must get a good deal of attention by the Government and in particular the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Services and Rehabilitation. I would like to know what pressures have been brought by this Government on the Federal Government with the view to increasing the assistance available towards the capital construction of iofirmies.

I think that this shows and demonstrates quite effectively the need for a ministery of Federal/Provincial relations,as such,to bring pressures to bear,such as this,and to review the programmes, the inadequacy of the Federal progra'IIIDleS as they apply to the Province. Here again.when we · look at this

section of the Bill, and we look at section (4) of the Bill, and there is provision here for the minister to declare treatment - to designate certain plans as treatment facilities or parts of treatment facilities. Then this has to be done,I would submit, with great care. I do not know really how many of the hospitals in the Province -7 . .,,, .-;,. L j

May 6, 1971 Tape no. 510 Page J Mr. Marshall are really geared to handle the type of -situation that will arise, Certainly in the case of dealing with people who are aged, senile, older people as such, there is no doubt that there must need be a segregation of them from other patients, because it can cause problems over the whole of the health facility concerned.

Here again 1with respect to the mental health of the Province, it is all right to establish a legal framework and to revi e the archiac Law,which certainly needed to be revised and has so by this Bill, But there is also need for this Govemment, the Minister of Health, to tum its mind much more seriously and much more directly to the problem of drug abuse in tlm Province, to the provision of facilities in St.

Jc~n•s, 8rand Falls and CornerBrook and other large areas for the treatment of drug abuse, ; and for the representations to the Federal Government to allow a haven for drug users, to make them free from prosecution once they go to the facility provided. There must need be a more direct and involved action taken by the Govemment in this area. Now,finaliy,I would like to tum to the observation raised by the hon. member for St. John's West with respect to the provision in the Act to the effect that a person may be certified to a mental hospital or mental institution on the certificate of a doctor.

This deviates and it is different from the previous situation where two doctors had to sign the certificate. But we are told at the same time,by the Minister of Health,that it is similar to provisions in other provinces of Canada. When asked the question whether or not there were any difficulties in the old system, the minister indicated that in remote areas there were some difficulties in getting the second opinion. But I admit that in some of these remote areas it would be difficult even gettini the initial doctor to sign the certificate.

But in any event, I do not believe that . there are any situatiou or any situations that have come forcibly to the attention of the general public under the old Act. This is the matter to which we have to address ourselves,that any person - Mil. MUR2HY: MR. SPEAKER: It is very diffcult to hear the hon. member. Order please: --7. ~ :;, ... .,

May 6, 1971 hpe no, 510 Page & Mr. Speaker, There is altogether too much talk and noise being made, I am having difficulty in hearing the hon, member myself, MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I say there is - the major question that one has to ask oneself when examining the utility of the old Act is whether there were any glaring instances of confinement to a mental institution where there should not have been. The answer, of course, is no.

For this reason, I think that we ought to - it is much more important that the safeguards to the citizens be employed to their fullest, than to leave it open for if there would possibly be a mistake involved. As the member for St. John's West said, there is no doubt that mistakes can be made when it is left to one individual, So with respect to this provision, I do not agree with this provision that one doctor may sign the certificate, I think that there be two.

In the case where you have re1DOte areas involved and there is only one doctor, well perhaps the minister could change the legislation to provide that a person may be takan into cuatody on the certificate of one doctor, but it will require at least two doctors to examine him before he is admitted to the facility itself. But certainly, one ehould nbt agree with the provision of there being juet one physician in order to certify a person to any mental facility. I would think also that one of these doctors ought obviously to be a psychiatrist.

One final point that I would like to draw to the minister's attention and this perhaps is something for committee, but the minister might like to address himself to it and to be able to give the answer at that time. Subsection (2) of (7) has a provision to the effect that after fourteen days after the granting of a certificate by a doctor. the certificate shall cease to have effect, if the person is not confined to a mental institution, The subsection before thAt 9 if the person is confined, a certificate is good for thirty days.

I have just wondered why it is not thirty days in the latter case and fourteen days in the former case. This is a question that I should like the minister to answer. But other than that, this is a good Bill. In the main, it is a good Bill. But it has to be noted that the facilities that have been provided Z7l.7

May 6, 1971 Tape no. ilO Page 5 Mr. Marshall for the treatment of the mentally ill in this Province are not enough. As a matter of fact they are to a large extent very, very poorly set out and not in keeping with the modern trend. It is definitely necessary that this Government come. to grips with the problems that are before us in the fields of mental health and also with respect to the confinement for the purpose of mental treatment.

I think it would be a very bad move to not have so~ safeguard in there whereby a person, before initially be becomes confined, does not have to have an opinion passed upon his mental capacity by at least two physicians, One of whom should be a psychiatrist. _MR. J. MAHONEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to address myself to the principle contained in this Bill with regard to the method of certification.

