PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Volume 1 Number 48 4th. Session 34th. General Assembly VERBATIM REPORT TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1970 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE GEORGE W. CLARKE

Tape b67 Pk - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. MR. Speaker in the Chair 0 Mr. Speaker left the Chair. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its Present Session passed certain Bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's Assent. Whereupon the Clerk read the following Bills: A Bill "An Act To Amend The Nomenclature Board Act, 1959". A Bill "An Act Further To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1954".

A Bill "An Act To Amend The Prisons Act, 1969':' A Bill "An Act Further To Amend The Social Assistance Act, 1962". A Bill "AD Act Further To Amend The Welfare of Children Act". A Bill "An Act Respecting The Payment Of Bounties On the Constructio~ Of Fishing Ships". A Bill "An Act Respecting The Marketing Of Salt-Fish". A Bill "An Act Respecting Private Investigators And Security Guards". A Bill 'fAn Act Further To Amend The Expropriation Act, 1964". HIS HON. THE LIEUTENANT-GoVERNOR: "In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to these Bills". His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor left the Chamber. Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRESENTING PETITIONS BON •. ~. R. ~ALLWOOD: (PREMIER) Before Your Honour call any of the Order Paper, I should like to inform the House that the Government have today appointed a ipecial Appeal Board whose duty will be to hear and consider appeals made to them by Civil Servants in respect of the New Re-Classificat-ion Program introduced by the Government, and the matters that arise automatically therefrom.

These appeals to the Appeal Board may be made by individual civil servants acting individually and separately or by groups of civil servants, large or small, or by a duly constituted authorities representatives of any one or more civil servants. In short the appeal may be made by any one of the 10,000 or 12,000 2915

Tape 667 PK - 2 MR. SMALLWOOD: civil servants or other receiving their pay from the Treasury of this Province. And the appeals may be made individually, personally and separately or by any two or more civil servants acting together, in any group large or small, and they may be made in person or they may be made through their representative. The Board was appointed today and they will assemble as rapidly as they can and be available to all civil servants collectively or individually, as I say, to hear any appeals or grivances that civil servants have or think they have, and to consider these grivances.

The members of the Board are as follows: Professor Hugh Whelan, of Memorial University is Chairman. Professor Whelan has done this kind of work before. But he has done it for the Government of Canada. of Labour. Mr. George W. D. Allen, former Auditor General of Newfoundland. Mr. Essau Thoms, former President of the Newfoundland Federation Miss Mae Bartlett, a former Civil Servant. The Ron. Reginald Sparkes, former Speaker of the House of Assembly. The Appeal Board will sit in St. John's and other places in the Province as the need may arise.

They will proceed to such places presumably as Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Grand Bank, or somewhere on the Burin Peninsula, Labrador, or anywhere else that it may be meet and expident for them to do, to serve the convenience of the public servants who may wish to appear before them. Mr. Speaker, the Government were anxious that there should be on the Board of Appeal someone or other who would be chosen and recommended by the Civil Service. And by non-Civil Servants but persons whose salaries come from the Treasury of this Province.

The Government were confronted by the fact that"these employees are represented by at least four and possibly five different organizations. We certainly did not have any desire or intention to have all four or possibly five of those organizations represented on the Appeal Board. And if it had been feasible to do so, we would have r~quired that the persons recommended by them, should be persons outside of the Civil 2916

April 26th. 1~70 tape 667 PK - 3 MR. SMALLWOOD: Service and outside of the activities within which the salaries are paid by the Treasury of this Province. We, therefore, look out for some prominent and reputable Labour Leader, Trade Union Leader, and approach.htm ourselves, and appointed him in the belief that he together with the other four would truly constitute an independent Board of able men and wom,n, and a Board whose integrity would not be called into question. So, Sir, 1 have great pleasure in making .thts announcement today. MR. JOHN CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for an explanation in connection with that particular 2917

April 28, 1970 Tape #668 Page 1 MR. CROSBIE: an explanation in connection with that question. The appeal Board the Premier announced seems to be a very good Board. Could the Premier tell the House whether the decisions of this Appeal Board are to be binding on the Government and on both sides, or are they just to recommend what should be done. Will their decision be binding? MR. SMALLWOOD: Their decisions will not be binding on the Government. And I doubt they would be binding on anyone else. Their purpose is to hear complaints, to hear grievances.

To study the grievances and to come to conclusions about them, and to make recommendations or reports, with recommendations or without recommendations to the Government. I may say Mr. Speaker, that it is not, it is most positively not, and I repeat that, it is not intended that the appeal Board shall have any rights whatsoever to fix salaries. There is no suggestions in our minds that the Appeal Board shall have any right other than to hear grievances, complaints from Civil Servants, as I say indivi~ually or collectively, in any way that the Civil Servants desire to make the complaints.

To hear these complaints and to analyae them and to report on them to the_Government and to make recommendations where they feel they ought to make recommendations. But this enquiry that they will make, and the reports and recommendations they will make will not have to do with scales of pay.

They are not a pay scale board, they are an appeal board, to hear complaints of Civil Servants who think, rightly or wrongly, who think that they have been wrongly classified, unjustly classified, inconsistently classified, or in any other way treated unjustly, or unfairly, or inaccurately with regard to their system of classifications we have as the House is aware- just introduced . a system of classifying every job, not every person, but every job in the Province. Every job that is paid for by the public treasury. Every job is classified and the pay scale is tied in to the classification.

The pay is what the classification requires, Therefore, every individual person, every man or every woman who is given a classification and the corresponding pay scale that goes with the classification, may have a legitimate basis, a legitimate reason for grievance or complaint or dissatisfaction with regard to the 2918

April 28, 1970 Tape #668 Page 2 classification, or some other aspect of the system other than the question of salary scale. The size, the amount of the salary scale is not for the Appeal Board. That is for direct communication between the employees aD~ the one hand, and the Government on the other. MR. CROSBIE: Would their decision on classification be binding, or any of their decisions? MR.

SMALLWOOD: No, no decision of the - first of all, the only decisions that the Appeal Board will make is a decision among themselves that in their opin~on, they have decided that there is an injustice, that there is unfair play. That there is inconsistence. They could come to such a conclusion, and they would state that conclusion to the Government, and they would give a recommendation to the Government. Their conclusion and their recommendation would most positively not be binding on-the Government. The Government must have the final say, being the Government. They being the Government.

On the other hand, having said that, it is perfectly obvious, or it ought to be perfectly obvious that a Government that has confidence in a Board of its own choosing and its own appointing, and this Board has been chosen by the Government and is appointed by the Government, the Board therefore, is one in whose integrity and in whose intelligence - the Government have great confidence.

And when such a Board as that in a leisurely fashion, taking its time, doing a thorough­ going job, examine the complaint of any Civil Servant, or group of Civil Servants, and comes to a conclusion, and forwards that conclusion to the Government, with or without a recommendation, the Government clearly and obviously will pay the most careful to the report, the findings, the conclusion and any recommendation that the Appeal Board will make. We begin as we-do by our selecting the Appeal Board.

And if we begin as we do indeed vith confidence in the integrity and the intelligence of that Board, then the ~indings and recommendations of that Board to the Government, will receive the most respectful and meticulous consideration by the Government. In other words, the Appeal Board will be a screen between Civil Servants and Government. A screen, a sympathetic and intelligent screen, hearing 2919

April 28, 1970 Tape #668 Page 3 any and every complaint. And they being that and saving the Government the endless, the interminable time and effort of the Government and the Cabinet, sitting down and hearing each individual complaint, the Board doing that the Government can do little less, little less than to give the most careful and respectful attention to the conclusions of such a Board as that. Mr. Speaker, the House today is visited some eighty Grade Vlll students of the Clarenville Junior High School. Eighty of them in three different classes of Grade Vlll, in charge of Mr. Little and Mr.

Peach, and they are paying their first visit to the House of Assembly in this present Session. I want to say to them, that I do not know if anyone would be more welcome in this Chamber than these young Newfoundlanders from Clarenville. I do not know anyone that we would be more happy to see here today than those eighty young Newfoundlanders, who in five or eight or ten years from now may be sitting here at these desks and running the Province and if they are not running the Province from this Chamber they will most assuredly by running the Province from . other desks and other offices and other buildings.

Because eight or ten years from now, these eighty young men and women, together with thousands of other young men and women around the Province, will be running Newfoundland. And so they are most cordially welcome here today to cast an eye over the people's representatives, the people who have been elected by all thepopulation of the Province to come and represent them in this Chamber.

We hope that they vill be able to stay a fair length of time, hear some of the debate, be puzzled as they are sure to be, by the way the House conducts its business, puzzled by that because it may appear to be a little mysterious to them. But they will remember that the way we run the affairs of this Bouse is exactly as laid down hundreds of years ago in the Mother of Parliament in the United Kingdom in London in Westminister, that we are but pale .shadows, pale imitations. Sometimes not altogether pale imitations of the great basis British parliamentary assistants, and so what appears 2920

April 28, 1970 Tape 1668 Page 4 at first sight to be a puzzling apd mysterious way of doing things, turns out if it is viewed long enough, turns out to be a very ~rac:tical and successful way of conducting the affairs . of an elected body. And in all events people all over the world have copied the British system in whole or in part, and we are very proud o.f it. And we are very proud of the great t'taditions that we have built up. Now our young people tend to be· a little bit impatient with tradition 2921

traditions and sometimes a bit contemptuous as well, but as they get over the defect, as Pitt said, great Pitt at twenty-one years of age was Prime Minister of England. Just think of that - a lad twenty-one, Prime Minister of the great nation of all mankind at the time that he was Prime Minister. When he was Prime Minister at twenty-one, somebody across the floor taunted him and said: "he is just a youngster or he is just a boy or he is just a child." The Prime Minister Pitt said, "yes", he said, "Mr. Speaker, I have this complaint that I am very young.

This is a disease that I have that I am very young, but he said that this a disease that will be cured by time and cured very quickly." the time would pass and he would not be that young and so that disease would be cured very quickly." But he said, "the bon. gentleman~ and he pointed across the floor at the member of the House of Commons who had accused him of the crime of being young. He said, "yes, I will get over this illness, this sickness, this complaint. '' But the bon. gentleman, he said, will never get over his sick head. He will never get over his stupidity. He will always.

He will live and die a stupid man, ''but you can get over youth, but it is hard to get over stupidity." Somebody said one time that God can forgive any sin, except the sin of stupidity. So do not mind being · young, it is a glorious complaint and it is the complaint you will not have too long. It will pass. It will go and no one will be able to point that fingerat you. Now have I not given the Leader of the Opposition enough scope now to get up and make an eloquent speech. I want to throw a challenge across at him.

You read the papers and you listen to the radio and the gentlemen in the press gallery will report,every day they report that the Opposition hurls a charge at the Government or the Government hurls a charge. They are always hurling things. I am going to hurl a challenge .at the Leader of the opposition. The challenge I am hurling at him is this: get up, if he dares to do it. If he has the nerve to do it, get up and contradict me, when I say that these are marvellous young Newfoundlanders, bright, intelligent, getting to be well educated, patriotic and the future hope of Newfoundland.

I dare the Leader of the Opposition to contradict me. I know he cannot. I 2922

~ape no. oo~ know he has got to get up and agree with me. This is once every day, when the Leader of the Opposition whether he likes it or not has got to get up and agree with the Premier. I challenge him to do it now. MR. ANTHONY J. MURPHY (Leader of the Opposition): Thanks for the invitation. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join with the hon. the Premier in welcoming these young people from Clarenville.

I am sure that it is somewhat of a thrill for them to be here in this Bouse, and particularly on this day, when they saw what too many of our school pupils do not see; the actual signing of a Bill by the Queen's representative.

