May 14,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 49

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before moving on to our business I would like to welcome to

the Speaker's galleries today a group of mayors from the north east Avalon as

follows: Mayor Peter Murphy, Goulds; Mayor Cyril Power, Torbay; Mayor Paul

Reynolds, town of Wedgewood Park; Mayor Sam Connors, Pouch Cove; Mayor Richard

Squires, St. Thomas; Mayor Harvey Hodder, city of Mount Pearl; Deputy Mayor, Rex

Hillier, Conception Bay South; Mayor Heber Walters, St. Phillip's; Mayor Shanny

Duff, city of St. John's; Mayor Pat Murray, Portugal Cove; Mayor J. Byrne, Logy

Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove; Mayor Marven Whalen, Bauline; Councillor Reg

Carter, Petty Harbour; John O'Dea, Chairman, Metropolitan Area Board; Mayor

Diane Whelan, Paradise; Mayor Gerard Whelan, Hogan's Pond, and finally Mayor

Joseph Maynard, Flatrock.

Also, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today

thirty Grade V11 students from Catalina Elementary School, Catalina, accompanied

by teachers Marven Rider, Gill Howell and their bus driver, Mr. G. House.

Also, I would like to welcome to the galleries twenty-six

Grade V students from L.R. Ash Elementary School, Lethbridge, Bonavista Bay,

accompanied by their teacher Sandra Wicks and six parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, hon. Members of the House of

Assembly, it is my pleasure to announce today that this week has been declared

National Tourism Week. This national event celebrates the importance the tourism

industry plays in our economy and our everyday lives.

All too often, Mr. Speaker, we tend to underestimate the

significant impact the tourism industry has and will continue to have on all

communities throughout our Province. This industry has no geographic boundaries.

As well it is composed for the most part of small and medium size enterprises,

that part of the economy which as we all know, Mr. Speaker, is growing at the

fastest rate. In the last decade Tourism has gone from being a marginal economic

activity in this Province, limited in large part to catering to the business

traveller, to our fourth largest employer. About 14,000 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are employed in this industry, or one in every twenty-two employed

persons. We calculate that for every 1000 new tourists visiting our Province

fifteen new jobs are created.

Mr. Speaker, Tourism is a significant player in the economic

activity of Newfoundland and Labrador with limitless opportunities available for

entrepreneurs. I believe that the Tourism industry is not only here to stay but

that it has the potential to become one of the most important economic engines

all throughout this Province. That is why as Minister responsible for Tourism I

am very pleased to announce the week of May 13 to 19 as National Tourism Week.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to respond to this petition presented by the Minister

and to welcome the announcement of National Tourism Week. As the Minister has

quite properly stated the Tourism industry is one of the major industries in our

Province, and in my view has probably the greatest potential of any of our

resource based industries for growth in the future in our Province. Most of our

industries are based on non-renewable resources but the Tourism industry is not

only a renewable resource but it also has almost unlimited potential.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and the people involved in the Tourism

industry who have made great strides over the past number of years in bringing

the industry of Tourism very much to the forefront and making it the very

successful industry it is, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome this announcement.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, today I will be tabling for the

consideration of this hon. House a resolution dealing with the

amalgamation of municipalities within the Northeast Avalon region of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of public participation

in the feasibility hearings, and the public rightfully took advantage to make

their views known, both in writing and verbally. The results of these hearings

were provided to me and Government. I have received advice from the

commissioners for the feasibility studies, from planning officials in my

Department, and from various Members of the House of Assembly. Based upon all

this input, and after reviewing the financial criteria relating to each

municipality, as well as assessing the future longer term needs of each, I am

recommending a number of amalgamations within the Northeast Avalon region.

The municipal structure in the Northeast Avalon region has

been the subject of a considerable number of studies during the past twenty

years, and all recognize the need to reduce the number of existing

municipalities with a view to eliminating or reducing duplication of the

provision of services in order to create more viable communities. At a time when

money is very difficult to come by and the taxpayers are already paying

substantial sums for their services it is not acceptable to continue duplicating

the provision of major services thereby increasing the overall cost to the

taxpayers of the Province. It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the seventeen

municipalities be reduced to eleven, and that the areas of the present St.

John's Metropolitan Area Board be attached to adjacent municipalities. This move

will result in the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board being disbanded.

It is also proposed that the Towns of Conception Bay South,

Torbay, and Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove remain unaltered.

The Towns of Pouch Cove and Bauline will remain substantially

unaltered except for the inclusion of adjacent territory which is presently

incorporated within the St. John's Metropolitan Area.

The Town of Flatrock will remain substantially as it is,

although it is proposed that some territory which comprises the domestic

watershed for the Town of Pouch Cove be removed from the Town of Flatrock and

placed within the Town of Pouch Cove.

It is proposed that the similar rural Towns of Portugal Cove,

St. Phillip's and Hogan's Pond be amalgamated into one new municipality to

include also adjacent territory presently within the St. John's Metropolitan

area. The latter includes the community know as Windsor Heights and territory

lying between the Towns of Portugal Cove and Bauline.

The Town of Paradise is proposed to expand with the inclusion

of the adjacent Elizabeth Park and Evergreen Village, which are serviced

sub-divisions presently within the St. John's Metropolitan Area. As well, the

unserviced Town of St. Thomas, which must ultimately receive services via the

Town of Paradise, and the adjacent Metropolitan Area lands known as Topsail Pond

and Three Island Pond are included. This community, although essentially rural

at present, is likely to urbanize as is evidenced by the proposed Trails End

subdivision and the proposed Octagon Pond Industrial Park.

It is proposed that an urban core municipality based upon the

existing City of St. John's and including the totally encompassed Town of

Wedgewood Park, along with the developing Town of Goulds, the watersheds

servicing the urban core (namely Windsor Lake, Broad Cove River and Bay Bulls

Big Pond) along with adjacent territory presently within the St. John's

Metropolitan Area Board be constituted as one City to be known as the City of

St. John's.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the new urban core

municipality also include some lands presently within the City of Mount Pearl

and the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove which are capable of service

from the City of St. John's. That is to say, the area know as Southlands which

presently falls partially within the City of Mount Pearl and partially within

the St. John's Metropolitan Area is proposed to be included within the City of

St. John's, along with a portion of the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove

in the vicinity of Snow's Lane and Logy Bay Road, which is currently serviceable

from the systems within the City of St. John's.

The existing developed area of the City of Mount Pearl will

remain as a separate municipality.

The Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove will remain

substantially unaltered with only the removal of lands currently serviceable by

the City of St. John's.

All assets of the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board

including the Provincially owned Bay Bulls Regional Water System will be

transferred to the City of St. John's to be managed and operated. In addition,

St. John's will be given the assets of the St. John's Fire Department and the

Canada Games Park Commission. In the case of the Fire Department, St. John's

will operate a regional system including the Mount Pearl Fire Station. The

station in Mount Pearl will be opened as soon as a suitable arrangement is

worked out with the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution itself will outline more of the

rational for the proposed amalgamations and will detail the composition of the

detailed groupings. Once that is done, there is considerable work still required

in putting together the municipalities as proposed. It is proposed, therefore,

when this resolution is passed, and subject to the approval of the Lieutenant

Governor in Council, to put in place a transitional team to work out the

administrative and technical details of bringing the proposed groupings

together.

It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, to expand the size of the

Council for the new enlarged City of St. John's and to hold by-elections this

November in time to effect the proposed consolidation on January 1, 1992. Two

new Wards will be created with one Councillor from each of Goulds and Wedgewood

Park for the duration of the existing Council term.

In Paradise, a new Town election will be held this November

to provide for the election of a fully representative Council for the Towns of

Paradise, St. Thomas and the areas of Evergreen Village, Elizabeth Park, Topsail

Pond and Three Island Pond. This new Municipality will take effect January 1,

There will also be a new Town election this November for the

new municipality to be comprised of St. Phillips, Portugal Cove, Hogan's Pond

and Windsor Heights. This new Municipality will also take effect January 1,

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that

this hon. House of Assembly -

MR. SPEAKER: That is under Notices of Motion.

MR. GULLAGE: (Inaudible). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, one can only ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, after he read this statement today, Why did he wait so long

to call elections in the past year? There is nothing here, Mr. Speaker, by which

the Minister deserves to come into this legislature today and take any credit

for amalgamating certain areas of this town, or do what he said he is going to

do. As a matter of fact, what the Minister has said today is the direct opposite

to what he and the Premier have been saying for the last two years. There is not

one shred of truth in what they said before or what they are saying now, and, if

Your Honour had not ruled a few days ago that a certain button was out of order,

we should all be wearing them here today, because that is what is taking place.

And when the Minister reads this - let me start off by saying

that when he talks about the new St. John's area, taking in the Goulds and

Wedgewood Park, that is not what the Goulds or Wedgewood Park was told. Let me

further state that not only will there be, I suggest to the Minister, an

additional tax burden imposed upon the people of the Goulds and other areas, as

a result of this, but that the St. John's people will have to pick up the tax

tab for a lot of problems that exist in some of these communities that he has

amalgamated. So this is neither good for the Town of Goulds, in my opinion, or

the City of St. John's.

Speaking of Mount Pearl, which the Minister has been talking

about in the past few days, as I read this, from what he has said, Mount Pearl

remains in name only. Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker, has been boxed in. Growth can

not exist in that community anymore with the removal of Southlands and other

areas. They have been punished by this Government for their stand a few days

ago. That is what is taking place here. Indeed, Mount Pearl has been literally

choked in terms of future growth as a result of the actions of this Government.

And, furthermore, what we have seen today is Mount Pearl having become the new

Wedgewood Park of the City of St. John's.

What is going to happen in terms of regional services? The

Minister just outlined that the City of St. John's will be responsible for the

St. John's Fire Department, for the water system, for solid waste disposal, and

the list goes on. That, Mr. Speaker, is taxation without representation imposed

upon certain people. That is what is taking place here today, and we have seen

it. It is a sad day for the Minister to come into this Legislature in a

dishonourable way; in terms of bringing in amalgamation, it is not what he

promised. And when the Premier of this Province can write letters that state: I

assure you that if the majority of residents of your community oppose being

amalgamated with any surrounding municipality, then there are no plans to force

the issue.