Now I agree in principle with the comments made by several of the hon. members who have spoken in this debate up to this point with regard to the necessity of protection of the individuals in the question of certification. But I do suggest to the House that there is a practical problem that has to be faced. There are places in this Province,from where a person has to be brought,perhaps to St. John's to the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases.where there is only one doctor or where in the area there may be only one doctor.

Now what does happen from the practical point of view of taking the patient who is suspected to be mentally ill and needs treatment from that area where you have only got the one doctor? It may very well be said that the certification - I suggest to the House that certification in those instances bv one doctor is all you can reasonably request or expect, because there is nothing else available. It is not practical or sensible to suggest that you leave the person where he is.

You have no authority to confine him unless he is dangerous to be at large, and he has to be doing something or displaying some signs of having that type of mental illness. But in a case where that s.ttuation does not apply, what happens? You cannot leave the person there until you fly in another doctor, or you might have to wait -: 7' '.) ·"' • .J

May 6, 1971 Tape no 510 P8ie 6 . Mr. Mahoney three or four days, What I suggest is that in cases where only one doctor is available that the certification of that doctor be acceptable and be valid and legal for that purpose but when the person is brought to the treatment facility, validly ao upon that certification, in an area where psychiatric medical help is available that then perhaps even the certification in that place by two qualified psychiatrists would be necessary. In an area where there is no qualified psychiattist that perhaps two medical doctors would be then required.

But what I am actually getting at is the impracticality of looking for certification by two doctors in areas whet:"e two doctors are not available. Now we have had the situation in Newfoundland and we have it under the existing law that separate certificates by two qualified medical practioners are necessary in order to Ret certification of a person who is mentally ill, That bas caused untold problems for the

May 6, 1971. Tape 511. Page 1. Afternoon Session. officials of the department concerned and the employees both professional and otherwise at the Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases, and untold problems for the police where they are in a situation what do they do if they accept one certification, or the certification of one doctor and bring that person into the hospital.to the cases where they do bring them in,I think everybody will agree that these cases are genuine cases. But, what does happen if you demand two certifications or the continuation of two certifications where such is not available?

I suggest that if there is to be a change in the principle set forth in this Bill it can be done on a practical basis in keeping with the situation that exists in Newfoundland.Ve know that the ideal situation would be to have two psychiatrists make certification in any event.

That is not practical 1 I suggest to the Bouse, it is not practical, in Newfoundland and that perhaps s~e modification of this may be necessary MR.SMALLWOOD: Did the hon. gentleman say that it is not always practical KR.MAHONEY: It is not always practical and in many cases I personallJ ·do• not foresee that it will be practical to have two doctors in every area in Newfoundland where a person must be tak~n and given treatment for mental disorder.

There are other protections built int~ the Act whereby you have provision for the setting up of a review board. _ That review board can sit very quickly and it does have authority o~ it would have the authority to order discharge of patients which the board as now constituted does not ~ave. The main purpose Mr.

Speaker, of •Y. speaking to this is that if there is going to be any change made or any suggested change to the principle ennunciated with regard to certification by one medical practitioner that it should be very carefully considered from the point of view of what is practical and what is very impractical in the light of present day situation.in this Province. KR.NPEL: I would just like to draw the attention of the House to the

May 6. 1971. Tape 511 Page 2. Afternoon Session. fact that this Bill enables the person to be arrested and imprisoned for thirty days without the right of habeas corpus or any means of having his case heard. It seems to me1 Mr. Speaker, that in ordinary criminal matters we arrest a person on the affidavit of one individual. In other words,a policeman is entitled to arrest a person on his own authority, The magistrate will issue a sunmons or a warrant for arrest on an affidavit signed by a single individual.

Therefore, I do not see anything WTong with a person being apprehended for mental illness on the affidavit or on the order of a single physician. But what disturbs me about this Bill is, as I see it, I may be wrong,subject to correction but hnving read it, it seems to me here that the cardinal document is the certificate of authorization. The certification of authorization has to be signed by only one doctor, one physician who nay be drunk - that in this day and age we have tendency to treat all professions on a very high level. We pass the whole of our medical services over to the medical profession.

We pass the whole of our city planning over to the town planners. We pass the whole of the legal business over to lawyers. We give these people tremendous authority. What we fail to bear in mind is that sometimes there are very disreputable people and people who are not quite right in the head themselves.