As the Premier said, this comes down from Parliament, the Mother of Parliaments, and I perhaps would visualize the Bill being signed by ~ ~r Majesty the Queen in Parliament, in London, and I think today, we have the same thing re-enacted by the Queen's most loyal representative. the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland, and I am sure that it is something that not too many school children coming in do not see.

It does not happen every day, but only at certain times, and with reference to Bills, we discuss them here in the House, and we give them first, second and third reading, but they do n.t~hecome law, until the Governor has signed the Bills on behalf of Her Majesty the queen • I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to join with the bon. Premier. There was someone who passed a remark, when the Premier was speaki~g about stupidity, but I will not repeat that. I am too much of a gentleman.

I could pass some kind of a slur on that, but being the gentleman I am, I will not refer to some people who took many years, perhaps, to try to get over~it. I will just say how happy I am to join with the bon. Premier and the rest of the House to welcome these eighty school children from Clarenville and their teachers and I just hope that the weather stays fine, and they will hav£ just as nice a ride going back to Clarenville as they did coming in today. MR. JOHN CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to associate ourselves with the welco~ to these eighty students from Clarenville.

They come from the area of Random Sound, and you hear quite a bit of random sound in this House, 2923

from time to time, Mr. Speaker, and never from this side, of course , but I hope that they will enjoy today's sitting and they are certainly welcome. They have come a long way, and I hope that there will be something intere~ting for them to observe before the afternoon is gone. If they had come tomorrow, they would have seen Private Members'Day being squeezed down to an hour and five minutes. Perhaps there will be another group come in tomorrow. Private Members' Day is usually the shortest day of the year. It is a summer day of the week - Private Members' Day. But ~ Mr. Speaker, we would like to welcome Mr.

Little and Mr. Peach and we hope that they are entertained and learn something while they are here this afternoon. MR. R- .-~BARBOUR: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the bon. mallber for Trinity North, who is not able to be present with us this afternoon and because my district of Bonavista South only separates me, twenty minutes drive from districts to Clarenville and because every time, ! _visit my district, I talk to many of the students, while at Clarenville.

I would, therefore, like to concur with the Premier and the other two gentleman on the opposite side, who have spoken and say, welcome on behalf of your bon. member, the bon. C. Max Lane who is sick and cannot be here. I, myself, would like to add my few words of welcome to you the students of Clarenville and to you the teachers who accompany them and I hope, I hope that before you leave this afternoon, you will be more the wiser for your visit and get an idea how the House operates. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. THOMAS HICKEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of some eighty-six voters of Midlle Cove in the .district of St. ::John,.s East (Extern). The prayer of their petition, Sir, is that the road leading from Torbay Road to ~1t~le Cove beach be upgraded and paved. Mr. Speaker, in supporting this petition on behalf of these people, I would like to point out to the House that this road is a very short one. It is approximately two and a half or three miles and it leads to a beach 2924

April 27th.,l970 Page 4 ·Tape no. 669 which is very popular, a very popular area, It attracts a lot of people during the summer months and in fact throughout the year. The residents of this area are plagued with the dust problem and as much as people visiting that area use this road as a short cut to the beach. Sir, it would not cost too much to improve this road and it is the prayer of those people who have signed this petition that the road be upgraded and paved during the coming year. Sir, I ask that the petition be received and be referred to the department to which it relates. MR.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this petition be received and referred to the department to which it relates. MR. MURPHY: Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to say a short word in support of that petition, because as the bon. member from the district has pointed out, Middle Cove beach is an attraction for a great number of people, and taking into account that there is no provincial park in that area at all and if the road continues to deteriorate, I am afraid that those who are using it at the present time will be forced to go west to for other parks and I am sure that that area that the more people visit it, the more good it will do for that particular area of Middle Cove, Outer Cove, so on and so forth.

So 1 have much pleasure in supporting the prayer of the petition of my hon. colleague. MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question? Those in favour "aye." Contrary "nay." Carried. PRESENTING REPORTS OF STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is under this heading that ministers table reports. 1 beg leave to table "Financial Statements to December 31st., 1969 of the Newfoundland Municipill Financing Corporation." ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MR. SMALLWOOD: Mr.

Speaker, Question no. 451 on the Order Paper of April 17th., in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the bon. member for St. John's t:Centre. The answer to the first part (has the hon. Leader not got 2925

April 27th., 1970 Tape no. 669 Page 5 the question there)? Question no. 451 on the Order Paper of April 17th. The bon. gentleman ought to get some system into the keeping of his records so that he could, in his filing system - or he might even call on his staff •••• MR. MURPHY: They are being recorded on the electronic system supplied by the House. MR. SMALLWOOD: That is one way of looking at it. Is the question put in the Hansard. The answer is. ·The answer to the first

part is: $250,000 as shown under the heading of notes payable as per the public accounts of 31st, March, 1969 to the Bank of Nova Scotia. The answer to the second

part is~ that the interest payable was 6 3/4 per cent per annum • Question no. 456 on the Order Paper of April 17th, the same date. Again in the name of the hon.Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. John's Centre. The answer ts: none, no amounts have been borrowed. Question no. 460, on the Order Paper of April 17th. This time in the name of the bon. member for Gander. The answer is: there were none. MR. ROWE (F.W.): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to Question no. 350 asked by the bon. member for Fortune Bay, on the Order Paper of April lOth.

The question is: Have any schools boards in this Province been told to proceed with plans for new school buildings or additions to schools this year, which which will require financial assistance from the Government pending the announcement of the DREE program? If so, which boards? The answer to that is that: The Department of Educatiandoes not communicate with boards on the matter of building schools or extending or enlarging existing schools. That function is performed by 2926

April 28, 1970, Tape 670, Page 1 -- apb MR. ROWE (F.W.): Performed by the duty constituted bodies, constituted by the schools Act and known as the Denominational Educational Committee. Perhaps for the information of bon. members I should say that this body, or these bodies take the place of the old Denominational Educational Councils which used to perform those functions. The Government of Newfoundland does not decide where schools will be built or when they will be built or what kind of a school will be built. Nor does the Government of Newfoundland decide to enlarge schools or to modify schools in any way.

This House votes money for the building of schools. That money then, under the law must be allocated to the various churches, either individually as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Church, or now collectively as in the case of the three other churches Anglican, United Church and Salvation Army which have integrated. Having received their share of what ever money is voted by this House, they then decide how their share of the money will be allocated. MR. CROSBIE: Would the minister permit a supplementary quegtion? This question refers to DREE.

Would the hon. minister tell us whether or not our Government has any thing to do with DREE as to what schools are going to get money? Surely we must communicate something to Ottawa. MR. ROWE: In the DREE announcement, the minister is not here at this time, but in any case I can answer this inasmuchas it affects the Department of Education. In the DREE announcement it was pointed out that a decision had been taken bv the two contracting parties to assist education in several defined areas. These decisions were taken in consultation with the representatives of the churches. MR.

HICKMAN: A further supplementary question Mr. Speaker. The question asked whether that has been any communication between the school boards and the Department of Education on the construction of schools. Would the bon. minister simply for the purpose of clarification indicate to the House, how Government of the Province could make recommendations to the DREE officials in Ottawa to the location of schools without communication from the boards in question?

In any designated area. for instance what I am getting at is, let us say the Burin Peninsula or the Avalon Peninsula, or the Eastern half of the Avalon has been 2927

April 28, 1970, Tape 670, Page 2 apb been designated as DREE areas or special areas under the DREE program. Now, how does Government get the necessary information if it is not from the school boards say, in those areas as to the location? I find it almost incredible that the school boards have no communication with the department on this. MR. ROWE: I ·am very happy to answer that question Mr. Speaker. The Department of Education has been in_consultation with the Denominational Committees, not with the Boards of Education.

There are a large number of Boards of Education and the department does not deal with individual boards, although boards do sometimes send in mistakenly and they ask the department to approve their decision to build a school and so on. But the department deals with the Denominational Edcuational Committees which are seperate bodies created under the law. They are not Government bodies, and as my bon. friend knows, they no longet have any, house in this building or in the Department of Education, they are housed in the Royal Trust Building as a matter of fact.

We deal with them, they deal with us, and in our dealings with the DREE authorities both Federal and Provincial, our information, our advice will be channeled through our Department of Community and Social Development which is the department responsible for, on the Newfoundland side for the DREE program, we deal with them, and we convey to them the advice and the recommendations that we have received from the Denominational Educational Committees who in turn are on the receiving end of all the information and requests coming in from their respective Boards of Education.

The Department of Education does not deal direct with the boards on these matters, even, with regard to the DREE program in itself. We simply pass on our recommendations to DREE as we have received them from the D.E.C. Actually they have been worked out in close consultation and collaboration all through. That is all I think I can say on the matter. ORDERS OF THE DAY: MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, before we take up Orders of the Day, I move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. That matter being the salary increases for civil servants, hospital 2928

April 28, 1970, Tape 670, Page 3 -- apb workers, the Newfoundland Constabulary, the firemen and penitentiary wardens contained in the Budget Speech and estimates tabled in this bon. House. And the dissatisfaction publicly expressed of those affected and in particular the ultimatum of the Newfoundland Constabulary to the effect that if the salary increases requested by them are not acceeded to by Friday, May lst.l970, that is two days time, there maybe withdrawal of services by all or some of the said constabulary. I so move. HON. J.R.SMALLWOOD (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, Your Honour has a copy of the resolution and I rise to oppose it, and I rise to suggest to Your Honour that it is out of order, and that Your Honour cannot accept it. The question of course is urgency of debate, not urgency of the matter itself. The rule of the House Your Honour is I suggest, not that if a matter is urgent it should therefore be debated and everything else be dropped so that that matter can be debated, that is not the rule. The rule is that it is urgent that the matter be debated now. That the matter be debated, that is the urgency of debate not the urgency of the matter itself.

If opportunity is to come to the House in the normal course to debate these same matters, then there is no present urgency of debate. That is one point Your Honour. The other point is this, that notwithstanding anything that is reported on the radio, the Government have the policing of this city well in hand. Well - in - hand no matter what happens, so there is no urgency even of the matter let alone urgency of debate, and I suggest to Your Honour that this resolution be rejected and that it await the normal course of debate in this House. MR. CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, while we are on this point, we would like to support the motion made by the bon. the Leader of the Opposition. As the bon. the Premier has said, the question is urgency of debate. I submit Mr. Speaker, that the urgency of the debate is very obvious. The situation is that with reference to the Newfoundland Constabulary in particular, they are adamant that they must have some answer,;some satisfaction on their request by Friday at twelve noon. Now this matter has not been discussed in the House before, and 292~ we have no control over when the House is going to discuss either the estimates

April 28, 1970, Tape 670, Page 4 -- apb or proceed with the Budget Speech. The estimates in particular. So if this matter is going to be dealt with before Friday at twelve noon, obviously it is an urgent matter for debate. Mr. Speaker, whether or not the policing of the city of St. John's is going to be well in hand, whether the Government thinks it is going to be well in hand no matter what the police force does, that hardly meets the case.

I do not believe any of us wish to see a situation where the Newfoundland constabulary is completely on strike, whether or not troops or some other police force or volunteers can be brought in, and I submit Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House that this is a motion that is in order, this is a motion that effects the administrative responsibility of the Government, Beauchesne, Page 89, it is a matter so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention. Beauchesne again, urgency within this tule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means urgency of debate.