Now, what does that say? That says the Premier of this

Province did not tell the truth to the people of this Province! This Government

has lied to the people of this Province, with the amalgamation that we have seen

here today! And it should not be allowed to be brought to the floor of this

Assembly! There must be justice and we have not seen it today. The Member for

Mount Scio can laugh all he likes. Go talk to the people of Wedgewood Park if

you want to talk about truth and promises. Talk to the Mayor of the Goulds and

other people in the Goulds if you want to talk about truth, honesty, and

integrity. That is where you should go, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is

this is not worth the paper it is written on. When you choke communities, when

you box them in where they cannot grow in an effort to punish them, is that

fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker? No, it is outrage and disgust. That is what

it is. We have seen too much of this over the past couple of years coming from

this Government, and it should not be tolerated. I spoke briefly with the Mayor

of the Goulds before I came into the Legislature and I can tell you that he is

not amused, he is not laughing, nor are his residents, nor are the residents or

the Mayor of Wedgewood Park, nor other areas of this Province. The list goes on.

I do not think the residents of St. John's are going to be laughing, Mr.

Speaker, when they find out what has taken place today in this game that was

played by the Minster and the Premier. I do not think they are going to be

laughing either because I venture to bet what the City of St. John's wants to

do, and have been doing to some extent, will be paralysed by this announcement

today. What is St. John's going to do with the Goulds, Mr. Speaker? That is the

question. What is the Goulds going to do by becoming part of St. John's? I am

sure as each day goes by my colleague for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I will get back to it pretty soon.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to address the statement by the hon. Minister with

respect to amalgamation. I feel that what the Government has done in the

amalgamation announcement today is really a hodgepodge solution to a big problem

which will not stand the test of time. The Government here has lacked the

courage, and lacked the vision, to develop a solution that would meet the needs

of the City of St. John's and the urban core that we have. What the Government

has done here is taken communities like the Goulds, with clearly the most

productive agricultural land on the Avalon Peninsula, put it in the City of St.

John's and yet left Mount Pearl, an urban area, on its own. Instead of doing

what makes sense and saying all the urban areas should be together in one

municipality, they failed to do that because they were afraid to stand up to the

political response of the people of Mount Pearl. Instead of having a solution

that made sense, that made logical sense, and which was part of a long-term

plan, they have done half measures all the way. They have picked on the people

who did not fight back like the Goulds, but the organized people from Mount

Pearl, the Government responded to and said: we have a plan but we do not have

the courage to implement it. That is what they have done. Wedgewood Park who

could not fight back because they were too small, the Goulds who could not fight

back because they were not organized to do that, they have been steamrollered,

but the people like the people of Mount Pearl, who if we have a genuine plan for

a urban core ought to be included, have been left out.

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak about some of the other areas.

I think some of the removal of anomalies is a good thing, but I think in the

main what Government has failed to do is demonstrate leadership and political

courage in developing a proper plan for the urban area of St. John's. It will

not last and it will have to be changed in a matter of a couple of years.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: On August 17, 1989, The Evening Telegram

carried a story with the headline, "Cabinet will not force amalgamation." The

lead paragraph in that story reads and I quote: "Premier Clyde Wells says he

does not foresee any set of circumstances where it would be necessary for the

House of Assembly to decide whether or not certain municipalities should be

amalgamated." So, I ask the Premier, what has changed? There was strong public

opposition to forced amalgamation in 1989 and there is still strong opposition.

Why has he decided once again not to keep his word?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say that the hon. Member has

again misstated the position in 1989. The position clearly taken in 1989 is that

the Cabinet would not sit in the room and secretly decide to amalgamate

communities but if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is precisely what I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go back and

restate what I said in 1989: the Cabinet would not sit in secret in the Cabinet

room and direct the amalgamation of municipalities. If it became necessary, and

I did not foresee circumstances that would require it at that time, and I did

not, to require amalgamation, in Government's opinion, of any municipalities we

would bring it before this House of Assembly for debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the Minister has

done or will do shortly, and announce that he is going to do. I guess the

Minister will shortly, when the Speaker calls for Notices of Motion, announce a

motion to deal with it that will be decided by this House of Assembly. So, Mr.

Speaker, the Government has followed completely the position that it took two

years ago and we intend to continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with this Premier wonders never

cease.

Why does the Premier have so much difficulty in keeping his

word, that is the question? Will he at least stand by the pledge he made last

year to his own constituents when he said, and I quote, "It is not Government's

policy to ram through amalgamation. We live in a democracy so amalgamation is

not going to be forced on anyone." Will he now live by his words and not force

amalgamation on any community in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am living precisely by the

words and I have great pride in doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we will see if he has pride in

this one. I would like to ask the Premier about a letter he wrote last year to

the Mayor of Lewin's Cove on September 24, 1989. He said in the second paragraph

of that letter, "I assure you that if the majority of the residents of Lewin's

Cove are opposed to being amalgamated with any surrounding municipality then

there are no plans to force the issue." I have the letter here, Mr. Speaker, so

he cannot deny that. He repeated that assurance in the second last paragraph of

the same letter. Is that assurance not consistent with all the other statements

made by the Premier in the fall of 1989? I now ask the Premier: will he keep his

commitment to the community of Lewin's Cove and not go back on his word on this

one like he has done on previous ones?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To restate again, Mr. Speaker, there are

no plans to amalgamate the community of Lewin's Cove with anybody else that I

know of. I am not aware of any such plan. I have no knowledge of any such plan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West on a final supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that the

recommendation is in the hands of his Minister.

The Premier keeps saying that Government will not force

amalgamation but will have the House do it. Does the Premier really believe that

the people of the Province do not see through what he is proposing? That we do

not know that the House will obey the Government proposal and it will be passed

through the Government majority? Is the proposal before the House today not one

more example that the Premier cannot be trusted to his word?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have been entrusted with

the responsibility to govern this Province on the basis of fairness and balance

and we will continue to do so. We will not abandon our responsibility to the

taxpayers of this Province as a whole and create for political purposes little

municipalities here and there to meet the political needs of some individual

sitting on the Government side of the House. Mr. Speaker, we will act with

courage, with integrity and will deal properly with the orderly management of

the municipal affairs of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, this announcement lacks

integrity totally. Let me say that this Minister has now made the City of St.

John's a regional authority, in effect creating a super city by the back door

that he could not do by the front door. We now have all the regional services

under the City of St. John's. He has, in fact, made all other municipalities

including the City of Mount Pearl subservient to the City of St. John's. Would

the Minister like to explain to us why he would take that action instead of

creating a Regional Services Board in accordance with the Act that this

Government forced through this House using closure only a few months ago which,

in fact, would have created a regional authority to govern such services instead

of creating what we have now which is, in fact, taxation without representation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have legislation

in place for regional services boards, but the Government felt that in this

instance where we had a Metropolitan Area Board in place delivering a lot of the

services that are regional in nature, that rather than create another board,

because once we distributed the metropolitan area lands to the various

communities we were left with the servicing aspect of the board. Rather than

assign those duties to another regional services board about which many of the

communities were saying that they did not want, not all communities wanted a

regional services board, a lot were saying they did not want another, as they

perceived it, tier of Government. Government felt it wiser to assign those

responsibilities to the City of St. John's where there is a large administrative

structure in place, engineering, planning and other administrative abilities

that could very well carry out the functions that were in place with the St.

John's Metropolitan Area Board. So that is the way we proceeded as a Government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

is, in fact, taking an area from the City of Mount Pearl which has been part of

its planning area since 1955. He is, in effect, Mr. Speaker, giving the City an

area to which they can only provide services through the City of Mount Pearl. On

the basis of which feasibility studies and what public input has the Minister

made these decisions? Why has he chosen to come to the House of Assembly and

circumvent the protection inherent in the Municipalities Act and his own

Regional Services Bill, Mr. Speaker, by forcing this resolution through the

House of Assembly?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, Southlands

is a development that is under the auspices of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation and encompasses land presently under the City of Mount Pearl

but also under the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board. That land is undeveloped

at present; it is on the other side of the harbour arterial route. Government

felt it wise to identify a boundary for Mount Pearl that would be the arterial

road and that those lands that are presently outside of that particular boundary

be developed within the jurisdiction of the City of St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if that Minister can find one

professional official who will recommend to him that the Southlands should be

part of St. John's and not Mount Pearl, I will pass in my license to practice as

a professional engineer, let me tell you. There is absolutely no rationale

whatsoever for such a move.

Mr. Speaker, Mount Pearl is now totally engulfed as a result

of this. In fact, Mount Pearl has nowhere to go but straight up - absolutely

straight up. As my colleague said, we are now, in fact, the new Wedgewood Park.

Will the Minister not confirm that this proposal, in fact, represents his

revenge on the people of Mount Pearl and a total betrayal of the people who

elected him to represent them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as this House knows, with

seventeen municipalities in the Northeast Avalon, 160,000 people, the numbers of

scenarios that could have been arrived at, the number of decisions that could

have been arrived at were numerous. We feel we have made the best decision in

the long-term interests of the people of the Northeast Avalon, and the decision

such as the one the Member speaks about is one of those decisions. We had to

arrive at the end of the day with the best rationale, as a Government, we could

see for these seventeen communities. We believe we have done just that.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. First of all

before I ask the question I have to tell the Minister and this House on behalf

of the residents of the Goulds of my complete disgust in this statement that he

has made today.

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister realize that there is very

little if any difference between the Town of Paradise and the Town of Goulds,

both having some urban and some rural activities? Mr. Speaker, in particular the

Town of the Goulds has a very sensitive agricultural zone included within its

boundaries. The Town of the Goulds is completely serviced from within the Town

of the Goulds except for the water supply which has to go through the Town of

the Goulds and is taken from a resource that was always a part of the Town of

the Goulds except that it was never included in their boundary. Mr. Speaker,

will the Minister tell me what is the difference between Paradise staying on its

own and the Goulds staying on its own?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Town of the Goulds, of

course, as we all know, is quickly urbanizing, and the Member is quite right

when he says that there is a lot of farmland. That farmland is presently zoned

agricultural in use. It is controlled by the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture, and will be frozen, as far as development is concerned, as it is

presently. So, we are dealing with the rest of the Goulds, which is

predominantly an urbanizing area, and people from St. John's and other areas are

locating and living in the Goulds, much like they are in Paradise, I would

admit. But it is different in the context that the water supply sits directly

behind it. We had to deal with the servicing aspect of the Northeast Avalon

Region, the fact that the water lines are connecting through the Goulds and to

the Goulds and through to Bay Bulls Big Pond, in many cases.