There are doctors who are drunk. and doctors who are alcoholic and doctors who are half mad themselves.- MR.SMALLWOOD: Suppose the examinations were done by the gentleman who did eighty-eight, suppose the person in question was one of the eighty­ eight done in one day by a man who put in a bill for $1100 for that day's work. HR.NOEL: Well, Mr. Premier I will give you one now that - HR.SMALLWOOD: I would hate to be one of those eighty-eight - and find myself - MR.NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention - I would like ... 7 ~, ,f ... . 41 J

Hay 6, 1971. Tape 511. Page 3. Afternoon Session. MR.SMALLWOOD: I do not know of anyone elae who would like to be examined by one man alone - MR.NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention to the fact that probably some people in the community are a little sorry that this Bill was not in force a few years ago because on that occasion all certain parties would have had to do would be to get some half-drunken physician to give a certificate of authorization and the Hon. Mr. Smallwood could have been locked up for thirty days and nobody could have gotten him out of jail. MR.ROBERTS: Now, would the hon. gentleman direct his attention to the question

Section 6 (3) I do not dispute his point but I - MR.NOEL: Yes, I - MR.ROBERTS: think it is not possible - MR.NOEL: How? MR.ROBERTS: Top of page eight, if the hon. member wants to read it - to the House - MR.NOEL: One month, thirty days. MR.ROBERTS: Top of page six, MR.NOEL: Yes, thirty days. Now, Mr. Speaker, my point is this, as ridiculous as it may seem,once the certificate of authorization is given there is no power on earth can get that man out of that place for thirty days - MR.ROBERTS: That is not correct. MR.NOEL: Well, the hon. minister can show me afterwards if he wishes.

The only way that man can get out during that thirty day period,as I read this• is the medical director can let him out - the medical director can let him out or the attending physician can let him out. MR.ROBERTS: Or the review board - MR.NOEL: Yes, or the review board - yes now we get the review board - But there is no provision in this Act which says how soon after an ":' 7 ,..., 9 .-~ ,., ...

- Hay 6, 1971. Tape 511 Page 4. Afternoon Session. application is received the medical review board has to sit. Or how often they will sit and not only that,provides then that the appeals to medical review board is as if it were under an appeal from the District Court Judge, which is a fifteen day notice or probably six weeks or two months. The writ of habeas corpus will not apply here, because the certificate of authorization is a legal documeat which authorizes the holding of that man or woman in custody for thirty days.

There is no way under,this Act. lf I had a case today 1 where I knew a man was improperly imprisoned in the mental hospital last night,there is no way I can get that man out. Now if I had my choice between - MR.ROBERTS: What about 19 (6)? MR.NOEL: 19(6). I was reading, 19(6) on page 16, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any person aggrieved by a decision of the Review Board." In other words a person bas to be aggrieved by a decision of the Review Board before he can make any application to the Court. Even an application for habeas corpus or one of the prerogative writs.

MR.ROBERTS: Nothing in this Act to prohibit the habeas corpus application. MR.NOEL: A habeas corpus - I do not want to start giving a lecture on law here. But, a habeas corpus proceeding is this: Is that you apply to the court for an order that somebody produce the body of somebody in court. All the judge looks at is the legal authority for holding that person, that is all. MR ROBERTS: Right! Right!

MR.NOEL: NOW', in the present case, in the ease I said of my man who is wrongfully detained,somebody turns up, the superintendent of the Mental Hospital turns up and he produces a certificate of authorization and he - draws His Lordship's attention to

section 7 of the Act and that case is out. MR.ROBERTS: The person has not been.wrongfully detained at that point. He has been detained in accordance with the law. Habeas Corpus - .... 7~,3 ::r . .J .

Hay 6, 1971. Tape Sll. Page 5. Afternoon Session. HR.NOEL: Exactly - HR.SPEAKER: Order please: I wish the hon. members would restrain their impatience until it comes to their turn to speak so we can listen to one person at a time. HR.NOEL: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly my point, that the man is being detained according to the law and therefore he cannot be freed* This is exactly my point,he is detained according to law for thirty days strictly legal, perfectly ironclad reason for holding that man.

A simple piece of paper signed by one doctor, and he cannot be released unless you can find the medical director,who may be down in Honolulu somewh~re1 or get the attending physician to release him. This is even more so, I have had some experience in this matter. The physicians who sign the document that commits a man to the mental hospital nine times out of ten are acting entirely upon the evidence that is given to them by some wife or a brother or a father or a son or a daughter or somebody else. I know of cases, the hon. member for St.

John's East said that there were no cases of a person being detained improperly in our mental hospital~ I can tell the hon. gentleman of a very humourous case, actually it was a very humourous case so there was no harm done but there have been cases where people have been improperly detained. If not in our own mental hospital the law books are full of cases ·:where people have been improperly detained.

Now Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty or give me Death." The hon. minister said when he was presenting this to the House that he was going to take the law out of the medicine and he was going to take medicine out of law. To that I have only one remark. If anybody starts taking the law out of anything, particularly where it relates to the liberty of the subject,he is up against quite a struggle. I am on my feet here this afternoon because I believe in the liberty of the subject. That is my profession. That is my profession.

Other people can go around curing their mental illness, somebody else can go ) 7 ~, ,t :o1 .. ·:1

May 6, 1971. Tape 511. Page 6. Afternoon Session. around fixing their corn~ but my job. my profession is the liberty of the subject and the safety of his property and I see this here as a serious t