When the ordinary opportunity provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately, Beauchesne ••••••••••••••••• 2930

Apr11 ~oth. 1~1u Tape 671 PK - 1 MR. CROSBIE: Page ·:90. So, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is an urgent matter to be debated now, and should not be left any longer. MR. TOM BURGESS: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this point, the motion presented by the Official Leader of the Opposition. And I would like to make reference to some of the remarks of the bon. the Premier. And I say if the urgency of debating an ultimatum given by the policemen of this town is not a matter of dire urgency to discuss or debated by this House, will then I want to know what is urgent?

If these people, if tpey are compelled to live up to the ultimatum which they have given, and if they do withdraw their services for a perfectly legitmate cause, and if_this town does disrupt despite the assurances given by the bon. the Premier, that this town is well policed by the Government, and then we will debate the issue after trouble has developed. And this matter is vitally urgent in my estimation to the basic matter now before the trouble starts and develops to a point, where nobody can control it, let alone this Government.

And I think the urgency is well outlined in the Rules of the House, ·where it is stated that a motion can be placed at anytime to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance. And if this is not of th~ . :moa.ll vital urgent public importance, well, then I do not know what is. MR. THOMAS HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of this motion, one can only concur with the remarks of my bon. colleague and our friend the Independent Liberal Group. It is rather difficult Mr.

Speaker to fathom as it were the attitude of this Government on such matters of urgency. Many times Sir, we have attempted to bring matters before the House, which we deemed to be urgent. But at no• time in the short number of years that I have been in this bon. House has there been a matter come before this House so urgent as the one we are debating right now. And I can only term the remarks by the Premier that this city of ours is well policed, no matter what happens, is pure arrogance, it is looking for a fight.

The Government is again, putting their horns out, they are much as saying, "go ahead, strike, we will do without you, we will police the town". It is so obvious that the Government wishes a fight 2931

Apr11 28th. 1970 Tape 671 PK - 2 MR. HICKEY: on this matter. Is this the proper atmosphere to solve a matter! . such as this? Is this the kind of environment in which to sit down and negotiate, to talk business, to talk increases? Even if the Government could grant those increases, they are not even prepared to discuss them. Where else are we going to disuse it, if we are not going to do so in the people's House? Mr. Speaker, I thought Sir, in listening to the Budget, and I heard that certain anti-Labour Legislation was going to be repealed. MR.

SPEAKER: Now I must warn the bon. members, and all bon. members because the bon. member for St. John's East Extern is straying a little, and so have other members who have all ready spoken on this. Would hon. members please remember there is not a motion before the House at the present time. There is a request, an hon.member is asking leave to make a motion. And we are now talking on a point of order, as to · whether leave will be granted or whether what the Speaker's ruling will be as to whether he will give leave to the hon. member to make his motion.

Now we do not want the debate on the motion, I am not referring to the hon. member of St. John's East Extern particularly, all I want to say is, there is a point of order before the Chair. I am taking these suggestions and words that the hon. members have spoken, since the matter was raised, as a sort of. an attempt on their part to assist me in making a decision, as to whether this question should now be_brough before the House? I will repeat, that there is a request to make a motion before the House, but no motion.

And I thank the bon. members who have spoken so far for helping me and guiding me and reading the rules in connection with this, and bringing them to my attention before I state my ruling, as to whether the hon. member should be given leave to make the motion or not. Continue ·please. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention Sir,to ~ke a debate out of this, I was merely speaking to the point of order, I considered it as such because the motion has not been accepted up to now.

I was merely stating that I was very pleased, and I am sure that every bon. member of this House and the public of Newfoundland, when they heard of the different attitude adopted by this Government towards labour. 2932

April 28th. 1970 Tape 671 MR. SPEAKER: Now that has nothing to do with the point of order. MR. HICKEY: I realize that Sir, I just want to make that point. PK - 3 MR. SPEAKER: I have already given the warning that, I think we have gone as far as we should. Let us stick to the point of order, that is before the Chair, and if the motion comes before the House, then every member will have his opportunity of debating the question and referring to the subject matter that is contained in the motion. MR. HICKEY: Okay, Your Honour, I will abide by your ruling.

I will just conclude by saying this,that the Government in not permitting this motion to pass, and in not permitting the House to debate this issue today, have adopted a collison course with the constabulary, and the responsi~ility for what happens after Friday cetainly rests with this Government, and I hope they keep that in mind. MR. CALLAHAN: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order. I think the thing to be noticed Sir from comments on the other side is that the whole distinction as between the urgency of the matter, and the urgency of the debate, even though it has been pointed out has entirely been lost.

So let me say again, Sir, that it is not a question as to the urgency of the matter, there is no doubt as to the urgency of the.matter. The question is as to the urgency of the debate, and I think it is fair to draw the implication from that, the implication of whether the public interest which has been mentioned will be better served in fact by debating the matter at this time. Not only as a question of urgency, it. is the question of public interest. And I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the c~ents we have heard, certainly from the hon. gentleman who just sat down, and the bon. gentleman who preceeded him, in each case, while supporting to steer away from or to suggest a debate would in fact steer away from and eliminate provocation. They themselves in their remarks, Mr. Speaker, have in ~act suggested provocation. And this is a kind of thing MR. HICKEY: To a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SMALLWOOD: This is not a point of order. 2933

·-r•-- ---••• _,._ .a:apc= o1.a. MR. HICKEY: I am speaking to a point of order now, another one. I am not suggesting that the police be provocated. My point of order, Sir, is this, that the hon. members on this side are not looking for any trouble, we are trying to attempt to avoid some. MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. gentleman continue, please. MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I have said, Mr. Speaker, is that the central question surely, and what urgency moves in this case is whether the public interest will be served by a debate at this time.

And I suggest, to Your Honour, the remarks already made purely indicate the public interest will not be served. That there will be an inflamatory debate, that it will be proroggative. MR. TOM BURGESS: I must say that ignorance is bliss. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, please ••• Order please. I will hear one more person now. this is not necessary whatsoever, but I will hear one more hon. gentleman. MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker. but I would. draw Your· Honour's attention to items 38 and 39, on the Order Paper, which relate directly to the matter before the House at the present time.

And under the rules I feel that, Your Honour has no alternative but not to permit this mot~on. There are two Bills up for second reading, the principal of both of which deal exactly with the matter which is before the House now. And I feel that the motion will not be permitted. MR. SPEAKER: I thank all bon. members for their comments concerning 2934

April 28th., 1970 Page 1 Tape no . 672 their comments concerning the question of whether the hon. member has leave to move the adjournment of the House for this matter of urgency of public importance. Now I have given a ruling on occasions and have gone into the theory and the laws behind this question of adjournment of debate for an urgent public purpose first.

(1) The Speaker has to find, if he considers the urgency of debate is important at that particular time. I know that everybody will agree with me, when I say that the matter raised is of the utmost importance. I will even go as far as to say that the urgency of debate is important as of this moment. It is the question of urgency of debate, but here is the other thing that I will say now. We did not come up, I think, on any other ruling that I have had to make before this. The question was usually settled on whether the matter was urgent.debate at that particular time.

We have on the Order Paper today; the bon. member for St. John's North he quoted them. We have second readd.ng of a Bill, "An Act Respecting The Pension Plan For The Constabulary Force Of Newfoundland." The officers and men of the St. John's fire Department and the officers and men at the prison commonly known as Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Then we have another Bill up for second reading.

Second reading of a Bill, "An Act Respecting The Organization Operation, Functions, Powers, Duties, Rights And Privileges Of The Constabulary Force Of Newfoundland." There are two Bills on the Order Paper, which are now up for second reading and on which each one deals: the question of salary and other rights and duties will be debated in full which will be completely relevant to this motion that we have before us today.

Other than the fact that this one starts off with saying that it includes: civil servants hospital workers and then it' goes on; particularly, as has been stressed, the constabulary, firemen and the .vardens at the penitentkry. Now we have these two items. They are laid down on the Order Paper for second reading. They have been read a first time and if you will go back to our own rules to page (15) you1will see to begin with, number (2) which could 2935

be one of the things, whereby the motion or this motion or the request of the motion would not be in order. Not more than one matter can be discussed on the same motion. Now I know .that that is stretching it a little bit, because it is salaries and other duties in the same motion, but not more than one matter can be discussed in the same motion. Now if you go down to part no. (4) the motion must not anticipate a matter which has previously been appointed for consideration by the House or with reference to it, a notice of m6tion has been previously given and not withdrawn.

Now these two matters, all the matters contained in this leave to prevent this motion, I suggest, are contained in items 38,39 on the Order Paper. They have already been read a first time and if we are making full. •• MR. SMALLWOOD: In the Budget, Ways and ~1eans and the Estimates. MR.. SPEAKER: I am coming to that. We have these two Bills, no 38 and 39, which will permit full debate. Now the Chair has not to decide when these items are to be discussed. They are on the Order Paper and they will be brought down, I presume, at the earliest possible time.

Secondly: if we gave leave for this motion, you can have a postponement and that can go on for days and days, but it is not my business to say when these two particular motions - that is up to the House to say, when 38 and 39, when items 38 and 39 will come on for discussion. Also we have the Budget debate which gives the widest range of possible debate. It is on the Order Paper now. I presume that the Budget debate will go on this afternoon or debate or on Thursday. So we have all these opportunities, therefore, I say to sus- ~pend or adjourn all other business of the House.

I have no course left open to me other than to say that we must use these other alternatives and I cannot except the motion. MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it is With the greatest respect that I accept your ruling, but I feel that in my opinion I think the matter is very, very urgent. We have only forty-eight..hours to decide something that miF;ht bring something to a crisis and I appeal the ruling, Sir, with the greatest respect. MR. SPEAKER: I trust that all hon. members heard the reasons why. I have 2936

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 672 Page 3 no alternative, under the rules, except to deny the bon. member the right. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, would the ••• MR. SPEAKER: We cannot ~o any further than that. MR. HICKEY: I just want to as~ a question, Sir. I want to ask the bon. President of the Council, if he would give some assurance that .:one of those matters will be brought up this afternoon so that the matter can be debated. Surely, this is not unreasonable. ~· SP~KER: The motion before the Chair is now that the Speaker's ruling be sustained. This is the manner in which the motion is supposed to be put.

I now have to put the motion without debate that the Speaker's ruling be sustained. Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour say "aye." Contrary "nay."' Divide. Call in the members. AJ.l::_tbose .. :Ln .favour - of ,,the · motion please rise: The bon. the Premier, the bon. the President of the Council, the bon. Minister of Labour, the bon. Minister of Highways, the bon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Smallwood, the bon. Minister of Labrador Affairs, Mr. Hodder, Captain Strickland, the bon. Minister of Education, the bon. Minister of Public Works, the bon.

Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources, the bon. Minister of Provincial Affairs, the hon. Minister of Public Welfare, Mr. Canning, the bon. Mr. Hill, Dr. McGrath, Mr. Saunders and Mr. Mahoney. All those against the motion please rise: The bon. Leader of the Opposition Mr. Hickey, Mr. Hickman, Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Myrden and Mr. Burgess. Motion carried. MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, before you go to the Orders of the Day again, I wonder would the bon. Minister of Justice on tomorrow, if we waive Private Members' Day, that we could discuss the estimates of the Justice Department. Would that be possible?

ORDERS OF THE DAY 2937

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 672 Page 4 MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day, I would like to ask the bon. Minister of JuStice, whether he would inform the House whether or not the Chief of Police, Mr.