So we felt that the natural growth of the City of St. John's

- and it could be argued, I guess, the natural growth, eventually, of the City

of St. John's could be the entire Northeast Avalon. Fifty years from now, who

knows? But certainly, the natural growth of the City of St. John's appears to

be, right now, along that corridor and certainly out towards an existing water

supply which supplies the entire Northeast Avalon, with the exception of the

eastern part of St. John's.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the

Minister considers the natural development of St. John's to go along that

corridor, because St. John's and the Goulds are completely separated by the

agricultural zone.

Will the Minister tell me if he plans now to take away the

agricultural zoning on the very small piece of land that is left to protect it

for agriculture in this part of the Province, right now, and allow the city to

expand into that agricultural land, as I believe is his and the Government's

plan?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: That is a good question, Mr. Speaker. The

same question was asked of me by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. His

concern was that the pressure may be there, eventually, to develop that

farmland. I assured him that we intend to leave the same restrictions and

regulations in place, leave the control of that farmland as it presently is,

under the control of Forestry and Agriculture. it will, indeed, continue to be

frozen and used for farmland and agriculture, as it is now.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not admit that this not only

does not help the City of St. John's taxpayers one little bit, it exacerbates

their tax burden by having to look after this agricultural zone now, since some

of it, at least, was looked after by the Department of Transportation at one

time? Will the Minister not now admit that the City of St. John's taxpayers will

be looking after this agricultural zone, providing services to it, as they are

now providing services along the Parkway here to Government buildings, and

receive very few or no tax dollars for the services they will have to provide?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, if the Town of the Goulds can

effectively regulate and control the farmland that is under Government

authority, surely, the City of St. John's can do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, I think the City of St. John's can very

effectively -

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Metro Board.

MR. GULLAGE: - or the Metro Board, whichever it happens

to be, Metro Board or the Goulds - can very effectively control that particular

land in the Goulds, whether it be Goulds or Metro Board. I feel quite confident

they can carry out those controls, make sure that that land remains controlled

and, in fact, frozen, as far as development is concerned, strictly for use as

farmland.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister completely

avoided the question. The City taxpayers will now have to suffer the burden of

looking after the agricultural zone, which includes Brookfield Road, Old Bay

Bulls Road and those areas, which were administered by the Metro Board but

serviced by the Department of Transportation and private contractors for garbage

and street lighting.

Would the Minister confirm to me that they have had their

plan ready for expanding the City of St. John's into the agricultural zone, and

this is part of the reason why the Department of Forestry and Agriculture has

reduced the amount of their budget for the Land Consolidation Programme, and

they plan to reduce the Land Consolidation Programme because they do not see any

future for the agricultural zone in this area of our Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure, if the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture were answering this question, he would say how

important the agricultural zone and the farmland in the Goulds/Metropolitan area

is to the Province. It is one of our most important areas as far as agriculture

is concerned. I am quoting him when I say that. We will continue to impose those

controls, Mr. Speaker, combining our resources with the City of St. John's. I

think the City of St. John's is quite capable of handling the control of that

land with the co-operation of the Province.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I had indicated to the hon. Member a final

supplementary. If the Member for St. John's East Extern would yield to his

colleague.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a final supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: One final question, Mr. Speaker. I do not

feel that this is a fait accompli, but just in case, by some stretch of the

imagination, the Goulds does have to go into the City of St. John's, does the

Minister have any plans to help the taxpayers of the Goulds try to rationalize

their taxes by at least 80 per cent, probably almost 100 per cent, with a

five-year phase in, so that the people who own homes in the Goulds right now,

will not have to sell them and mover further up the Southern Shore?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is our intent, of course, at

this time, to hopefully receive approval from the House of Assembly to proceed

with the resolutions as I will shortly outline them to the House. We realize

there has to be a period of transition, but we will be making sure that a

transition team is put in place to properly incorporate the towns involved in

amalgamation, whether it be the St. John's amalgamation or the other amalgamated

groupings, making sure that consolidation takes place properly, because we have

to have staff re-assigned, we have assets which have to be looked after, we have

tax structures in place; all that has to be dealt with as a separate item after

the resolutions, hopefully, are passed by the House.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen it again. This Premier and, now,

this Minister, using the old hobnailed boot attack, and this time they attacked

the Town of Wedgewood Park, after 100 per cent of the people out there, 100 per

cent of the residents, objected to being amalgamated. In the studies that were

held, the Commission advised the Government against amalgamating.

Now, I ask the Minister, why did you run roughshod over the

Town of Wedgewood Park?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, Wedgewood Park is a town that

has some 1,350 people, somewhere in that neighbourhood, 1,200 to 1,350 people.

It has now become totally surrounded by the city of St. John's and, Mr. Speaker,

any planning criteria will tell you it does not make a lot of sense to have a

small town, with that number of people surrounded by a larger entity, totally

surrounded, and it was felt that it was wiser to have it as part of the larger

entity, where indeed, it is part of St. John's now in so many ways. Except for a

very small commercial tax base, many of the services of St. John's, commercial,

cultural and otherwise and the University and Government, and all the other

parts of St. John's that are accessed by the people of Wedgewood Park, they are

very much an integral part of the larger city and it was felt that for all those

reasons and others, that they would be better off, part of St. John's.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern, on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, Why was

Mount Pearl left out? Why was it left out and Wedgewood Park put in? And why was

Paradise left out? Was it because of the pressure exerted by your backbenchers,

or was it - and I have to congratulate the Member for Mount Pearl: You certainly

motivated the people there to come out in strength and preserve their town. I

ask the Minister, because Wedgewood Park is perhaps of the same geographical

nature as Mount Pearl, why was Mount Pearl left out and Wedgewood Park put in?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are dealing

with a city of some 22,000/23,000 people. I do not think the same comparison can

be drawn. Mount Pearl is a city that has a strong industrial business base, is

self-sufficient, able to exist as an entity on its own.

AN HON. MEMBER: So is Wedgewood Park.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, for those reasons we felt that

Mount Pearl, at this time, should not be part of St. John's.

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

Extern on a final supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the

Minister, is it not a fact that the Premier and the Minister stated that no one

would be forced to amalgamate? Has the Premier and the Minister again broken

their word not once, not twice but on numerous occasions? I also want to ask the

Minister while he is on his feet, will the layoffs in the St. John's Fire

Department which were announced this morning, because of the services deal with

Mount Pearl, will those layoffs be put on hold?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, those layoffs were effected

because we had suggested to the union in negotiation because of the Budget

cutbacks to suggest to us ways to accommodate the reductions that were necessary

other than lay off. We did not get any suggestions forthcoming from the union so

we were left with the decision to have to lay off six fire fighters. Mr.

Speaker, I would hope those layoffs would be of a temporary nature because we do

intend, as I have already said in my statement, to proceed with opening the

Mount Pearl Fire Station. Hopefully, that will facilitate the rehiring of some

of the firefighters who are affected now by the layoff which took place today.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the Leader of the

Opposition on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the Speaker's

gallery today the Ambassador for France, His Excellency, Monsieur Francois Bujon

de l'Estang and the Consul General for France in Canada Monsieur Michel

Couthures. Je veux vous souhaiter les bienvenus L'Assemble de Terre-Neuve et

la Province de Terre-Neuve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Monsieur le Prsident is learning much more

quickly than the Premier, I believe, -

MR. SIMMS: It is not costing near as much.

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

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It has taken this Minister two

years to devise a plan for amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon that pleases

nobody. All the Minister has done is bungle and confuse the whole amalgamation

issue on the Northeast Avalon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, two years ago when the Minister had this

major dream and vision of amalgamation he also cast his vision to other parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador, amalgamating islands served by ferries with mainland

communities, for example, and hundreds of other proposed groupings he talked

about all around Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to ask the Minister today in

view of what he has proposed for the Northeast Avalon, where does amalgamation

stand in other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador that were referred to two

years ago?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is moving along very, very

well. We have commissioners reports in now from all the amalgamated groupings

and they are under consideration by myself as the Minister and by my Department,

and recommendations will be forthcoming. I can say, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the

comments of the Opposition about how negative the amalgamation process has been,

I simply say it is not over until it is over. You are going to be very, very

surprised at the result of many of the amalgamation groupings. Many of these

groupings are now saying, where they said no previously, they want to reconsider

amalgamation. They are beginning to see that the benefits are evident and

obvious. So, Mr. Speaker, the amalgamation process is going, very, very well and

announcements will be forthcoming on other groupings throughout the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is indicating or

suggesting that communities are changing their mind and coming to this

Government and asking for amalgamation. Mr. Speaker, they are being threatened,

blackmailed, and intimidated by this Government, that is what is happening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister this: In view of

the fact that the Minister disregarded the advice of his commissioners in the

case for example of Wedgewood Park and other groupings that he announced here

today, is the Minister intending to disregard the advice of his commissioners in

other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador? If he is, why are we going through

this charade and the fraud?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the feasibility process clearly

states that feasibility hearings first of all - hearings being one part of the

process and there are another sixteen main points - after the feasibility

process is complete, the Minister has the responsibility to take the

commissioners recommendations and have deliberations with staff and other people

he deems advisable and eventually make a recommendation to Government. He is

clearly not bound, and it says so in the Act, to accept the recommendations of

the commissioners, that is obviously very important but he is not bound to

accept it. Mr. Speaker, granted, it was not accepted in the case of Wedgewood

Park and it may not be the case in other groupings, Mr. Speaker. I have an

obligation as the Minister to make a recommendation ultimately to the

Government, having the advantage of the feasibility process, the hearings, and

the commissioner's reports, and any other information and advice that I can

access. That was the case with these seventeen communities in the Northeast

Avalon and that same procedure is being followed, and will be followed to a

conclusion with all the other groupings that remain to be finalized.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs to forget the fact that he used to be a city

councillor and become a Minister of the Crown for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister has said consistently in this House, and outside, that any

amalgamation process he would recommend to Government would be based on the

advice of his commissioners. That is what he said time and time again in this

House and outside. Now, why has the Minister disregarded the advice of his

commissioners in the plan announced here today, and why is he proposing to do

the same for other proposed amalgamations in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

has a terrific talent for taking things out of context. Obviously, my comments

were meant to suggest that I would take the commissioner's recommendations and

use that as a basis for a decision. That has always been the case, and will

always be the case, but to suggest that I will take the commissioner's

recommendations, in any one or all of the forty-two groupings, and verbatim go

forward with a recommendation to Government without considering all the other

aspects of the feasibility process, which includes the Minister's inpute, the

inpute of senior staff, the input of planners, the input of outside advice if

the Minister deems it necessary - to suggest that I would ignore all that

possible advice that could help the Minister arrive at a good, sensible

decision, is obviously ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. That is important, and I intend

to follow that procedure in the future.