Pittman has tende~ed his resignation and asked for his pensionl Also what is the 4ate of hi.s offer of resignation or letter of resignation2 Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Aet To Provide For The Appointment Of A Parliamentary Commissioner To Investigate Administrative Decisions And Acts Of Officials Of The Government Of The Province And Its Agencies And To Define The Parliamentary Collll!lissinner's Powers, Duties, and Functions." (Bill no. 8). There was an adjourned depate on this. 2938

April 28th, 1970 Tape 673 JM- 1 MR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, durinr, the session of last evening most of the deficiencies, for want of a better word, in the Act that is presently before this House, presently being debated, has been referred to by hon. members who participated in the debate. Now there is a great danger, Mr. Speaker, that if the general public get the impression that this is not a workable piece of legislation, that no good purpose can be served by the appointment of an Ombudsman that then his function and his office and the whole intent of this Bill will be killed before it ever comes to fruition.

The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker ·, that whilst an Ombudsman is not designed to suddenly take over and run the Government of the Province, as desirable as that might be, the fact is that he is the watchdog for the man in the street to see to it that not only civil servants but the Government generally through the Deputy Ministers all the way down through the servants of the Crown fairly and justly administer the laws that have been passed by this House.

It is not an answer to simply say that this House is paramount when it comes to passing laws, we know that, nor does it, in my opinion, answer or fill the Bill to simply say that the power of the purse shall never be taken away or reduced or affected in any way in so,far as the House is concerned. Well, Mr. Speaker, we should not bury our heads in the sand when it comes to relying on Parliamentary practice and Parliamentary procedures and philosophies of Government.

The truth is that the Ombudsman as we DOW' know him and the whole concept of the Ombudsman originated in a jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the British Parliamentary system of Government was not followed, It was the same finesse and the same degree of worship of procedure that we find at Westminister. True it is that this is a Scandinavian concept which has been ·adopted in certain of the common law jurisdictions, certain parts of the British Commonwealth of.Nations. But, Mr. Speaker, I do suggest that if anyone had seriously purposed to this hon.

House even ten or fifteen years ago that there should be appointed a protector of the public, a watchdog to protect those who elect hon. members to this House then we would have been told that this idea : was so revolutionary in its concept, so contary to the Parliamentary traditions of Westminister that anyone who would bring this before this House must have rocks 2939

.. capt: VIJ - ~ · - - MR. HICKMAN: in his head. But the simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the philosophy of Government, the attitude of the populace towards the paramountcy of Parliament is changing. We have been told,and you can cover the floors of this House with text books by learned authors on the power of the purse of Parliament, the Parliament and no-one else shall decide how, when and where the peoples taxes, the peoples monies will be paid. Mr. Speaker, maybe this was a principle that had to be fought for very bitterly two or three or four centuries ago. But, Mr.

Speaker, we would be on a real collision course, we would be heading for silly unnecessary diaster if we decided and if we thought that that principle will continue forever in a day. Because, Mr. Speaker, in Parliaments already, in Canada, in the House of Parliament of Canada itself and in one or two maybe more Provincial Legislatures, Provincial Houses of Assembly, there has been some restriction imposed on the power of the purse. Some collective bargaining rights has been given to public servants and this is an infringement, Mr. Speaker, of the control of the purse by the elected members to Parliament.

But it has been done, it was done and has been done by these jurisdictions because times are changing, peoples concept of Government is changing, people are beginning to say that just because a person is a public servant that he should not be deprived of all his rights and that he should not simply be there at the will and wishes of the elected representatives of the people. And, Mr.

Speaker, if we feel or if we believe, indeed there has been an indication in the Budget speech that some sort of recognition will now be given, if we believe that these changes must come and if we believe that no longer can we sit or stand within these hallowed walls and say you cannot discuss this other than within this House, that you Newfoundlanders or you public servants or you as an individual who has suffered at the hands of a Government that is too rigid in its thinking or a civil servant who is too rigid in the imposition or

interpretation of a particular law then, Mr. Speaker, we are out of tune with the times. Because we have to recognize, we have to recognize the right of collective bargaining of public servants, we have to recognize that people as Governments grow in size, as the social concept of 2940

Apr1~ ~orn, ~~'v ·rape bt _, JM - .> MR. HICKMAN: Government develops and as the areas of jurisdiction and involvement of Gov~rnments expand that the likelihood of the individual citizen, the unorganized citizen, the man or woman who is not a member of a trade union, the man or woman who is not a member of any society or organization was'simply going about his or her business all on her own or their own,we have to recognize that the possibilities of their being trampled on, the possibilities of their_being discriminated against, continue to exist and grow.day by day. Mr.

Speaker, as I understand this Bill, as I understand the concept of the Ombudsman as put forward by my friend, the hon. the President of the Treasury Board, that this is what this Bill is all about.

It is not designed to come in and say, "we do not like a particular piece of legislation or the Ombudsman t~at was passed by the Rouse of Assembly three years ago therefore I am going to reveal it." But what it does say is that a law having been passed by this House if not properly administered, if administered in a discriminatory manner no matter by whom, then the Ombudsman exerts his powers,and he has a very great power, Mr. Speaker • .

Jle has the power of publicity, he has the power to go into a department of Government and say, " I have a complaint, it does not appear to be a frivolous complaint, it appears to have some cause of action and I now demand to see of you the reports, the files and hear the reason for the decision that you make." If the Ombudsman comes to the conclusion that there has been an error made in the administration of Government he then recommends the cure and recommends the rectification of this error.

You can say and if you want to again fall back on the rules of Westminister and the paramountcy of Parliament you can say, so what. The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, that having these findings, having made his recommendations, he then has the right to publicize these and there is no Government alive that can stand the glare of adverse publicity created by an independent, impartial arbiter. Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are awar~from the first session of this Legislature three years ago a select committee consisting of the hon.

Minister of Supply as Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile. the hon. the Member for St. John's North. the 2941

April 28th, 1970 Tape 673 JM- 4 MR. HICKMAN: bon. member for St. John's East Extern, the bon. the Minister of Health and myself were cons ,tituted as a select committe to inquire into and to recommend to this hon. House whether or not legislation ~hould be passed to provide for an appointment of an Ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, this tepo.rt of the select co111111itte which was a combination of a great deal of work was tabled in this bon. House at the last session. Mr.

Speaker, I think I am obliged to draw to the attention of this House that some of these recommendatio.ns of the select committee,and 1 might add that the tabling of the report of the select committee as I thought met with the unanimous approbation of bon. members, that some of the recommendations had not been followed. 2942

April 28, 1970 Tape 1/674 Page 1 HR. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I draw Your Honour's attention to the recommendation under the title of "Removal or Suspension from Office," contained on Page 6 of the report of the Select Committee. And it reads as follows: "The ombudsman could at any time be removed or suspended from his office by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendations of two-thirds of the House of Assembly for disability, neglect of duty, misconduct or bankruptcy." Mr. Speaker, if you will draw your attention to

Section 7 of the proposed Bill, that two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly is not contained therein. The Bill now reads, that on the recommendation of the members of the House of Assembly the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council may at any time, suspend or remove the commissioner from his office for disability, neglect of duty, misconduct or bankruptcy. Now Mr. Speaker, that is a departure and a significant departure from the usual rules, the usual legislation dealing with servants of the House.

All legislators have been very careful, very cautious and very proud of the fact, that when you have servants of the House, they cannot be removed except by a two-thirds majority of the House. This imposes on Government bringing before the House, the obligation to have good and sufficient reason, good and sufficient ground for the removal of a servant of the House other than the Government is displeased with one or two or three decisions that have been made by such servants. Mr.

Speaker, it has been indicated by the leader of the Government, that Government will be very susceptible to amendment to this legislation when we go into Committee, provided it does not take away the policy of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, an amendment to truly make this ~entleman who will be appointed a servant of the House does not infringe on that principle. But what it does do is that it conveys to the public and it is absolutely essential that this is going to work.

That the public get a clear unambiguious understanding that they are going to be dealt with, that their complaint will be heard by a completely fea~less, unbiased man, not susceptible to political influence, not susceptible to political appointment, and not susceptible to the wishes of an over-bearing Government. 2943

April 28, 1970 Tape #674 . Page 2 Because just as much as we treasure other things in this hon. ~use, certain other controls that we have over the Government today. This one is equally important. This right to have this man appointed by this House, and this right that he can feel secure, secure in the knowledge that will take at least two-thirds of hon. members to dismiss him. He does not have that, I suspect Mr. Speaker, that his functioning and his independence will not be the same as if that provision was contained in the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, there must be some reason for it in other Bills where we have service to th€ House. This was not suddenly concocted by a beneficient Government. It has been in legislation and it has been in practice in Houses for generations, where a servant to the House is to be appointed, he cannot be dismissed except by two-thirds majority. So I would ask the bon. minister who I believe, shares my views, that this type of legislation must come in now, that we must convey to the public the absolute unqualified independence of this servant of-the House. He is not a servant of Govern­ ment. Now Mr.

Speaker, one very relevant historical fact. To my knowledge, and I would stand subject to correction by the hon. the minister - is be shakes his head, I will know I am wrong, if he does not I will think I am right. To my knowledge, no former member of a Parliament or a House of Assembly, no former politician has ever been appointed to the position of ombudsman or commissioner. MR. MURPHY: There could be an exception in this case. MR. HICKMAN: Well if there is an exception, again you would destroy the thing before it even started to function.

Now I do not for the· life of me believe a man who serves in public life should be discriminated against or handicapped because of the fact that he has spent many years serving the people of this Province, or serving Canada or serving any other area. That is not the same issue as the one which is before us with respect to this particular piece of legislation. You cannot use the same rationale 2944

April 28, 1970 Tape 1674 · Page 3 that was used here quite recently in another debate regarding another appointment. You cannot use the same rationale that was used here in another debate concerning the appointment of the judiciary, because these men immediately move out of the House.

They are in effect above the control of the House, indeed the judiciary needed two-thirds vote of the House of Commons and Senate, so that - in this case why it would be absolutely inconceivable to appoint a member, or a former member of this House, is that he the servant of the House·, and again not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done. Now Mr.

Speaker, one of the ·.hon. members may be more than one who referred to this, who spoke in this debate, referred to the fact that when this House is not in Session, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the Cabinet, may remove the ombudsman from office for cause. Now Mr. Speaker, if I direct your attention to the appendicies contained in the report of the Select Committee, ·and in particular, the latest piece of legislation that has been passed I think in Canada, or one of the latest anyway, and that is the New Brunswick Act, which'was passed on May 19, 1967.

There may have been one later in Quebec, but in any event, it is of recent vintage, it was referred to by the hon. minister in introducing this Bill. Mr. Speaker, in New Brunswick it is provided that when the Le~islative Assembly is not in Session, a judge of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, may suspend the ombudsman from his office for cause or incapacity, due to illness, or any other cause upon an application from the Lieutenant-Governor­ in-Council. This again Mr.

Speaker, goes to the very guts of this type of legislation - goes to the real principle behind the creation of an ombudsman, It takes away from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, any right of control over this appointee. Sure and true it is that if this House is not in Session, and if for some very notorious reason, it becomes obvious to everyone that the ombudsman has to be removed. He may be incapacitated, and that is the one that most frequently comes to mind. And he may become incapacitated to the extent that he is not capable of furnishing a valid resignation, and that is a problem that often has to 2945

April 28, 1970 Tape 0674 · Page 4 faced in respect of people whose appointments are from the Houses of P-arliament. Yet. to make it abundantly clear to the public whom he must serve. be still has the right to have his cas.e, his dismissal adjudicated on by a judge of the Supreme Gpurt. And could be 2946

What could be so wrong? It would be no taking away of any of the right to the House. If when the House is not in session the Lieutenant Governor came to the conclusion that the ombudsman must go what would be so wrong for . the Lieutenant Governor in Council to have to make the request of the Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland who would conduct the necessary enquiry and who would give to the public through his findings an assurance of complete !~partiality. Mr. Speaker, again that is not an amendment that goes to ~he great principle of parliament, parliamentary superiority or supremacy.

And I would hope that when this Bill goes before committee that this House will see fit to accept these amendments as recommended by the Select Committee of this Hon. House. Now Mr. Speaker, there is another provision in that Bill which I must confess strikes me as being one af petty provincialism. The patriotic thing to do is to take up the Bill and rave "Hurrah,' we are keeping out dollars at home." But if I direct your attention Mr. Speaker to

Section 5 (2) it says a person shall not be appointed as Commissioner onless he bas resided in the Province for at least ten years prior to the date of his appointment. Now Mr. Spaaker,tinder the normal course of events it · is most likely that any legislature will appoint a Newfoundlander because of his familiarity with our needs and our practice of doing government, doing business in government or through government, or governments practice of carrying out its responsibilities. Mr.

Speaker, I think we can attach some significance to the fact that in the other Bills that are attached to the report of the Select Committee this provision will not be found. Indeed where do you draw the line? It is my recollection for instance in New Brunswick where Dr. Ross Flemmington, a former president of Mount Allison University was appointed -as ombudsman that he had in fact following his retirement from that great university moved to Ottawa where he was a ,ermanent employee on the permanent staff of the Canada Council, and had been for 2947

two or three or similar body operating under federal jurisdiction. Now, he would not have qualified in New Brunswick if that provision was in the A~t, because he had not been residing there for the ten years prior to the date of his appointment. We may very well hav~, for instance, again let me take the case of Alberta where I believe a retired commissioner who was also a lawyer by profession from the R~C.M,P. was appointed to that position and his work in that jurisdiction and in that province has been highly commended.

Does that mean for instance that a native born Newfoundlander who served in that force and we have several who served as high ranking officers in the Newfoundland Ranger Force in particular. And who are now even holding higher ranks in various parts;of Canada, but who have not lived in Newfoundland for the past fifteen years. Does that mean that they are being disbarred from that type of individual from holding office.

Does it mean, it does mean, it is not a question of does it mean, all you have to do is read the legislation, what happens we have many outstanding Newfoundlanders who hold high academic positions in universities throughout Canada and outside Canada. We have a great number. They are Newfoundlanders they know the Newfoundland way of life, they have an appreciation of our problems but through no fault of their own their profession or their avocation has called them beyond our shores.

Are they to be barred or alternatively what happens if we cannot find the type of free independent and assuggested in the report of the Select Committee, a person with some legal training. If we cannot find them in Newfoundland, or if the person that we would like to get is not willing to take the job, do we have to settle for someone secon~ best when we know that if we follow the practice that has been followed by the other Canadian Provinces where they advertise throughout the land, why this restriction?

There is no restriction on the President of Memorial University or the Vice­ President of Memorial University.-There is no restriction on the Directors of Education throughout our educational districts. They can go anywhere. There is no restriction on almost any appointment I can think of, but yet 2948

for some reason this silly little

section that does not do us justice as Canadians. It sort of indicates to me that somewhere on the Government side of the House there must be some reluctant Canadians. Because if you are going to start thinking as petty provincialists, petty parochialism, on every issue and every piece of legislation comes before the House then do not let us hear flowing speeches about this great Confederacy and glowing speeches about how proud we are to be Canadians. Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, and this may be, I do not want to do the hon. the minister who introduced, this Bill an injustice because again I believe that he shares my views to a very great extent on that. This might simply be a draftsman's thought.

MR.ROWE:. :·:would the bon. gentleman permit a comment1 Surely the intention of that it seems to me reading it, that is that the person appointed to this particularly difficult post would be somebody who had long experience and understanding of Newfoundland and Newfoundland people I am sure there would not be any other point behind even that, and that in itself,perhaps this is not the way to do it but I still think that is the desirable thing to do. MR.HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is the point that I thought I have been trying to make. My concern is about the restriction.

I think that~the restriction is most unfortunate. I believe that any House of Assembly in its wisdom will if at all possible appoint someone who has been living in the Province of Newfoundland. But I do not like the restriction that excludes native sons because they have simply been called upon for some reason or other to depart our shores for a few years. I do not like a resttiction that compels the House of Assembly to take a second best if someone can be found elsewhere. MR.COLLINS: He may be only gone for a year.

MR.HICKMAN: Or he could only be gone for six months, you know, or he may be away doing post-graduate work, but he is excluded under this section, and the

section is peculiar for our Bill it does not follow Ontario, Quebec, 2949

nationalistic provincially-minded Quebec did not see fit to put ~t in their Act nor did Alberta~ And as I say I suspect that what the draftsman or what the proposers of this legislation may have had in mind was the desirability of having this type of ind~idual but I think it is a grevious error or it would be a grevious error and to use the wording of the Act it would be frivious and vexatious if we allowed tt to stay in, and I would hope that again the unanimous recommendation and report of the Select Committee will not be overlooked in this respect. Now ,Mr. Speaker, the bon. the member for St. John's West raised the question of the

interpretation of the word "agency", which may be the key to the functioning of this piece of legislation. Agency as described and defined in the Act says it means any agency of Her Majesty or Her Maiesty's Government and include the Workmen's Compensation Board. It may be argued by implication that the failure to include other boards, particularly boards from whom there is no right of appeal,ri am not concerned so much about the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities because there is now an appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfdundland.

There are some other boards and there are some other Act certain professional Acts that have been passed in this House which again grant the right of an aggrieved person to appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. But I am concerned about these boards, such boards that do not have a right of appeal. And the one that so obviously comes to mind and has been debated in this House time and time again is the Newfoundland Liquor Commission.

Now there is nothing to suggest in this Act, and I do not think that anyone would be silly enough to stand in this House to say that the ombudsman shall now be given the right to hand out liquor licences. That is not the thing at all. But what the ombudsman should have the right to do is1 that if, say. a licenseE of the Newfoundland Liquor Commission comes to the conclusion that he is being aggrieved by undue pressure or by frivilous and vexatious harassment by an over-zealous employee of that board.

Ot that he meets all the requi~ements for the obtaining of a license and that he has been unjustly discriminated against, 2950

then I think that is a clear ease for the ombudsman. There is nothing in the Act that suggests that a complainant having 'be.come before the ombudsman saying that 1 am being · discriminated against because of where 1 live or the colour of my hair or my poU:tieal beliefs or anything elSe by the Newfoundland Liquor CommissiQn the ombudsman can then direct that commission to grant a licence • That 1$ not the principle of the Bill 2951

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 676 Page 1 the Bill at all, but if he did find that that gentlemen of the applicant has been unjustly and vexatiously discriminated against, he does have the right to table his report in the House of Assembly, and that publicity is enough to rectify any error that might take place. Mr. Speaker, why I think we should have another look at the

interpretation of "agency" as defined in this Act. As I read the New Brunswick Act, I think, it is the Alberta Act that "agency" does not have the same restricted definition. Both these Acts simply say: "agency, means any agency of the Government of Alberta or the Government of Newfoundland." That

interpretation, that definition, in my opinion, would be sufficiently broad to encounter any of these boards, any of these commissions from which no right of appeal lies at this time. I think we may get into very serious trouble is by stating categorically that we include one board, that by including one board, defining one board, naming one board, by implication; particularly, when you ~et into the delicate field of interpreting the Statutes that we may be excluding the others. I do not believe that was the intent. I am sure it was not the intent of the bon. the Minister who introduced this Bill.

I am sure it was not the intent of the select committee, the intent of the select committee , the intent of the minister was that any person who had to deal with any agency of Government, any agency of the Crown has the right if he or she believes that they are being unjustly treated, that the law is being interpreted in­ correctly against them, that there is being unjust discrimination, that that person has the right to call on the ombudsman. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it would not be an answer to simply say well this would mean that the ombudsman or that public servants will have the life pestered out of them daily by the ombudsman coming around, like vith his magnifying glass looking over the shoulder of every public servant to investigate every little complaint, because the ombudsman himself has a certain amount of discretion. He has the right to decide whether or not, in his opinion, the 2952

April 28th., 1970 Tape nol. 676 Page 2 complaint is frivolous. He has the right after he has started his investigation or received an explanation to si~ply decide that there are really no grounds to this complaint. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we have to get across to the people of this Province that something new has been added to the process of Government. That this House is becoming very concerned over this monstrous thing called the Government of Newfoundland whose tentacles are reaching out into the way of life of every Newfoundlander.

Every time we pass another piece of legislation, in this House, somewhere along the line, we are restricting hopefully for the better, but we are still restricting the liberty and freedom of the subject, and this person or persons, as the tentacles close around them, should take some reassurance from this legislation that their rights will be protected. But they will not be reassured. They will not be satisfied that this is anything more than a wordy piece of legislation. This House passed last year, the Human Rights Bill, a delightful recital.

It would almost bring tears to your eyes; certainly, you would stand up and sing, "God Guard Thee Newfoundland" having listened to the recital. It was a tremendous thing. Oh! you could talk for hours and you could have seminars. My friend the bon. Minister of Provincial Affairs and I, we attended two or three seminars on this last year, the year before last; a great piece of legislation; great words; great phraseology; never been proclaimed:a great deal of it may not be the protection of the subject that Newfoundlanders think it is. Mr.

Speaker, we should not allow this Bill to be so worded that it will restrict in anyway the ri~ht or the f~l intent of all members of this House, because it is my understanding that everyone, but everyone should or is of the opinion and of the belief in this House that this type of legislation is long overdue, that it is legislation that has something to offer to the people of .Newfoundland and let us not - I repeat let us not restrict 2953

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 676 Page 3 or take away that implication or understand~ng by restrictive and unnecessary measures that are not found in the other Acts that ar~~ working so well. Now, Mr. Speaker, again and tbis is, as I recall, brought the hon. Premier to his feet. One of the hon. members in speaking on this Bill referred to the fact that the commissioner has to come to the Lieutenant- Governor in Council, the Cabinet for approval to power and appoint the necessary officers and other employees and to have their duties fixed and have their remuneration fixed. Now, Mr.

Speaker, when it was suggested by one hon. member that the to fact that the ombudsman will have come to Cabinet to seek money to pay his staff, will immediately put him under an obligation to Cabinet. It is not done in New Brunswick. This is what 1 am coming to. Mr. Speaker, if you believe in the adage that the man who pays the piper calls the tune", then there is a great deal of merit in that ~ suggestion. Under our proposed Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has to approve the salaries that are to be paid for the staff who are to be employed by the ombudsman.

The New:Brunswick Act, Section (81) simply says that ~he ombudsman may appoint such assistants and employees as he deems necessary for the efficient carrying out of his functions under this Act. No restriction. The only other restriction is that he has to take an oath. That is not "stupid at all. It is very obYious. The rational behind it, obviously must be clear to hon. members. This ombudsman has to be so completely and absolutely independent, if his independence interfered in anyway, then do not not have him. You are wasting your time.

I am sure that we do not give that authority to the Chief Justice of Canada. We do not give authority to the Chief Justice of Canada to decide on the number of judges who will constitute the supreme court of CaPada, but they are not his staff. They are not his assistants. They are equals, except the Chief - the only difference 2954

Ap~il 28th., 1970 Tape no. 676 Page 4 between the Chief Justice and the p.u1,sne judges is the very small diffeTence in salary, but be bas no jurisdictional right over them. Re bas oo right of discipline or higher authority. But ag~lin that analogy, Mr. Speaker, is not sotmd for this reason; that under the Judges' Act, that once a judge is appointed, be can do what the han, the Premier did to the Opposition, to Parliament. He c:an tum his back on it. He can only be .2955

April 28, 1970 Tape #677 Page 1 MR. HICKMAN: may be removed cause, and it has only been done once since 1867, only once, by a two-thirds majority of the House of Commons and the Senate. He has the freedom of independence that goes with the separation of the powers of Parliament and the separation of the judicial powers. But this gentleman is a different type of person, a different office entirely. He is to be a servant of this House, and there is the distinction. And there Mr.