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister who spent

two years procrastinating about amalgamation on the Northeast Avalon, and in

other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, would that Minister tell us what he

intends to do about Mount Moriah and Massey Drive in Corner Brook? That is one

example. What does he intend to do about Kippens in Stephenville? What does he

intend to do about Triton, Brighton and Pelleys Island, that great vision of

amalgamating mainland communities with islands served by ferries? What is the

Minister going to do about those groupings he brags about, Mr. Speaker?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all of those groupings which he

has mentioned will be addressed very shortly by Government and subsequently a

decision will be made. We will not be proceeding with amalgamation in all the

groupings. There are some groupings which the commissioners are recommending

against and I doubt if I as Minister would go against them in these particular

groupings. There are some half dozen, and possibly more, that I know they are

recommending against, so it is not as if the commissioners are simple saying all

amalgamations should proceed. The feasibility process is there to identify

whether or not a commissioner, or commissioners, would recommend at the end of

the day amalgamation to proceed, or otherwise. If they do recommend amalgamation

to proceed, and recommend a suggested grouping, then my responsibility is to

look at that grouping, to seek advice, as I have explained two or three times,

from officials, staff, outside consultants, whatever it takes, and ultimately

make a recommendation to Government. In all the communities he just mentioned,

Corner Brook, Stephenville, Kippens, Deer Lake, and all the other rural areas of

the Province, amalgamations will come forward, recommendations will come forward

to Government and ultimately to the House for finalization, either to proceed or

not to proceed, depending on how the Government decides.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

tomorrow move that this hon. House of Assembly adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS since 1957 there have been nine commission reports on

local government in the Northeast Avalon Region and all have recognized the need

to reduce the number of municipalities;

AND

WHEREAS a 1990 feasibility study which included nine

public hearings and received eighty-four written briefs and numerous oral

presentations recommended a reduction in the number of municipalities in the

Northeast Avalon Region;

AND

WHEREAS there are now seventeen municipalities in the

Northeast Avalon Region comprising a population of 160,000, with a total of 124

councillors;

AND

WHEREAS there is an inefficient delivery of services such

as sewerage and solid waste disposal, water supply, firefighting and urban

transportation;

AND

WHEREAS there is unequal taxation and unequal sharing of

responsibility and liability within the region for the delivery and use of

common services;

AND

WHEREAS there is duplication of town assets, such as town

halls, fire departments, and duplication of staff effort;

AND

WHEREAS certain regional municipal assets such as The St.

John's Fire Department and The Canada Games Park including The Aquarena are

currently owned and managed by the Province;

AND

WHEREAS if the number of municipalities were reduced

there would be a reduction in the duplication of development competition and

activity and there would be a greater efficiency due to economies of scale;

AND

WHEREAS the municipal groupings, as proposed in this

Resolution, will eliminate the need to set up a regional services board to

deliver commonly used services in the region;

AND

WHEREAS the consolidation of municipalities as proposed

in this Resolution, together with the assignment to the City of St. John's of

responsibility for management of water supply, sewerage and solid waste

disposal, firefighting and urban transportation in the whole Metropolitan Area,

will eliminate the need to continue the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY RESOLVES THAT the City

of St. John's, the Town of Wedgewood Park and the Town of Goulds and a small

section of the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove and the portion of the

City of Mount Pearl south of the Harbour Arterial Road, be combined into one

City, to be known as the City of St. John's;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT adjacent

areas of the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board including the Windsor Lake,

Broad Cove River and Bay Bulls Watersheds be included in the City of St. John's;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the St.

John's Fire Department, including the Mount Pearl Fire Station, and the Canada

Games Park including the Aquarena be transferred to the City of St. John's, and

all those facilities associated with the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board be

transferred to the City of St. John's;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the Town of

Paradise and the town of St. Thomas be amalgamated into a single town, and

adjacent areas of the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board including Topsail Road,

Three Island Pond, Elizabeth Park and Evergreen Village be included in this

town;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the Town of

Pouch Cove and adjacent areas of the St. John's Metropolitan Area Board be

combined into a single town;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the Town of

St. Phillips, the Town of Portugal Cove and the Town of Hogan's Pond be

amalgamated into a single town and adjacent areas of the St. John's Metropolitan

Area Board be included in this town;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the

boundaries of the City of Mount Pearl be re-defined generally using the Harbour

Arterial Route and the St. John's Agricultural Development Area as the southern

boundary;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the timing of

the consolidations and the amalgamations and other technical and administrative

details be set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council;

AND THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FURTHER RESOLVES THAT the

Government of the Province shall introduce legislation where necessary to effect

the municipal and other changes set out in this Resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is further intended that after discussion

about the options available to Government, whether Government would have this

brought in to this House of Assembly as a Government measure, or indeed as a

free vote with Members free to vote as they choose, Government has decided that

when a vote is brought to this House that it will be by measure of a free vote

of Members of the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Not much to lose, now, by having

(inaudible). They have Jim Walsh put to bed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder, since this is such an unusual

resolution, I mean, a four-page resolution is very unusual to be seen in this

legislature. Did this Minister bring fifty-two copies for every Member of the

House to have a look at now? - because it is rather lengthy. Secondly, I wonder

if the Speaker might consider how we are going to eventually vote on this

resolution, because there are ten resolved parts to it, and that, as well, is

extremely unusual. You might have a couple, sometimes maybe even three, but to

have ten, and they are very specific in most cases. So, is the intent to break

them, as they often do in some legislatures? In the House of Commons, for

example, they do break resolutions so that you can vote on them individually.

There may be some parts of it that some Members will support, will like, and

would like to vote for, and there may be others they do not support. So perhaps

a simple way to do it at this point in time under a point of order is to leave

it - the Premier or somebody might want to comment - but maybe leave it with

Your Honour. The Premier perhaps was not listening. He understood what I was

saying? Some Members might wish to vote for some parts of it but maybe not other

parts, so there may be some process put in place where we could vote on each,

you know, when the time comes, whenever the vote comes, next month or next year.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In our

usual expeditious manner, we have already taken care of the first part of his

point of order, which is the distribution of the copies of the resolution. So

that is taken in care of.

With regard to the second part of his point of order, Mr.

Speaker, this is a resolution, obviously, that

whereas there are parts to it,

changing one part, of necessity, involves changing all parts. And, as I said, it

is a single resolution to deal with the situation on the Northeast Avalon. We

view it, Mr. Speaker, as a single resolution. It cannot be dealt with in

sections simply because a change in one

section would, of necessity, mean a

change in the whole resolution. So, Mr. Speaker, we view this as a very simple

one resolution, not a lot of resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair will make note of the point

raised by the hon. Member and I will have an answer later.

Petitions.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you

move Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under Answers to

questions, last week, the Premier will recall, I asked him if he would bring in

the guillotine on his Ministers who have yet to respond to questions that I put

on the Order Paper on April 4th, forty days now, forty days and forty nights,

almost. Forty days have gone by.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They are. The Minister of Municipal Affairs -

I suppose, he has been preoccupied a bit the last couple of years - the Minister

of Development, the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Fisheries, and the

Minister of Justice have failed to respond to that simple question. All other

Ministers have.

Secondly -

AN HON. MEMBER: I will table them tomorrow.

MR. SIMMS: `Table them tomorrow'. did you hear that?

Secondly, I asked the Minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is amazing how fast you can do it when

you are told!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, I say to the Premier, of course, he told

them last week to do it and they did not do it, so we will see.

PREMIER WELLS: That was my fault.

MR. SIMMS: What? Your fault?

PREMIER WELLS: I did not tell them.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, but they have certainly been told today.

Now we will see how quickly they jump up tomorrow.

My second question was to the Minister of Development, asking

for a copy of the expense reports of the Chairman of the Economic Recovery

Commission, the President of Enterprise Newfoundland, all the vice-presidents

and all the commissioners. Again, that was forty days ago. That information has

not been tabled, and we really see no reason why it should not be tabled. I know

he was away, but he is back today and he might take time to pitch and put the

answer together.

PREMIER WELLS: This is for Answers to Questions, not

further questions?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: To the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There is also on the Order Paper a question which I asked of

the Minister of Health. I do not know the exact date of it but it has been on

the Order Paper for some three weeks or more and has yet to be answered. It

concerns the hospital beds which were announced in last year's Budget, and what

has happened to the additional beds that were added as a result of last year's

Budget?

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker.

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

same point of order?

MS. VERGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

A month or so ago, the Premier, in Question Period, in answer

to questions I posed about the Government's new policy for awarding work to

private law firms, said he would be tabling in the House, a description of the

Government's new policy, the policy that guided the decision to award the

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador contract to Ed Roberts' law firm, and the

Premier also promised to provide a list of all Government and Crown corporation

arrangements with private law firms.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, to the point of order.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I promised to prepare a

written statement of Government's policy? If I made such an undertaking, I have

forgotten. As far as I know, I made no such undertaking but I will check it, Mr.

Speaker, and if I did, I will honour any undertaking that I have given. What I

did say with respect to tabling a list of law firms, was that I was prepared to

go back over the last five to ten years and table the complete list, if the

House wanted me to go through that expense. If they want me to go through that

expense, I will go back and provide the list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4.

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

entitled, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting A Pension Plan For

Teachers." (Bill No. 25)

On motion, Bill No. 25, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries to introduce a

Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill No. 34)

On motion, Bill No. 34, read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 14.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Revise And

Consolidate The Law Respecting Juries." (Bill No. 3)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Act, as it says, revises and consolidates the law

respecting juries. I believe it has been considered, to some extent, by

Committee. I have received some comments from the Department concerning the

matter and I believe some concerns were expressed at that level. I will probably

leave it to the Opposition to raise any general concerns they have about the

principles involved in the Bill, but if there is any detailed work concerning

amendments, I think that might be appropriately left to Committee of the Whole.

As people know, the Juries Act is a significant Act in this

Province, because it provides a mechanism for selecting individuals to serve on

juries in criminal matters and, also, in very exceptional circumstances, in

civil matters. One of the main protections, I suppose, for an individual who

finds himself or herself accused of a serious criminal offence, is that he or

she has the right to select trial by a jury of one's peers. The juries are

administered by the Sheriff of Newfoundland. That is a traditional function of

that particular office and will continue to be so in the new Act.