Speaker, is why it is so important, and why I suggested in these other provincial Acts, you will not find the same restriction on the amount of assistance and money to be spent by the ombudsman, because if the ombudsman, and remember the ombudsman has to be in a position where he can walk in to the Hon. the Minister of Welfare and say, "you have discriminated against John Jones of Bell Island, and here is the evidence, and here is how I recommend that you cure it." And the hon. minister knows that if he does not take the necessary action to rectify that error, that come the next Session of the House, lay it on the Table of this House, hopefully will be the report and the recommendation of the ombudsman and the failure of the hon. the minister or his deputy minister, or his senior Civil Servants or senior officials to carry out.

Now you cannot put the ombudsman in a position where he knows that he has to go to these very people, and say "will you give me a few more bucks so that I can get adequate staff." MR. NEARY: Did the bon. member might recall this afternoon, His Honour signed a Bill, an amendment to the Social Assistance Act, setting up an Appeals Board in the-Department of Social Service and Rehabilitation. MR. HICKMAN: You are still not going to escape. MR. NEARY: But the ombudsman would have to deal with the Appeals Board, not with the minister. MR. HICKMAN: Oh no, you better read the Act. You are still going to be caught.

I do not want to use the phraseology of my hon. friend from Humber_ West - St. John's West. I do not want to ~et into the juKular debate, but the ombudsman can go after - MR. CROSBIE: There would be a hum on the Humber. 2956

"'" April 28, 1970 Tape 1677 . Page 2 MR. HICKMAN: No question about that. But he must first await the exhaustion by the complainant of all rights - MR. NEARY: There will be an Appeals Board - MR. HICKMAN: But if that complainant appeals to your Appeals Board and is dissatisfied with the decision of the Appeals Board, and the time for any further redress under that Act has expired as I understand it from reading this Act, and from my hon. friend's remarks introducing it, then he can come after you. MR. NEARY: Oh, well that is fair ball. MR.

HICKMAN: But what I am saying is not fair ball, is for the ombudsman to have to come to you the next day, or the next week knowing he is going to have to go to the hon. minister and his colleagues and say, " will you give me enough money to hire a secretary," or "I have become over-loaded or over-burdened and I need another investigator - MR. NEARY: Or if he needs a food order, I will be glad to accommodate him. MR. HICKMAN: This again is where I believe, is a departure from the true principle of ombudsmanship. MR. CROSBIE: The ombudding process - MR. HICKMAN: The ombudding buddy. But Mr.

Speaker, I do take some encourage­ ment from the hon. Premier's statement, that any reasonable amendment in Committee will be accepted so long as it does not fringe on the paramountcy of Parliament. MR. CROSBIE: That should be interesting to see what happens. MR. HICKMAN: Now Mr. Speaker, there is one point that I could not find in the other legislation, but it might be there. And I would ask the hon. minister in closing if he would refer to it. Section (93) says:" That it is not necessary for the commissioner to hold any hearing"- well that I suppose is to be in one sense, understood.

Then it goes on: ''No person is entitled as of right to be heard." Now in other Acts I am unable to find it. It may be in the other legislation, but I believe that the implication is that if the complainant so wishes to be heard, he has that right. In any event I am wondering if this is not a restriction that you will not find 2957

April 28, 1970 Tape 0677 Page 3 it cannot be found in the other Acts, I do not know. That is a question that I posed to the hon. the Minister. Again, Sub-section (23) says, that subject to

Section for a person who is bound by

an Act to maintain a secrecy in relation to or not to disclose any matter that is not required to furnish certain supply information etc. Now Mr. Speaker, may I again pose this problem to the hon. the minister, and it was raised here last night. That if the ombudsman is going to work, if his office is going to function other than matters that are verified or certified by the Attorney General as not being of public interest to disclose, and the Attorney General has to have that right, particularly in the field of criminal law. You cannot have the ombudsman going in and going through files of suspected criminals.

That sort of thing would be an intolerable interference or invasion of privacy. But apart from that, and apart from the deliberations of the Executive Council, everything else should be made available to the ombudsman, because remember the ombudsman is under no obligation to dislcose all of this in public. And I am concerned that twenty-three may enable a Civil Servant who is being asked to produce certain information, to say that if I do, this is contrary to my oath of secrecy that I took as a Civil Servant.

If it is there is no · point in having an ombudsman, because every Civil Servant would be duty­ bound to refuse to give him anything. He would be duty-bound to refuse to talk to him. And I am wondering if that

Section has any place in this particular piece of legislation, bearing in mind the practice of requiring public servants upon being hired to take this oath of secrecy. It is not a legal training, but what I am concerned about is I have seen too many pieces of legislation with good principles, great principles, designed to protect the liberty of the subject being shot down the first time someone tries to take advantage of us. Or alternatively which is even worse, and which is far more reprehensible, where a Government then hides behind this piece of legislation and says, aha you better read the Act. Never mind what we said in the House of Assembly when we introduced it. Never mind 2958

JW _pril 28, 1970 Tape 1677 Page 4 all the great speeches you heard about it. Find it in the Act, and if you cannot find it, go home. Hr. Speaker, I would hope that in this case, insofar as this Act is concerned, if we genuinely want it to work, and I make these remarks on the assumption that the unanimity expressed, the enthusiasm expressed by bon. members to this report is to be believed - if it is to be believed and accepted, then everyone tn this House wants an unfettered, unbiased,independent,confident ombudsman. And these points that I raised are points I would hope, that this bon.

House will see fit to discuss and decide whether or not they infringe at all on that great principle contained in this Bill. One other thing Mr~Speaker, again Section (21) - It says that the Minister of Justice, where the Minister of Justice certified that the giving of any information or the answering of any question, or the producing of any document, papers that might involve the disclosure of the deliberation of the Executive Council that is fine. To the proceedings of the Executive Council or Committee thereof. Now Hr.

Speaker, again I pose this as a question to the bon. the Minister. ~~ny of our p~b~ic servants and many people and organizations in their dealings with Government, have their rights contained in minutes of Council, that the appointment set forth their duties, their salaries, their terms of reference, the type of contract quite often is to be entered into - a minute of Council is passed authorizing the bon. the Minister of Welfare to enter into a contract for the erection of a new home for the aged in Grand Bank. That is not likely to happen, or a school in Northwest River. Well Mr.

Speaker, that type of information I would hope, and I presume, is not excluded from being made public under this particular section (21) because I do not think 2959

.... April 28th. 1970 Tape 678 PK- 1 MR. HICKMAN: the intent is nothing should come into the hands of the commission which would involve a disclosure of the deliberation of Executive Council Theory. And I believe that 2l(

a) covers that. Now, Mr. Speaker, just one more thing, and that is, or two, and this one is an

interpretation one, and nothing at all to do with the principal of the Bill, 35(

a) saysTthat this Act does not apply to judges and functions of any courts of the Province. I believe the word, "magistrate", should go in after judges, under our Magistrate's Act, and not treated as judges, but that is only a very minor detail. But, Mr. Speaker, may I direct your attention to 23(4).

And that where the provision is, a commissioner in his discreation after considering the comments made by or on behAlf of a department or agency may send a copy of the report and recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and may thereafter, make such reports to the Legislature on the matter,if he thinks fit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that 7 that may, should be shall.

I believe that in the event that a commissioner has made a recommendation to a minister, or to an official of Government, and that recommendation has no~~ been implemented, and the explanation for refusing to implement it is not acceptable to the commissioner. The explanation may come back and it maybe totally accepted this is the last you will hear of it. But if that is not so, then I think it should be taken out of the discreation of the ombudsman and he should then be obliged to table this in the House. Because again, this is where you get back to the independent of the man who is going to hold this office.

If he has no choice, but to ta~le his report in the_event ori a refusal to implement, then he has no worry about any disciplinary action, any restriction~ any discrimination which maybe imposed on him. Mr. Speaker, I·~ould commend to the bon. minister who introduced this Bill the idea that in that particular section, it should be made mandatory where there has been no action taken to implement the report and recommendations of the ombudsman. 2960

·rape 678 PK - 2 MR. HICKMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, may 1 say in closing that if the ombudsman truly becomes a servant of this House. If he has all the rights and all the protection of other servants who are appointed directly by this House. If he knows that he cannot be removed, except for caase by this House, and if he knows that in C!he .el"ent of the House not being in session, he can only be removed after having his case heard by a judge of the Supreme Court.

And if he knows that he does not have to come on his knees and beg of Government for funds in order to properly function, · then we will have a tr~ly independent ombudsman. If we do not meet these requirments now, there is no point in the crusader for this piece of legislation ever going out to the people of Newfoundland and say~ng, "I brought in the Ombudsman Act. I protected your interest". They will say, "what interest;did you protect?" He is no different from anyone else. He has got to go to Government, he is no different from any public servant. And he will be destroyed before he starts.

On the other hand, we get the message across to our people, that here is a truly competent well-trained,fair individual, who could not care less as to what Government thinks about him, whose only devotion is apttto act impartically and to protect the individual, to protect the unorganized, to protect the disorganized. Then we would have passed today a piece of legislation that is worthy of his name. Because, Mr. Speaker, certain'great princ~pal of parliament we practice, and parliamentary rights are going to have to be watered down.

The function of Parliament no longer is that of a club where a group of members sit around on each side or a nice little debating society, there is a difference between this House, Mr. Speaker and the M.C.L.I. There is ar,difference between __ this Bouse and other debating clubs, because the emphasis as the business of Government grows, the emphasis is shifting more and more from debate to administrative practices. People cannot sit around for mo~th~~hile we leisurely debate ift this House. Government has to get on, the House has to get on with the administrative responsibility that are forced on us.

And as these administrative responsibilities grow, and as the administratives practices become more entangled, and more emb~cive, the little man is more likely to get caught up in bureauacy, more likely to find himself in a position 2961

Tape b78 PK - 3 HR. HICKMAN: where he can be discriminated against at the bottom of the ladder, and no way to get to the top to have this rectified, And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I for one say that we must be prepared as parliamentarians to accept the fact, there is going to be certain changes, there is going to be certain changes in the powers of Parliament. That society no longer is prepared to sit back and watch us leisurely debate estimates.

That.society is no longer going to be prepared to sit back and wait for us to say,"well, this cannot happen until next year, when we bring down the budget in the House", Society is no longer going to be prepared to sit back and allow a member of the House to look a complainant straight in the eye, and say look, "I have been elected by the people, and having been elected by the people, no one else is going to tell me how to do my job". Because, Mr.

Speaker, the job now is becoming to intricate, it is having .to great an effect on the way of life of our people to leave that in the hands of a man who can do untold damage between elections. Mr.

Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I support this Bill, and at the same time I do look forward in committee to see Government accept the commitment of its leader and to accept what I would believe and hope to be recommendations which will assure the independence of the man who is to be appointed thereunder, now I do not know if this Act is subject to proclamation, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or not, but I suspect it is, and if it is Mr. Speaker, that is a pity.

Because unless this Act is proclaimed now, and becomes Law during this sesssion of the House, then it means that the next session of the House, bon. members will simply be called upon to approve something that has already been done, and that is the appointment by the Lieutenant­ Governor in Council. True, you can say under the Act, within thirty days after the House opens, has a right to fire him out. But who is going to do that? Becuase you are just going to do it for just cause. So I would hope, the bon. the minister again, is proof positive of intent to keep this man a servant of the House.

We will urge on his colleague,that, that section, a proclamation be taken out. You cannot use the excuse that the man had to find staff before operating, because this is not retroactive legislation, he 2962

April 28th. 1970 Tape 678 PK - 4 MR. HICKMAN: will not have anything to do in the first couple of months. He cannot use the excuse that. I would hope rather that inquires have already been made. tentive inquires in light of the fact that there has been a clear indication that there would be no one voting against this legislation in the House. And I would hope that if we anticipate that this House will be in session for the next few weeks. and I believe it will. that before the House closes.

Government through the appropriate minister will be able to ask the House to appoint the ombudsman who will be truly servant of members. MR. ANTHONY MURPHY: Mr. Speaker. I am just going to have a few words on this Bill. I enjoyed the debate. I think it is one of the finest debates we have had for a long time. I think the subject matter of the speakers was very well studied. But. as far as I am concerned. perhaps I am being a little more practical than some of these gentlemen who loved the glamorious title of ombudsman or what have you.

I have been trying to figure out what this appointment would cost. it is very difficult to assess it at this time, but we have the salary set down as $20,000. There has got to be an office set up and some help found, so I would say. that it would be in the area of $100,000. I maybe way out one way or another.

This is my feeling because I have made some inquires as to the duties and the work load that has developed where an o.budsman '.is- ·operating f.n different provinces, and it seems to be that the thing is mushrooming all the time because, I think the bon. member told me this morning that in Alberta, if I am correct, that it is reached the stage aimost where the ombudsman has replaced a member of the Legislature, that people where actually bypassing. It is not right or it is not wrong, but it is happening and this is the point I am trying to make.

Is it right or wrong, but this is what is happening that people say, why go to ~ my member he has been trying to do things for me for sometime, and he cannot get any head way, so I will not go to him anymore, I will go to the ombudsman who will go direct to the department and go through the same procedure apparently that the member has done. 2963

Tape 678 PK - 5 MR. NOLAN: You do not go to the ombudsman to find a job. MR. MURPl~: Mr. Speaker. is there anywhere in Hansard that I mentioned finding a job? MR. NOLAN: Inaudible. MR. MURPHY: Be placing a member in welfare complaints. unemployment in complaints. what else do members have to do. MR. NOLAN: MR. MURPHY: Only where there is :grivance, Sir. e. Well these are gr~~ances, he feels that he is being prejudice against. Some one else got an apartment in Buckmaster's, why did lr.not get it? e. Is this a gr~vance? MR. NOLAN: It is a matter of information we have. MR. MURPHY: Right. MR.

NOLAN: There is no reason why a member of the House - MR. MURPHY: The point l was trying to make is this, that we are all hept up about this tremendous appointment at this time. that 1~ going to cost us? and these are my thoughts, of something like $100,000. The past few days we have been debating in this House. where are we going to find money to pay certain civil servants, who we admit are just about operating on the poverty line 2964

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 679 Page 1 and still be are going to create something else now and people will say, well this is only $100,000, bow far would that go with the raises? Well according to figures obtained today, it would be one-third of what the policemen were looking for, another saving somewhere else, a few more nonappointments, and I think we will have a bit of money in the kitty or perhaps we could set up some kind of a Christmas hamper fund for some of these people who again we say·, and we admit it freely are not getting the wages that they are entitled to.

Now I know there will be a great laugh at this. Why talk about $100,000, but I think that is one of the great handicaps that we are suffering under in this Province this past few years. Anythin~ less than a figure of six O's behind it, is hardly worth discussing. But I think I am trying to be a little more practical, a little more down to earth on this. This appointment at this time, in my opinion, would be just as practical as building another Elizabeth Towers or having a public building on the Funk Islands; economically, speaking with the state that we are in - in our finances.

I cannot see what purpose the ombudsman would serve at this time_; particularly, again in view of the cost. We have forty-two members in this hon. House. We have eighteen Cabinet ministers. I think we hold our own with any province of Canada, as far as representation is concerned. I think we all try to do our best to speak with people on different grievances where . they may have and quite frankly, I do not seeAan ombudsman 1s going to do any better.

I do not know the exact words that the hon. minister quoted the other day, but we have had one ombudsman for the past number of' years back, and I do not see any reason or any hope that that great ombudsman will be replaced by the one that is coming in; particularly, in view of some of the legislation that is being talked about here where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has pretty well his own way with appointing or dismissing. It sounds very glamorous, Mr. Speaker, I will say that, very glamorous that Newfoundland again is one of Canada's provinces that has an ombudsman. But 2965

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 679 Page 2 practically speaking, and for reasons that I have set out, I cannot see the function of an ombudsman at this time. I cannot see ••• AN HON. MEMBER: Vote again - vote again. MR. MURPHY: I may or may not. MR. SMALLWOOD: Well if the bon. gentleman cannot see any use in him, he has got to vote againet it. MR. MURPHY: Well I guess I will vote against it. I mean it is not the a party measure, as Premier understands. I am sure that over there •• Mi. SMALLWOOD: Over here ••• MR. MURPHY: Always over there the people use their own minds. They vote as they feel.

They are never subjected to any discipline. AN. HON. MEMBER: No dirt now - no dirt. MR. MURPHY: That is not dirt. That is a statement of fact. MR. SMALLWOOD: Without party discipline the hon. gentleman's party will stay in Opposition forever. MR. MURPHY: Well that ••• MR. SMALLWOOD: Without party discipline, you have not got a party. MR. MURPHY: That can be proven to. MR. SMALLWOOD: That is the history - that is history. MR. MURPHY: Are the bon. members finished now? Can I carry on~ I only have a few words. I will not detain the House too long.

I am sure that on the other side, they welcome this great announcement to have an ombudsman. I am sure that they are all out cheering that again we have added another office on the expenditure side of the Government. I can write the name here now and put it in a sealed envelope who ·the ombudsman will be. MR. SMALLWOOD: I will refuse point blank. I will not accept. I cannot be forced • I will not be coaxed under no circumstances will I accept. I rather the job I have now, than that. ~-~HY: Ho 1 do not think the Premier would accept that. 2966

April 28th., 1970 Tapeno. 679 Pa~e 3 MR. SMALLWOOD: That is right • . MR. NOLAN: Would you be willing to put the name in the concealed envelope, and if you are wrong, would you be willing to admit it? MR.. tfiJRPHY : Absolutely. MR. SMALLWOOD: We got the only penalty admitting that he was wrong. He is always doing that. MR. MURPHY: Absolutely. The few times that I have been wrong, I have admitted it. 'MR. S!A'.ALLHOOD: Sure, which is so often. ~ , MURPHY: And that is not like a litany that could occur on the other side. MR. SMALLWOOD: What is it? "Mea Culpa - how does it go? MR. MURPHY: But, Mr.

Speaker, as I say, "Mea eulpa", Mea Culpa, Mea Maxime Culpa." That is it. The sign should be rtght across in block letters. MR. S!A'.ALLWOOD: What is it in English~ I am guilty. I am •.•• MR. MURPHY: Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault. MR. SMALLHOOD: Is that not sort of an omission of guilt? MR. MURPHY: Yes. MR. SMALLHOOD: Does it not really mean that: I am too blame, I am too blame MR. MURPHY: That is right. That is right. It is the Confeitor. You are confessing that the Premier is not upon - I know he is a great Methodist.

I think part Anglican, part Pentecost, but I do not know, if there is any Roman Catholic MR. SMALLWOOD: Oh: yes there is. Oh! yes. MR. MURPHY You learned catechism at Littledale, but ••• MR. S~~LWOOD: I use to skip that. MR. MURPHY: Just the "Our Father" and "Hail Mary." MR. SMALLWOOD: They use to let me out. MR. NOLAN: We tried to give him a few instructions every day. 29G7

April 28th., 1970 Tape no. 679 Page 4 MR. MURPHY: You were one of the lucky ones. MR. SMALLWOOD: What'Z MR. MURPHY: You were one of the lucky ones. MR. SPEAY~R I am sure that nobody is out of order. MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, if you want to make a motion, I will second it. But to get back to the ombudsman, if we may? MR. SMALLWOOD: Chiefly, I may say, chiefly Wesleyan. MR. MURPHY: Chiefly t~esleyan. We will hear the story some day in public. MR. SMALLWOOD: I am the last of the Wesleyans. MR. MURPHY: I was going to say something, but MR. SMALLWOOD: I know two or three ••.• MR.

MURPHY: I do not think it would go ·: o~er too well·with the public. MR. SMALLWOOD: I know two or three that would dispute that, but theneyou are. MR. MURPHY: But, Mr. Speaker, we are dtscussing OMbudsmen now, not Wesleyans. MR. SMALLWOOD: It might be better to discuss Wesleyanism. MR. MURPHY: Possibly it mi~ht. MR. SMALLWOOD: It might be more interesting. Mlf. MURPHY: Yes . MR. SMALLWOOD: Any time the hon. gentleman wants to, let me know. MR. MURPHY: Right. I will go up and see the hon. Premier's library. . MR. SMALLWOOD: Yes. Has the hon. gentlemen ever been to see my library? MR. MURPHY: I just saw the hon.

Premier's gate. MR. SMALLWOOD: Saw what? MR. MURPHY: The front gate. Not allowed in any further. MR. SMALLWOOD: Why did not the bon. gentlemen •.. MR. MURPHY: I .ttbave ••• MR. SMALLWOOD: Why does not th~ bon. gentleman come up and have a meal with me and see my books? 2968

April 28th, 1970 Tape no. 679 Page 5 MR. MURPHY: You might incriminate me. MR. SMALLWOOD: What. ~~· MURP~ The bon. Premier might incriminate me now, if I go up. MR. SHALLWOOD: No not at all. I will not try to convert the bon. gentleman or anything like that. MR. MURPHY: We are having great fun. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is a matter about $100,000 I am trying to discuss here, and as you can see this is the most important point that has been brought up yet!in this debate, because all the members are trying to side-track me from the fact of telling the people of Newfoundland - we are now adding another ornament that is going to cost them money. An ornament if ever there was one. It is absolutely unnecessary,an absolute squandering of the people's money; particularly, -bon. members laugh over there, and say this is a great joke and tomorrow you will hear him getting up and I believe in trade unions.

I believe in union wages, everytiing else, everything else. They are behind everything, but when they get on that side, I do not know, the whole atmosphere seems to change. Whatever it is, I do not know. If the Premier got up on a point and said a $100,000 - what I could do with $100,000 for the people, spend on a little something here. This is the kind of man we want. sBut someone else brings it up, it is a proper joke. that $100,000? Now what area of this Province could not do with MR. SMALLWOOD: Look at all the worms that could be grown. ·MR. MURPHY: A lot of them destroyed to. MR.

SMALLWOOD: But look how many could be grown and exported. MR. MURPHY: Speaking of worms, you know, 2969

April 2Rth, 19/0 l'ape 680 JM - l. MR. MURPHY: speaking of worms, not looking at the Premier, (I did not mean it that way) but the worm industry and it has been proved, not getting away from this thing for a moment, is far more profitable than seventy-five-per-cent of the industries we have developed in this Province. MR. SMALLWOOD: It must be pretty profitable. MR. MURPIIT: It would astound the millions of worms that are sold in this Province today at one cent each and the reeurns compared to the different industries we have seen. MR. SMALLWOOD: Yes, for instance the fisheries. MR.