Perhaps the major change to the law, Mr. Speaker, is that,

instead of impanelling jurors by each individual trial and selecting and

summonsing jurors for one particular matter, there will be a panel of jurors

from which a number of juries may be selected. That will be, I think, the

significant advance in terms of the administration of the courts of the

Province, since it will provide a list of people, at any given time, who are

summonsed and ready to serve on juries. It will result in a significant cost

saving to the Province in the order of $150,000, and I think that particular

method and change in the administration and selection of jurors will be an

improvement for the system of justice and also for those people who may find

themselves as prospective jurors.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any particular

comments. I invite my colleagues opposite to make any comments they wish with

respect to the principles involved in the Bill.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am surprised the Minister of Justice spoke so briefly on

such an important piece of legislation. It reminds me of my days in the Ministry

when the Government House Leader, then the Member for St. John's East, used to

caution me and other Ministers to speed up the process so we could get it

through as quickly as possible. Of course, I could not resist giving fairly

elaborate explanations of the principle and passionate presentations of why the

new legislative provisions were good and beneficial.

As the Minister indicated, the Social Legislation Review

Committee has examined this Bill. We received it just before Christmas and we

have had, I think, two meetings on it early in the year, and one within the last

week or so, to hear presentations from two members of the private Bar.

I would like to say, up front, Mr. Speaker, that I think the

thrust of this reform is very good, and I support it wholeheartedly. The main

effect of the changes is to reduce inconvenience to the public, to the citizens

who are summonsed to appear in court or, in St. John's, at the Arts and Culture

Centre, for jury selection, and for the smaller number who ultimately are

selected to serve. Additionally, and perhaps this was the Government's main

thought in putting forward the reform, there is the happy side effect of making

the selection process more efficient and less costly to the Government and, of

course, by extension, less costly to the taxpayers. One of the reasons for this

is that the changes will allow the Sheriff and his staff to function more

efficiently.

The changes involve requiring fewer people to be summonsed

for jury selection, and also, in situations where more than one jury trial per

month is anticipated - and that would usually be in St. John's, occasionally in

Corner Brook, not very often anywhere else - to allow for the selection to be

done at the start of a month for the month ahead. So, for example, it is

anticipated that there might be four jury trials in a month. Instead of having

to summons and require to appear for selection purposes four times 144 people,

which would be roughly 600 people, under this changed arrangement only 250

people would have to be served and have to suffer the inconvenience of appearing

at the designated place for selection purposes. The fact that four juries could

be selected at once, of course, is a saving for the sheriff and his staff.

Another feature which will cut down on cost for the Government is allowing the

service of prospective jurors to be done by ordinary mail instead of the present

requirement of personal service which, of course, involves the sheriff or one of

his staff physically taking a summons and going to the place of residence of the

citizen being summonsed. A change that I think is eminently sensible is

providing for the jury list to be derived from the voter's list. The Department

of Justice, through the chief electoral officer has a jury list compiled every

three or four years and under this Bill there will not be a requirement for a

separate enumeration for a jury list in each of the judicial centres. The

sheriff's office will simple be able to look at the voter's list and take names

from that. That is a significant cost savings because I believe the last jury

enumeration cost about $150,000. There is a special provision in the Bill for

French juries. Under the Canadian Constitution citizens of our Province, the

same as the rest of Canada, are entitled to be tried in either of the two

the more serious criminal offenses are entitled to elect to be tried by judge

and jury, and obviously such a trial in French would have to have a jury who can

understand very well the French language. Our francophone population is small

and it is located mainly in just three or four centres of the Province. This

Bill allows the sheriff, in compiling names of possible French jurors, to

consult the voter's list but also other sources, including, for example, the

membership list of the Francophone Federation for the Province, or the various

local and area francophone associations. The Francophone Federation has keenly

advocated the provision of court services throughout our Province in both

official languages.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of the Bill I can support without

hesitation. It is good in terms of impact on the public. It will involve less

inconvenience or disruption of people, and at the same time, happily, it will

involve a more efficient use of Government resources and cut down on cost to the

taxpayers of administering the criminal justice system. Now, unfortunately, in

reviving the Juries Bill that is all the Government had in mind, that is all the

High Sheriff, who I gather initiated this reform thought about. There are other

important features of the Juries Act which also need to be modernized and

improved and these were not looked at at all. For example, near the beginning of

the Bill there are clauses dealing with disqualifications and grounds for

exemptions. Now, some of the officials and professionals who are disqualified,

it seems to me are not entitled to disqualification.

These officials and officers and professionals were given

this privilege, this automatic disqualification by virtue of their jobs or their

occupations generations ago, and as is so typical in the legal profession, these

kind of things just get carried forward year after year, generation after

generation and now, few lawyers or judges would be able to explain how they

originated, let alone justify why they should appear in the present law.

For example: why should it be as is provided in Clause 5,

that all employees of the Parliament of Canada and the Privy Council of Canada

automatically be disqualified from being even summonsed for jury selection, why

should all employees of the House of Assembly and the Executive Council of the

Province, automatically, just because they happen to work either here, in or

around this Chamber for example, for Hansard, or a page or a clerk or a

secretary or a policy advisor upstairs on the seventh floor, why should those

people automatically be disqualified from being summonsed for jury selection?

Why should they have that privilege when people working in

private business, people who are self-employed are subject to being required to

appear for jury selection and potentially to being required to serve on a jury,

missing time from their business, which in some cases is irreplaceable, and

further along in this Clause, there is a provision saying that, spouses of all

of the above are automatically disqualified.

Well, under our present Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

people are supposed to be treated as individuals, and not labelled or given a

privilege or a penalty simply by virtue of their marital status. Indeed, when

the High Sheriff appeared before our Legislation Review Committee, he, drawing

on his background as a member of the civil division of the Department of Justice

specializing in Charter compliance, offered his opinion that, that spousal

disqualification violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Then there is the clause dealing with grounds for exemption.

At the Committee's last meeting we had an excellent presentation by a member of

the private defence bar, Brian Casey, who was representing the criminal law

sub-section of the Canadian Bar Association. He pointed out that under Federal

law, people who are required to serve on a jury, who have been receiving

unemployment insurance are cut off, because the Federal CEIC regulations require

that UI recipients be available for work and evidently the Federal authorities

rule that any one serving on a jury is not available for work and therefore must

be cut off UI.

Now we have a very large number of citizens of our Province

at any time receiving UI. There is a clause in the present law which has been

carried forward into this Bill, saying that people may get out of serving on a

jury if they can convince a judge that serving would constitute a hardship. Now,

Mr. Casey pointed out to the Committee that different judges have interpreted

and enforced that provision differently when it comes to UI cases. Some judges

have been convinced that serving on a jury and being cut off UI is a hardship

warranting an exemption,

whereas, other judges have ruled in the opposite way

and despite pleas on the part of citizens fearing the loss of UI, the judges

have said, sorry, that is not a hardship, you are going to have to serve

regardless, and, Mr. Speaker, jury trials can go on for a long time, the longest

jury trial in our Province and I am told perhaps the longest in Canadian history

was the Rideout trial in Corner Brook last year, it lasted for about a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Longest trial in Canadian history?

MS. VERGE: People have suggested that trial was the

longest criminal trial in Canadian history, I do not know if that is true, but

at any rate, it did go on for about a year and twelve jurors were totally

involved during the many months of that trial. Mr. Speaker, there is a need to

address this practical problem, to recognize the conflicting rulings of courts

in this Bill; there should be a revision to the Bill to address that problem .

Another recommendation of the representative of the private

bar, the criminal law sub-section of the Bar Association, had to do with Clause

11 which sets at twenty-five kilometres, the radius for jury enumeration and

selection for any one of the judicial centres. Now in the case of the St. John's

judicial centre where most of the jury trials take place, twenty-five kilometres

encompasses probably 150,000 people and that is a very large pool from which to

select a jury, so that is not a problem in the case of St. John's. It is not a

problem in the case of Corner Brook, however, in the case of the Grand Bank

judicial centre, it is submitted and I would agree, that a twenty-five kilometre

radius is too small an area because it covers too small a pool of potential

jurors.

It is important for the lawyers involved, for the parties

involved, the Crown on the one hand and the accused, represented by defense

counsel in most cases on the other hand, to be able to select twelve people to

serve on a criminal jury trial who are impartial, who are not involved with

either party, who can decide neutrally, and in the case of a trial in Grand

Bank, when the pool has to be drawn from only a twenty-five kilometre radius, it

can be difficult to get a large enough number of impartial jurors, so the

recommendation is that the change, perhaps by the Bill authorizing the Cabinet

by regulation to prescribe varying sizes of radii for the different judicial

centres in the Province; twenty-five kilometres is plenty large for St. John's

and Corner Brook but not large enough for Grand Bank.

It may be plenty large for Gander, that would have to be

examined, it may be large enough for Grand Falls, but another problem would

arise in the case of a French jury trial. If an accused in Corner Brook elected

to be tried in French, then, within a twenty-five kilometre radius of Corner

Brook, there would be very, very few francophones to draw from. Perhaps in that

kind of a situation there should be provision for selecting jurors from the Port

au Port Peninsula and the Stephenville area.

A third suggestion made by Mr. Casey, representing the

criminal law sub-section of the Bar Association, had to do with Clause 18. He

expressed some apprehension about the proposal to select jurors a month ahead

for all anticipated jury trials in the month following. Having listened to

expressions of concern, personally, I am satisfied that the current provision is

reasonable; I understand it is so in other Provinces and it has worked well in

other parts of Canada.

The other member of the private bar who appeared before the

committee addressed the issue of civil jury trial. Now, throughout the history

of our Province there have been very, very few civil jury trials, I am told

there have only been two in the last ten years. The lawyer who made a

presentation to our Committee represented the plaintiff in the most recent civil

jury trial which took place in St. John's, Janet Henley Andrews. She recommended

some modifications to the clause dealing with civil jury trials. To make clear

that the litigant seeking a civil jury trial, the litigant exercising his or her

right to have a civil trial by judge and jury, would not have to pay a

prohibitive cost. The suggestion is that the deposit be reasonable and that the

total expenses be just those that are additional to the cost of providing an

ordinary trial by judge. Perhaps when we get to Committee stage we can look at

precise proposals for amending those clauses.

So in conclusion I say for the third time that I thoroughly

support the principle of this Bill. I think the main features of the changes are

good. Good for the public, good for the Government, and of course by extension,

the taxpayers who generate revenue for the Government. The only real complaint

that I have with the Bill is that it does not go far enough. The Department of

Justice and the Government did an incomplete job of revising the Juries Act.