MURPIIT: The fisheries is not an industry as far as the Government is concerned. MR. SMALLHOOD: Take for instance forestry. MR. MURPHY: No, that is only a by-pass. MR. SMALLWOOD: All we put in the fisheries is $30. million. MR. MURPHY: Right. That is all, $30. million over twenty years, that is $1.5 million a year. MR. SMALLWOOD: That is right. MR. MURPHY: This is from the Premier now. He has been saying that over the past twenty years, now we have it established. MR. ROWE: But you told us we have not done enough for it. MR. MURPHY: That is right and that proves it. $30. million over twenty-one years. MR.

NEARY: Well we will go in for worms. MR. MURPHY: Yes, it would be far more profitable than some of the ventures we have taken on. You would not need $155. million guaranteeded for to supply a few pickaxes. MR. NEARY: We would soon reduce the unemployment. MR. MURPHY: We certainly hope so, please God and we say it quite fervently. But here is another $100,000 now, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to throw away to some distinguished gentleman, and I am sure he will be distinguished, and he will be chosen by the great Ombudsma~himself, I know that, he will be kept in office or thrown out according to the Legislation.

So we will dig down again for next year to fork out another few cents in taxes. It has been said that 2970

April 28th, 1970 Tape 680 JM- 2 MR. MURPHY: certain things cannot be done without raising taxes, certain salaries cannot be paid. Mr. Speaker, I say that is an absolute fallacy if the Government of this Province decided to take measures such as one they are taking now, and not take this measure but take measures to abolish some of the ornamental officers we have in this Province we would have a few million dollars we could talk to and I think everybody in this House will agree with me on this. So, Mr.

Speaker, I personally at this time cannot see any virture or any need,in view of our economic conditions and so many people looking for a few dollars to add to their incomes, I personally cannot favour the appointment of an Ombudsman at this time. MR. BURGESS: Mr. Speaker, personally I cannot agree with the han. gentleman who just sat down. MR MURPHY: Cannot? MR BURGESS: Cannot. In everything else, yes. AN HON. MEMBER: No coalition. MR BURGESS: If you say you want to get the dope on things, get it from the dope.

In any distance to travel, you have to take the first step, and dispite the legal drawbacks, some of the minor legal drawbacks, as pointed out by my legal friends here, to this Act, I think that the intention of the Act itself and the over-all principal of it is most certainly one of the finest Bills that has ever come before this House. I think that p~actically all of the credits for this Bill do belong to the bon. minister who presented it and that is the hon. Minister -of Supply. In his remarks yesterday the Premier made a mistake, I think he may have corrected it. He said that the han.

Minister of Supply had been discussing this thing for almost a year. Well I remember the hon. minister discussing this in 1966 just after the last provincial election and I have since learned that he used to speak about the necessity of an Ombudsman even when he was working in the broadcasting field. There is no doubt in my mind that it is due to his efforts that this Bill is before the House and I think he is to be sincerely congratulated on it. 2971

Apr1L ~~tn, L~/U ·rape b80 Jr1 - .) MR. BURGESS: The value of an Ombudsman to this Province;! think it will take a period of time before the value can really be properly assessed by the people because there has to be some court of appeal, Mr. Speaker, above the normal members who are elected to this House,against the bureaucratic system with all its drawbacks.

It is very unfortunate that within the Act, as pointed out by every other speaker on this side of the House anyway, the political ramifications being that he is appointed,by the House of Assembly or by the majority of the members of this House of Assembly,but I am afraid it is impossible to avoid political ramifications no matter what kind of a position you create, it has to be created by the elected representatives. [be political ramifications of that in itself are, well they are just ramifications.

Jou cannot separate the position from politics, · much as we would like to see it. .ISUt psycUU.1.0g.1.Ccil!y lie Will have, blways in his subconsciOUS mind he will be wondering,if he makes a right or a wrong decision, what the ramifications will be, as far as the people who are capable of putting him out of the House are. And he would have to be an exceptional individual if he tackled all of the problems which he is bound to be presented with in a fearless fashion without even thinking of repercussions or any repercussions that would be likely to occur from any one decision.

Now the point was brought up was really made quite clear by the hon. the Premier yes~rday when he said that this Ombudsman should not be in a position to overrule the elected members of this House, a right that we have fought for for hundreds of years. He used the words that even a compulsory arbitration should not be in a position to dictate how the money is spent from the Provincial Treasury and that they should hold on to the purses.

Now I think that that was a rather strange statement and I hope that the Ombudsman, as such, at least his recommendations would be taken with a greater degree of sincerity than some of the recommendations of Arbitration Boards that we have seen in this Province in the last couple of years. Recommendations that they have made for groups of people, vitally essential workers in the Province and their recommendations were completely ignored and if the Ombudsman receives the same treatment well then I am afraid at some stage I would have to reverse my 2972

.... ct ... ~ uov Jl'i - .. MR. BURGESS: opinion about the merits of this Bill. Now, I would be delighted, I have heard that he will get travelling expenses, he will receive a salary of $20,000. ·a year and I would sincerely hope that he has occasion to use some of those travelling expenses to travel to Labrador where it is just impossible to imagine the amount of complaints that an Ombudsman could possibly, logically settle or radify.

I have,as an elected representative, or any one of us as elected representatives in this House, any decision or any statement which we make on the basis of representation from our constituents or citizens of the Province, any statement we make is always taken on the basis of what party we belong to or what political gain or measure that we are getting out of making this statement in the House . Now this is where an Ombudsman could in effect in his dealings with the public could be much more effective than we are in that it would be considered that he does not have any axe to grind.

But I would like to see an ombudsman.

For instance, I have brought the problem to the House on numerous occasions, but I would like to see somebody in Labrador City or Wabush explain to me or explain to an ombudsman (because they have explained it to me often enough . and I have explained it to the House often enough and I have seen no results from the complaint which I have made), I would like to see the problem of how it is that myself and any other hon. gentleman can go to the airport tomorrow morning and can both buy tickets, on Eastern Provincial Airways and I buy my ticket to Wabush and the other gentleman buys his ticket to Montreal, and we get aboard the same aircraft, and we travel to Wabush and I get off at Wabush and he goes 600 miles more, to Montreal, and I have paid eighty-six dollars for my ticket and he paid sixty-six dollars for his.

Now, you know, this is 2973

April 28, 1970 Tape 6681 Page 1 HR. BURGESS: This is a problem that I have confronted this House ~th. I do not see any action. I do not see any action on it. I would like to sec an ombudsman being approached by the workers of Churchill Falls, or by anybody that attempts to get into Churchill Falls, when you were told before the aircraft comes in for a landing that if you are not destined for Churchill Falls, that you cannot get off the aircraft, and if you do get off the aircraft, you walk into the air terminal - and there is a big rope around the forum in the air terminal.

And there is a bunch of Security Gua~ds standing there, and they funnel you through a glass bo~ on the side where there are four or five security men who check out your credentials and your reason for being there. It is like going into one of the Iron Curtain countries. I would like to see people approach an ombudsman on these problems. I would like to see the people in Churchill Falls approach an ombudsman on the problem of Union representation, which they are not getting, yet they are paying for.

I hope, I sincerely hope that the bmbudsman has a bigger impact, or his recommendations or the problems which he does present to the authorities concerned, that there is more action taken on them, than it is from the members who bring the problems to the attention of Government. Because ther~ lot~r. Speaker, there are a lot of moral rights. There are a lot moral righas, let alone the legal rights.

The legal rights of the citizen are one thing, and God knows there are a lot of legal implications in a lot of the Acts ~hat have come out of this Huuse that have to be changed, but there are also moral rights that people feel that should be looked after also, and which they are getting no response from - when they do present them to their members. I would like to see the ombudsaan approached by the people of my district when I go to utilize the CB£ facilities in Goose Bay, and I am told that I cannot use it. Other bon • .embers of the Government can go and use the facilities, but no, not me.

For some reason, I am told - no dice, I cannot utilize them. I would like 2974

April 28, 1970 Tape #681 Page 2 to eee somebody go and tell the ombudsman that also. And I would like to see the ombudsman bring it to the Government, to the attention of the authorities concerned, and to get rectification of this matter - on the Bill itself Mr.

Speaker, the one point that really made sense when the bon. member for Burin was talking, was the fact of the words "may" and "shall" when the commissioner, as he is called, where he should be compelled to bring some problems that he is presented with to the attention of the House of Assembly, because if he is not compelled, I am afraid that psyco1ogically, political influence could really end up in the fact that he would not expose the problem or bring the problem into the open, and the problem, if it is a vital one as far as any individual or g·roup of individuals are concerned, it would be submerged because the individual would be told, well it will not be allowed on the floor of the House.

But I think that this is a very important facit of this Bill, that he should be entitled, or the word "shall" should be there. He "shall" make such a report to the Legislature on the matter as he thinks fit. But as I have said in any distance, you have to take the first step and I think this is the first step in bringing about an element of justice in the elimination of a lot of fear that exists in this Province, based on the present political circumstances. And I think that the bon. minister who presented it has to be commended to a great degree for his efforts in it bringin~this far. MR. NOLAN: Mr.

Speaker, there were a number of items referred to that I should make reference to at this time. One is the election or the dismissal of the ombudsman. Many people have felt that it is feasible to compare the ombudsman for example, to say the Auditor General for e~ample. And this as you know, can be done if you check the Revenue and Audit Act, by a simple majority vote of the House of Assembly to dismiss the Auditor General. A simple majority vote of this House can dismiss the Premier, the Cabinet and the Government.

And it is for this reason when we were discussing the legislation prior to presentation to this House, that the

Section was drafted in this way. Again I emphasize that the Auditor General could be removed 2975

April 28, 1970 Tape 0681 Page 3 by a simple majority. The Government could be removed by a simple majority. The question arises then, why should the ombudsman have power or need extra protection above and beyond these people that I have mentioned? I am simply saying;Mr. Speaker, that we can be removed, the Government can be removed. The Auditor General can be removed by a simple majority of the House of Assembly. Are we going to be - the Speaker can be - Your Honour you can be removed by a similar, by a majority. The ombudsman is not graded in the House. I thinkJMr.

Speaker, no one will deny that I am interested in this Legislation, and it is unfortunate sometimes, that there are those who feel that it is necessary to, no matter what we bring up from this side of the House, to find some reason to criticize it. For example, I think it most unfortunate, and I am not really going after this gentleman, and I do not want it to be interpreted as such. That the hon. member for St. John's West, decided to suggest that we have to have a man who is going to go after the jugular. It is an ombudsman, a man, not a vampire. We do not want a man, and I am sure the hon. member from St.

John's West does not want a man who is going to come in here with the preconceived notion that my aim in life, now that I am appointed, is to get the hon. member from St. John's West. To get the Premier, to get the Government, to get someone in the Opposition, to get some Civil Servants, to get some chairman of some Corporation. MR. SMALLWOOD: Go right for the Government's jugular. MR .• CROSBIE: If necessary, and I would not doubt it would be with this Government. MR.

NOLAN: Again I say it is unfortunate, depending on which side of the House you are sitting on, you seem to have to twist and turn things, to satisfy the position that you are in, in the House at the time. I know very well, in very heart for example, the hon. member himself is interested in the appointment of an ombudsman. That I knaw, and I am also sure that be if he himself were in a position to appoint or to influential in appointing a man to be the ombudsman for this Province - incidentally in the legislation 2976

April 28, 1970 Tape 1!681 Page 4 I believe, it says Newfoundland I do hope when we get in Committee it will be referred to as Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am sure that he would not appoint a man who is simply going to go after the jugular as he says. I think it was an unfortunate phrase and in spite of what he says I do not think that he really meant it that way. MR. CROSBIE·!· No, it was an exaggeration - MR. SMALLWOOD: No he did not mean it. MR. CROSBIE: What about the job.?