Presumably they had in mind simply cutting cost. Now, cutting cost when it does

not diminish public service - and even better in a case like this when it

actually enhances public service - is commendable. But there are other aspects

of the legislation that cry out for modernization. And I think it is a shame

that when the Government is bringing in substantial reforms of the Juries Act

that it does not do a thorough job, that it does not do the full job. I would

recommend to the Minister and the Government that they institute an effort to

revise other parts of the Juries Act, perhaps this fall, while it is fresh in

people's memories.

Unfortunately, the way things go, is that usually whatever is

being changed now is where it will be left for several more years. But I would

urge the Minister to break with the past and carry on an effort of modernizing

the Juries Act and bring in another bill to amend the Juries Act in the fall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a few

comments on the general principles in the Bill before the House respecting

juries, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Juries."

As hon. Members will know, one of the most significant

features of our legal system is the ability of an individual to have in certain

circumstances at least - not all circumstances - the right to a trial by jury.

And the right to be judged on a cause by ordinary people. 'By a jury of their

peers,' is the traditional expression. And that right has to be given effect in

terms of access to this right by having a law that allows access to it without

creating difficulties in the way of people achieving access to it.

In that respect I say that the changes that are brought in

the Juries Act for criminal juries are I think on the whole acceptable, a new

system which provides for a panel of jurors from which a number of juries may be

selected. I think it is more efficient certainly, less onerous to the public,

where more people will be required to show up for jury duty for a number of

different trials and may not be chosen. Quite often large numbers of people are

called for one trial one day, and another group of large numbers for one trial

that might start the next day or the next week, and perhaps 70 per cent or 80

per cent of those called would not be expected to serve, and it is a wasteful

system in that respect. I think that the changes that are brought in in that

regard are very useful and very good.

With respect to the civil jury trials I think that the

Government has made a mistake. Because what they have done is in effect made it

more difficult for people to have civil jury trials in a Province where civil

jury trials have been underused. There was a time when criminal jury trials were

very much underused in this Province, particularly in the St. John's judicial

district, while in other parts of the Province - notably in Labrador and Grand

Falls and I believe on the west coast - criminal jury trials were very common.

And there was active discouragement I understand historically from the Bench and

perhaps the Crown of having criminal jury trials. And there are subtle ways of

course in which that can happen.

But that has changed now and jury trials in criminal matters

are very commonplace in St, John's. Even in the last ten years since I have been

a Member of the Bar since 1980, jury trials were relatively uncommon. Now they

are very frequent. And of course this is what has brought about the need for the

Minister of Justice to change the system to accommodate this need.

In the area of civil juries as was demonstrated to the Review

Committee, and of course as part of the knowledge and experience of

Newfoundlanders, civil juries are very uncommon. In the Province of Ontario, on

the other hand, they are very common. And there are lots of cases where a

litigant, a person going to court seeking justice, may well wish to have the

decision about liability - for example, in a motor vehicle accident, or

liability or damages in an area of litigation - determined by ordinary people

and not necessarily by judges who may - and I would not say that it comes with

the territory - but who may be out of touch with where the ordinary people are

'at,' to coin a phrase. Where the thinking of ordinary people on issues,

particularly when there are social issues involved, or issues that affect what

ordinary people may have a view on, which might well be different than that of

the well-educated and sometimes isolated judiciary. Isolated from the ordinary

comings and goings of human beings.

So there may well be lots of occasions when a civil jury

trial would be desirable. And the system in place ought to provide that access

to it. But if one looks at the provisions here - we are at second reading, we

are talking about the principles of the Bill. But the principles of the Bill

really are the changes that have been made in the Bill from the last one, so the

Members will forgive me if I talk about the particular aspects of civil jury

trials and the changes that have been implemented to make it more difficult for

people to have jury trials.

I do not know if that is the intention. Maybe the intention

is - as the hon. Member for Humber East says - to raise money or to save money.

Maybe that is the intention. But the effect is to require more money from an

individual litigant requiring or wishing to have a civil jury and frightening

them off. Scaring them away. Deterring them from having access to a civil jury

trial.

Clause 21 of the Bill is the one that does that and indicates

that an order for a civil jury once obtained shall be filed with the sheriff who

then - the litigant, the person seeking to have a jury, is required to deposit

with the sheriff, "money sufficient to pay the expenses of conducting the jury

trial and if the money is not sufficient, the party shall on demand pay any

further money that the sheriff or sub-sheriff requires."

Now that is a fairly onerous provision, and not only onerous,

very uncertain. On reading that any ordinary person or any lawyer reading that

can attribute a number of meanings to it as to what the expense of conducting a

jury trial are. And no one would know what the sheriff or sub-sheriff - whoever

that may be from time to time - was prepared to demand. Which is then a

pre-condition of course to having your jury trial. If you do not pay up what the

sheriff demands then you do not get your jury trial.

It is a very onerous provision, and it is an onerous

provision because in many circumstances cases that may wish to go to court under

the civil jury provisions may be cases where the litigant, the plaintiff who is

seeking justice has no money, and it may well be that the person has obtained

the service of a lawyer on a contingency fee basis. In other words that there

are no legal fees paid unless the cause is successful in which the lawyer taking

the case receives a percentage of the award as a legal fee. But that does not

include the cost, Mr. Speaker. A person seeking a court trial for perhaps a car

accident or personal injury situation would have to go to court and would have

to pay the cost along the way for subpoenaing individuals, perhaps for medical

reports if they cannot be obtained in any other way, and also for the cost, in

this case, of a civil jury.

So, Mr. Speaker, when a litigant is advised by a lawyer that

a jury would be appropriate in the circumstance and an individual wants that

jury, he or she should be allowed to get it. And when we were talking about that

in Committee, the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, that the lawyers who were

present on the Committee, there were two lawyers on the Committee and there were

two other lawyers present and perhaps three other lawyers present, and the issue

of payment for civil juries came up. One Member, the Member for St. George's,

who took an interest in this issue said quite openly, and the first time he

considered it, 'why should people have to pay anything for a civil jury, they do

not have to pay for a criminal jury? If they are entitled to a jury there should

be no payment.' I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for St. George's had a

very, very good point. The lawyers did not come up with it, interestingly

enough, because the lawyers are so steeped in the whole notion of paying costs

and the sheriffs demanding this and fees for that and fees for something else

that they did not see the pure idea in the midst of that, that a jury trial is a

matter of right under our Constitution, under our legal system, a jury trial is

a matter of right and why should a poor person or any person have to pay for

something that is his right. If I am charged or anybody is charged with an

offense that entitles me to a jury trial, I can insist. I merely have to stand

up in court and say that I choose to be judged by a judge sitting with a jury,

and then the legal system goes into effect. The Minister of Justice, his people,

the sheriff goes out and subpoenas people, they come, they have the jury and the

jury selection process goes ahead, and that person gets his trial by jury. But

in a civil trial where a person is also entitled under certain circumstances to

a jury, the person is then asked to come up, reach into his or her pocket and

come up with the entire cost, the expenses, money sufficient to pay the expenses

of conducting the jury trial, and any money that the sheriff demands. That, Mr.

Speaker, is a fundamental difficulty with this Bill that the Minister of Justice

ought to reconsider.

I say this sincerely, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think

that in putting together this Bill before this House the Minister of Justice

actually considered the whole of the Bill. I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker,

because there are many aspects of the Bill that if the Department of Justice, if

the Minister of Justice and the Government had a look at this when they were

presenting this Bill as a whole Bill rather than just one or two amendments,

they would have brought about some changes.

MS. VERGE: They did not consult outside.

MR. HARRIS: They did not consult outside the Member for

Humber East says, did not consult outside when they were putting together this

Bill. They did not consult with the other people. This seems to be a Bill that

was presented, or the idea for this Bill comes from the sheriff to make his job

easier and bring about some efficiencies, yes, and bring about some efficiencies

to save money, laudable goals to save money. But when we are dealing with a

fundamental issue of juries and the right to trial by jury and how the people

obtained that right, the Minister ought to have given a little more thought or

directed his officials to consider other problems that are adherent in the jury

legislation. I will give one or two examples, Mr. Speaker, just one or two

examples of the disqualifications for service as jurors.

Service as jurors is a privilege, Mr. Speaker, in our system

and it is also our right and duty, and those who want the protection and need

the protection of this important element of our legal system ought to be

required to participate unless there is a very good reason for them not to. I

see no real good reason why a person who happens to be an employee of the

Parliament of Canada, the Privy Council or an employee of the House of Assembly,

anyone who is employed by the House of Assembly, presumably employed in any of

the Members offices ought not to be able to serve on a jury or ought not to be

required to serve on a jury, or why an employee of various departments, of the

Federal or the Provincial Department of Justice who has nothing to do with the

legal system as such and is not on one side or the other of any particular case

or any case at all, ought not to be required to serve.

In terms of exemption, Mr. Speaker, I look in vain for an

exemption for someone who perhaps has difficulty hearing, for someone who has

difficulty hearing or understanding what is going on. That is another one. But

where does a person, who has difficulty hearing, look for exemption? We do not

see an exemption. In fact, I have had occasion to seek exemptions on those

grounds, for people who are hard of hearing, who would not be able to hear the

proceedings and participate, because they did not have their hearing properly

corrected, I suppose, or were not assisted by a hearing aid, and I looked in

vain, as I look now, for any

section which applies.

Nothing in Clause 5 covers it. In Clause 6 they talk about

language difficulty, but that has nothing to do with it. In Clause 7 we have to

see if there is a serious hardship or loss to that person or to others, but that

is sort of stretching it. It may be a hardship or a loss to the litigants, or it

may be a hardship or loss to the accused, if one of the jurors cannot hear what

is going on, but that is sort of stretching it, Mr. Speaker. There ought to be

some specific grounds of exemption that would give reason to deal with a person

who is hard of hearing. As I say, that is a minor example, but it points out,

Mr. Speaker, that not a lot of thought went into the consolidation of this Act,

and the cleaning up of some of the problems that exist there.

Again, dealing with exemptions, I do commend the Justice

Department and the Minister for including in this legislation a more simplified

procedure for exemptions. It was sometimes quite difficult to get exemptions

because you had to travel to where a provincial court judge was. Now, as a

result of yesterday's legislation, we are going to have fewer judicial

provincial courts sitting, with fewer provincial court judges available for

these tasks. The tasks, for exemptions, have been spread around to others, and

that is proper and appropriate, because the procedure was a little bit onerous.

I do, again, have a minor quibble with the Minister. Perhaps

the Minister can adjust this. Why, for example, in 23 (3) would a person have to

make application to a judge in chambers, who may make a decision summarily as to

whether a person is exempt or disqualified from jury duty, if the sub-sheriff,

or whoever that person happens to ask, says no? There is a provision for an

appeal there. "A person who applies under sub-section (1) and is refused an

exemption or disqualification by the sheriff, sub-sheriff or the Provincial

Court judge may appeal that determination by application to a judge in

chambers."

Now, perhaps the Minister, or whoever has drafted the Bill,

assumed that someone could attend on the judge in his office to obtain such an

appeal and have a re-hearing there. Perhaps that was the thought, but, if that

is the thought, then perhaps it ought to be changed, because an application to a

judge in chambers is ordinarily by an originating application which requires a

lawyer, and is an expensive process, to appeal a determination by a sub-sheriff

who may make a determination, willy-nilly. A sub-sheriff is required to make

determinations of whether a person has a hardship. These decisions about UI for

example, that the Member for Humber East talks about, whether that is a serious

hardship or not, you are going to have sub-sheriffs making that determination.

We now already have different determinations from Supreme Court judges, but now,

sheriffs and sub-sheriffs are going to be making determinations as to whether or

not a person, who is going to lose his UI is going to suffer a serious hardship

or not.

What are they going to do, apply a means test to people, and

say, `Well, if you happen to have lots of money and you are on UI you are not

going to suffer a serious hardship,' but, on the other hand, `If it is your only

source of income, and you are on UI, it is a serious hardship?' And the

sub-sheriff is going to make that determination! I do not think that is

appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that a person who does not like what a sub-sheriff

says has to make an application to a Supreme Court judge in chambers involving

lawyers and paying big legal bills, a person on UI for example, having to pay a

lawyer to take an application to a Supreme Court judge, which could cost several

hundred dollars, who knows, that that person ought to have to do it that way.

There should be a simpler procedure and instead of applying to a judge in

chambers, it could be on application to a judge summarily, and not in court. As

the Minister will know, the judge in chambers now is actually sitting in the

court but dressed differently from what, ordinarily, he would. So, I say this in

general, it appears the Bill has not been thought through thoroughly and some of

these problems have to be fixed up.

We are dealing with it now in second reading, there is still

a Committee stage and the Minister's officials have been considering some of

these points that have been raised; that was not one of them. Some of these

points have been raised in the Committee and we will be reporting back to the

Committee once the Committee meets again. But I ask the Minister to seriously

consider this issue because it is an important one.

Another issue which I think deserves consideration comes up

under

Section 42. If we have the jury system, with persons being required to

serve on juries, some provision has to be made for them to be paid while they

are serving as jurors. The employer is required by

Section 42 to pay jurors

while they are serving jury duty, and an employer who fails to do that - perhaps

the President of Treasury Board should listen, because this is an important

point; if you serve on a jury, your employer is required to pay you and, if he

or she does not, they are going to be fined and charged.

Now, this also applies if you are required to be a witness

for a court or a

summary proceeding, an inquiry under the

summary proceedings

act, like a judicial inquiry, but it does not apply, Mr. Speaker, to any other

places where people are required to attend by law; it does not apply to public

inquiries under the Public Inquiries Act; that ought to be included, as well.

Wages ought to continue when a person is summoned and required to appear before

an inquiry under The Public Inquiries Act, such as, for example, the inquiry

being conducted by the Public Service Commission into the allegations to do with

the job in the Department of Social Services.

They have the right to summons people, require them to

attend, and they have to attend under penalty of law because they have they

powers of the Public Inquiries Act, but, Mr. Speaker, if that person is

employed, the employer should also be required to pay the wages of an employee

in those circumstances, as well. And this may be an amendment that could be

introduced in the House. It can be changed and I hope it will be. That is why I

bring these issues up, because I want to say that when a Government is taking a

bill and consolidating the law and making changes to it, it ought to clear up

some of these anomalies that exist along the way, while it is at it, and that is

one that I think ought to be done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another consequence of the changes

in the way that juries can be summoned. By being able to summon juries through

ordinary mail, by sending mail to their houses, their addresses, I think that is

more efficient obviously. It is certainly a more efficient way of serving jurors

and getting jurors to attend, but I think there is also a consequence on what

failure to appear is under

Section 38: Where a person who has been summoned to

serve as a juror fails to appear and serve, that person may be brought before

the court and if, in the opinion of the judge, that person was not prevented by

sickness or other reasonable cause from appearing and serving as a juror as

required in the summons, that person is guilty of an offence and liable on

summary conviction to a fine of up to $1,000.

But, Mr. Speaker, that wording may well be appropriate where

you have a person personally served. If the sheriff goes out and says, `I served

the Minister of Justice with a jury summons, I gave it to him, and here is my

affidavit of service,' and he failed to show up, bring him before the court;

bring the Minister of Justice before the court because he failed to appear when

he was summonsed. But, what if he sent it through the mail and the Minister of

Justice happened to be on vacation or on business somewhere else, out of town

that particular day, and failed to appear? Should he be brought before the court

to explain it to the judge, or should there have to be some proof, some notice,

or some indication that the Minister of Justice, or whoever it is, knew that he

was required to appear before they are dragged before a court? There ought to

be, Mr. Speaker, some method of not going out - and judges are prone to do this,

Mr. Speaker. You might have seventy, eighty, or ninety people on the jury list

and only seventy show up, and the judge will say to the sheriff, I want you to

go out and find out why these other twenty people did not come, and have them

brought before the court. There have been people charged under that section, Mr.

Speaker.

I think if the Minister of Justice is changing the method of

serving jurors and requiring them to appear he also ought to look into the

consequences of that on individuals who happen to receive this service by mail,

or some mail comes to their house that they may or may not be aware of, not to

have them dragged before the court without any proper investigation being done

as to whether, in fact, they knew that the summons required them to appear at a

certain time and place.

Those are my comments with respect to the Bill. I think the

changes being made with respect to the selection of a jury is a good thing. I

think, on the other hand, that the Minister has missed the boat on the civil

jury side. He is making it more difficult -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) the boat.

MR. HARRIS: Now, the Minister of Social Services may at

one time wish to have a civil jury to decide a case between himself and others

and he can afford to. He can go down to the sheriff and say, here is the money

you want, if you want $2000 or $5000. He can cash in some of his stocks and he

can put down the $5000, or whatever the Sheriff demands. I do not think the

Sheriff could demand enough money to keep the hon. Member for Port de Grave out

of court because he can afford it. But what about the person who cannot? That is

who I am speaking for, the person who cannot afford it, and who still needs

access to justice. The Minister of Social Services can afford to pay whatever

the Sheriff might demand, but the ordinary person cannot, and that is what I am

speaking to here. I think the Minister of Justice ought to bring in changes to

prevent that injustice from being perpetrated by this legislation, and I ask him

to do that.

Those are my comments on this Bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Briefly, in closing, I will deal with the points raised by

the two Members who spoke on the Bill. First of all, I am pleased that the hon.

the Member for Humber East supports the proposition put forward by the Bill and

the consolidation and revision of the law that is contained in it. As she says,

it is good for the public and it is also good for the Government. She raises

several points that I would like to deal with to some extent at this time. She

says, first of all, that concern was expressed at the committee stage about

Section 11 and the twenty-five kilometre radius from which jurors would be

drawn. The only community mentioned was Grand Bank, and I point out for Members

that

Section 11, Subsection (2), I believe it is, provides that the Minister

may, by order, vary the boundaries of an area for which a jury list may be

prepared under subsection (1). Grand Bank appears to be the only community in

the Province in which this concern has been expressed, and, to that extent, we

are prepared to revise the boundaries. For a matter of general application, I do

not see that it is appropriate to extend the boundaries beyond twenty-five

kilometres, since the balance of convenience to the public and the Government in

terms of cost and inconvenience to both would be outweighed by expounding of

boundary. However, in the case of Grand Bank, an appropriate case might be made

following the implementation of the legislation to expand the boundaries in that

particular community.

She also indicated a concern about the disqualifications of

jurors in

Section 4 of the Act. She particularly questioned Subsection (

a) which

exempts Members, officers, or employees of the Parliament of Canada or the Privy

Council of Canada. I believe it stands to reason, Mr. Speaker, that it would not

serve the interest of any of the public or the Government to try to summons

people from Ottawa to

jury duty here in Newfoundland. Secondly, she questions

sub-section (

b) which deals with members, officers, or employees of the House of

Assembly or the Executive Council of the Province. Those are the only Provincial

Government employees, as such, who are exempted, and I think that is a necessary

incident to the proper working of the House of Assembly, which is, of course, a

legislative arm of Government, and that, I suggest, is a justifiable exemption.

The other people mentioned there are, judges of the court,

officers or employees of the Department of Justice, and the Government of

Canada, and so on, these are defensible and, I might add, traditional

exemptions, since most people, who are defendants in a cause, would not want a

member of a police force sitting on a jury, for example, or a member of the

Crown Prosecutor's office, or - God forbid! - another lawyer. So, I would add

that these exemptions are defensible, on the one hand, because it is

inconceivable in most cases that a defendant in a trial would agree to select

someone who is involved in the process by which that person would end up in

court or be incarcerated following a determination of that person's guilt.

Secondly, I believe the exemptions in (

a) and (b), dealing with the legislative

arms of Government, are defensible on the basis that those particular aspects of

Government must be allowed to function on an ongoing basis.

The member expressed the concern that sub-section (l), which

exempts a spouse of a person referred to in these sub-sections, (

a) through (k),

is not defensible, given the consideration of the Human Rights Code. I suggest

that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, for the same reason, that the public policy

is such that a defendant, I think, in most cases, would be a little concerned

about having a spouse of a police officer sit on a jury, since there may be some

possibility of inherent prejudice or also some particular knowledge of the facts

that might be with that person. I think that can be made of any of the other

officials that are there. So, to that extent, I believe it is not

discrimination. That is outside the Human Rights Code, and I think the interest

at stake here, and that is the fair trial of an accused, is such that a

disqualification is warranted.

If I can couple that with a comment made by the Member for

St. John's East, who suggested that a person who has difficulty hearing is not

automatically exempted, Mr. Speaker, if we were to include in the Act a

provision automatically exempting people because of particular disabilities, I

believe that would be an offence to the Human Rights Code. I was recently

lobbied by a particular group with disabilities, who, under the current Act, may

not be able to serve, to the opposite effect, that that should not be

automatically disqualified. I would suggest to the hon. member that if we were

to have disabilities, as a general section, as an automatic exemption, that

would not be fair to those people who have a disability but could still

reasonably participate in a process. So, I think he would agree that, on the

face of it, it would be contrary to the Human Rights Code to so provide.

Now, his concern may be warranted to some extent, in that, if

a person has an inability to follow the proceedings, as a result of a hearing

impairment, whether or not that person could be exempted at his or her request -

I take that to be the thrust - it would seem to me, on the face of that,

sub-section (7) (1) would apply, that that person, serving as a juror, may cause

serious hardship or loss to that person or others. I think, in the category of

others, would be the defendant. That may be stretching it a bit, but I think, if

you consider how we would draw an exemption to deal with disability, it would be

very difficult to frame, as such, that it might not, on the face of it, offend

the Human Rights Code. I am certainly open to further suggestions on it. That

was considered, in fact, and we did not see something, on the face of it, that

could be defensible as a legislative enactment of this Assembly.

If I might just continue on. The other matter raised, both by

the Member for St. John's East and the Member for Humber East, dealt with civil

juries. Our concern there, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of determining what is an

appropriate mechanism to enable civil juries to be obtained. There is a matter

of the public interest, because people always say, `Well, this service should be

provided free by Government, and that service should be provided free by

Government.'

I would like to make several comments. The first is that, in

jury cases involving criminal matters, that right is of such long- standing,

going back to Anglo-Saxon times, and is such an inherent matter of our criminal

law, probably in excess of a millennium, that those juries have been provided at

no cost to defendants in criminal matters. I think most people would agree that

it is such a long-standing principle in our criminal justice system, that

society, as a whole, should provide and pay for the right of an accused to be

tried by a jury.

(Inaudible) that that is not the case in civil matters, that

there is not the same inherent right of a defendant or plaintiff in a civil

matter to a jury, nor is there an overwhelming matter of public policy that

would say that the Government should pay for it rather than the people in a

civil jury process. And if I may enlarge, for example, if a person goes to court

in a criminal matter, he or she is never ordered to pay the costs of the Crown

should the person lose and be found guilty, nor are they to pay any costs in the

court proceeding, although they are occasionally made to pay restitution to

people who are victims of their crimes.

However, in civil matters it is a long-standing principle

that the unsuccessful litigant has to pay the costs of the other side. In some

cases, well, if you have an impecunious plaintiff or defendant who is going to

court, under our rules you can obtain an order for a security for cost. In other

words, you cannot go to court unless you are prepared to put up the money; so

our whole civil system is based on the principle that any person becoming a

litigant in our civil process bears a corresponding obligation to pay costs of

the other side, and, to some extent, to pay some fees to the court to offset the

costs of that, although, by and large, that is nowhere near the actual cost of

the proceeding.

So, on balance, Mr. Speaker, someone could make a case that

the Government should provide civil juries free of charge, but I think that the

aspect of requiring a defendant requesting a jury - which as everyone would

acknowledge, is a very exceptional mechanism in civil procedure - is very much

in line with our general principle in this civil system, that litigants who are

unsuccessful have to pay. And, I would suggest, that amount would not be so

onerous as to preclude a person who has a genuine faith in a jury in a civil

matter to proceed and to want and to post security and to post the potential

cost of what the jury would be.

As well, that is in line, as I say, with our principles in

civil matters, that you normally expect people contesting that to pay the costs

of the other side. And if one, for example, were to say that the Government

should pay the cost of juries, then you could easily expand that and say

Government should pay the costs of experts in civil trials. And we certainly do

not do that. And there is a process for costs to be taxed and for the

unsuccessful litigant, the person who loses the case, to pay it to the other

side.

So, notwithstanding the comments of my learned friends

opposite, I would suggest that their comment in the matter is not one that we

are prepared to accept, for the reasons I have stated.

The other matter raised by the Member for St. John's East

dealt with

Section 23 (3) which allows a right of appeal to a judge in chambers

from a determination by a sub-sheriff or Provincial Court judge. And his issue,

and his point I believe, was that this may be a somewhat cumbersome process, in

that one has to follow a certain procedure in civil law to have the matter heard

in chambers and that would involve an application, affidavit and so forth,

notice and whatnot. However, I point out to him that subsection (4) gives a

further remedy, in that a person, on the day of the jury trial, itself, can

appear before the judge and ask for a disqualification at that time, and the

judge may deal with it summarily. So, although that is there, there is a further

remedy which is very expeditious, and I would suggest that the general revisions

to this type of procedure which now requires a personal attendance, are such

that it can be done much more expeditiously, since a person can now apply by

ordinary mail in the first instance, which is not the case now, and these

determinations can be made by the sheriff.

Were it not for a further right to have the matter raised

before the judge on the day in question, we might look further at that. But that

is only one of many steps that may be taken to obtain an exemption, and I do not

really think it warrants further attention.

His point on

Section 22, as well, dealing with summonses - I

do not see any undue inconvenience here. The fact of leaving a summons at a

person's residence or with an employee, I think in most cases the individual

affected will find out about it in due course. Summonses served by ordinary

mail, I can understand, might be a little more problematic and I am probably

prepared to consider something on that in Committee. But, certainly, I have no

problem with service at a person's household or place of business, and I will

consider further his comments on the mail, because there are problems with delay

of mail. Although again, if a person were to be summonsed for failure to appear,

that would form a complete defence had the person not been notified.

Nevertheless, it does raise the point of delivery which I will certainly

consider.

This is on the other point in

section 42 about paying jurors.

Again, and I am not sure if I got his point entirely, but Government is not

prepared to compensate employers for the expense of a person's wages. He is

shaking his head so I take it that was not his point, but there is a whole

balance of things, Mr. Speaker, with employers and advocates. I have a concern

over long-term trials where people are called to serve on juries for protracted

periods, and we are looking at a policy, once a person has served on a jury for

beyond a certain fixed point in time that we may then ask Government to pick up

the cost of wages, but in most cases jury trials last three to four days, so I

do not expect that the implicates for an employer are all that onerous. As for

Government paying, I would also point out that there are many instances in which

Government as well pays the cost of civil servants and their wages when they

appear in jury trials, so to further burden Government I do not think is

justifiable. The private sector, inasmuch as it has the manifold benefits of

Government also has some of the expenses charged their way. So I therefore at

this point move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law

Respecting Juries," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 3).

MR. BAKER: Order 15, Mr. Speaker. Bill No 4.

MR. SIMMS: "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act." The hon.

the Minister of Justice. Second reading.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Amend The

Evidence Act." (Bill No. 4).

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to

see that the Opposition House Leader is now sitting as acting Justice critic,

and no doubt things will move much more expeditiously.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he seemed to be indicating a

desire to get on with the proceedings, so I do not know if he has imparted that

to the critic from Humber East. Nevertheless, I will try to be brief in my

comments as I always am, but I certainly feel impelled to answer the concerns

raised by the people opposite.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual Bill in some senses because

it essentially provides a specific exemption to deal with a problem we have in

the health sector in the Province. It came to Cabinet as a joint paper of the

Minister of Health and myself, and I took quite some time before I was convinced

that it was the right thing to do. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill before

the House is a proper amendment to make to the Evidence Act. The Evidence Act,

of course provides rules by which persons can be compelled to give evidence in

court and also provide some basis on which judgements can be made as to what

evidence may be received or rejected by courts.

What this particular Bill does is it provides an exemption to

people who are involved and to certain types of proceedings in hospitals. These

essentially deal with committees that are know as quality assurance committees

or peer review committees. What these committees do, I am told by the people in

the health field, is that they review what happens in hospitals, particularly in

cases involving death, and the procedures of hospitals, and they also review the

conduct of doctors in carrying out procedures on patients. The difficulty I had

with it personally was that I feel that we should in very, very rare

circumstances ever provide a blanket exemption to people from testifying in

court. What you have here, however, is an amendment that would protect those

committee proceedings from being forced to be produced in court. And the reason

for that, Mr. Speaker, is the social importance and the general necessity to

provide for an honest, fair evaluation of hospital procedures and doctors

performances is such that if those proceedings were to be compellable in court,

I am told, I have been convinced that the doctors simply will not participate in

peer review, nor would they be involved in these quality assurance committees.

In fact, to the extent they now exist they are, in essence, non-functional, and

unless this exemption is granted they will not participate in those committees,

which are generally struck to police the doctors in our hospitals and as well

the other staff, and to improve the quality of health care in the province.

So, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I am reluctant to grant an

exemption because I really believe that all these things should be compellable

in the best of all possible worlds, we do not live in such and unless these

committees are to be granted these exemptions, they will not function properly,

and I am convinced that the overwhelming importance of improving health care in

the Province as such, that we should grant this exemption to see if these

committees will function properly.

I do not say I approve of the principle, but nevertheless, we

must deal with reality and it is perhaps unfortunate that people are not more

forthcoming in committees because of the fear that whatever they say will be

used against their peers or will be a matter of public record in that at least

it is compellable in court, but all that being said, I think that the exemption,

inasmuch as I find it somewhat distasteful, is one that we should implement and

try to see if we can get these quality assessment committees ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is not a matter that appeals to me

as a lawyer, but certainly in terms of a general Government policy and perhaps

trying to improve the quality of our health care, it is something that we should

entertain and something this House should recognize as affording an exemption or

rather an exceptional exemption, to a particular group of proceedings that does

not apply outside some very narrow categories that now exist, such as the rights

of a spouse not to testify against his or her husband or wife, so, Mr. Speaker,

I do not know if my colleagues Opposite have any questions on it, as I said, I

came to this conclusion with some reluctance and I have become convinced that it

is something we should do after misgivings that took me some time to resolve.

Thank you.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to express my opposition to the principle of this

Bill, quite simply, because it would extend a privilege to health care

professionals and administrators which is not warranted and it would do so at

the expense of consumers or patients. Mr. Speaker, this change has been sought

by physicians and nurses and health care institution administrators, and it has

been sought by them basically to give them a special privilege.

They are worried that in the event that patients initiate

legal action claiming negligence on the part of a doctor or a nurse or a

hospital, alleging medical malpractice, that should the deliberations of

hospital peer review committees or quality assurance committees be required to

be recounted in court, that their interests may be jeopardized, that they, the

physicians, nurses or administrators, may be exposed and found wanting, that

they may be found to have made disparaging remarks about their colleagues, their

working associates, their friends.

On the other hand, patients or consumers of health care,

historically have had g