Social Services Committee — Department of Justice, but I do not think that would be terribly helpful — 19 May 1992

1992-05-19

Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees

May 19, 1992

SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE - JUSTICE

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Danny Dumaresque,

M.H.A., (Eagle River) substitutes for Mr. William Ramsay, M.H.A. (LaPoile).

The Committee met at 9:10 a.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The meeting of the Social Services Estimates

Committee, to deal with the estimates of the Department of Justice and I would

like to introduce the members of the committee.

I am Walter Noel, the Chairman of this committee

and to my left, Ms. Lynn Verge, the Member for Humber East; Mr. Jack Harris, the

Member for St. John's East; Mr. John Efford, the Member for Port de Grave; Mr.

Danny Dumaresque, the Member for Eagle River and Mr. Jim Walsh, the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island.

The way we are in the custom of operating is to

have a presentation to a maximum of fifteen minutes at the outset from the

Minister, and a response to a maximum of fifteen minutes by the lead speaker for

the Opposition, and then have segments of ten minutes including questions and

answers and we would just keep going on a ten minute rotation until we end the

questioning.

If there are any questions, we can deal with them

now. Mr. Walsh?

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harris and I are

supposed to be at another meeting at 10:00 o'clock and Lynn as well. I don't

think we will all be out of here by 10:00 o'clock, but as a courtesy to either

Lynn or Jack, whoever intends to go to that 10:00 o'clock meeting, maybe we

could waylay the rotation just a little bit so if they want to get some of those

questions in and be gone by 10:00, I for one would be willing to relinquish some

of the questions that I would have to enable him to make that other meeting if

necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Does

anybody plan to leave by ten?

MR. HARRIS: Well I am not at all prepared for

what is actually happening at this constitution committee meeting this morning,

so I think I will just play it by ear, I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue operating as

normal and if anybody comes up with a problem, they could indicate it and we

could try and deal with it to their convenience.

I forgot to mention that Elizabeth Murphy is the

clerk for this committee. Does that solve all of our problems? Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me first

introduce the officials who are accompanying me here at my request. On my

immediate left is Lynn Spracklin, Q.C. who is the deputy minister of the

department and also of course, the Deputy Attorney General of the Province. On

my far right, Fraser Drover, who is Director of Finance and General Operations

in the department. On my far right is John Cummings, the assistant deputy

minister and he is the Chief Civil Lawyer and next to him is Mr. Drover, and on

my immediate right, Ed. Kent, who is an assistant deputy minister and is

responsible for the administration of the - how to put it, the non-legal ends of

the department, the penitentiary services, the correction services, the police

services and so forth.

I do not have a formal presentation prepared and

so, perhaps I should just say two things. Number one, it is a pleasure to be

here. I hope in due course perhaps to be here in a different capacity and

secondly, I think what I would say is, in the interest of time, perhaps the best

way to proceed would be to invite your colleagues, perhaps Ms. Verge speaks

first, whoever goes first to say whatever is to be said or to raise whatever

questions he or she may wish, then I will try to respond to them.

I can make a fifteen minute speech if you want on

the Department of Justice, but I do not think that would be terribly helpful. I

think it would perhaps move things forward more expeditiously if I were simply

to try to respond to points that came up and to deal with questions. In the

estimates, they are set out in the usual form and contain a fair amount of

information but I suspect there are probably many questions to be answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Ms.

Verge, if you wish to commence.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

First I have to object to this committee proceeding

with an examination of the Justice estimates in the absence of the acting

minister or some other elected minister. Now the acting minister was here a few

minutes ago but is not here at the moment, and is not sitting with the unelected

official.

MR. ROBERTS: There is no acting minister. I

hesitate to interrupt, but let's be clear. There is no acting Minister of

Justice. I am the only Minister of Justice the Province has, for better or for

worse.

MS. VERGE: This is a committee of the House of

Assembly.

MR. ROBERTS: Just let me finish the sentence,

please. Mr. Baker -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I had the floor, and I

would like to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on then. We will try to get

it straight.

MS. VERGE: This is a committee of the House of

Assembly. In the House of Assembly only elected members may sit. Only elected

members who are ministers may answer questions on behalf of the government. This

is an extension of the Legislature, and there should be an elected minister

speaking for the government.

Now I have no objection to Mr. Roberts, who is an

unelected official the same as the deputy minister or the ADM's or the

directors, participating to answer technical questions or to supply details, but

there should be an elected minister who can speak for the government heading the

delegation of the Department of Justice here.

We have argued about this in the full House of

Assembly, and when we got here this morning, when I saw Mr. Baker, the acting

Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader and the President of Treasury

Board, I thought that the government was going to be handling this committee

properly. Apparently Mr. Baker has withdrawn before the proceedings got under

way.

If Mr. Baker would come back then we can get on

with an examination of the Justice estimates and Mr. Roberts can perhaps assist

Mr. Baker in answering the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I am prepared to get on to

it unless you want to make a motion to the contrary.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I would move that we, as the

Social Services Estimates Committee examining the estimates of the Department of

Justice, suspend our proceedings until the acting minister returns and speaks

for the government in answering our questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a seconder for that

motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's see if we have a seconder

first.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will second (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: The vice-chairman of the Committee

this morning is making a presentation of her own

interpretation of what she

feels as a vice-chairperson, or a political comment that she wants to make that

the Minister of Justice is not acting and should be an acting minister on behalf

of the government. There is no such thing today as an acting Minister of

Justice. The present Minister of Justice is sitting in his chair on the

committee, which is quite legal and precedence has been set in the past. He is

also, as a minister, a member of the government and can speak quite clearly for

the government. So it is an

interpretation that she is deciding to take on

herself. It has been discussed in the House of Assembly. The proceedings can go

ahead this morning and there is absolutely no reason why the minister cannot

answer all the questions put to him and his associates to deal with any matter

in the estimates or in dealing with the Department of Justice. I see no reason

why we cannot continue. It is only a political tactic on the part of the

vice-chairman to delay the proceedings and to try to score and make some

political points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the situation, whether the minister is

elected or unelected, is totally secondary. Edward Roberts, Q.C., is Minister of

the Crown for the Department of Justice. There is only one minister.

As in any government, if the opposition wishes to

ask a question of a minister directly - of a department directly through the

Premier they certainly can.

The committee process in Newfoundland is a new one.

To date this committee is master of its own destiny; but when we bring into

question whether or not an individual is a minister and can act on behalf of the

Crown, or can come before a public committee, I refer to Bill 11 as probably the

best example of the fact that Mr. Roberts is the minister. Bill 11 is "An Act To

Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act" in the Province duly read

into the House of Assembly, duly noted, and it is presented on behalf of the

hon. Edward Roberts Q.C. Minister of Justice.

If we are generating bills under Mr. Roberts as the

Minister of Justice surly he is responsible for the department and as such

should have every right to be here to defend his estimates. I am not sure if

there are any other bills that have been presented under his heading as Minister

of Justice but Bill 11 is obviously presented here in this Legislature by any

minister in his absence, which is normal, but it is presented by the hon. Edward

Roberts Q.C. Minister of Justice, and if we are going to pass bills under his

signature surely he can defend the estimates of his department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

Is the committee ready for the question?

MS. VERGE: I have another submission to make,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that Mr. Harris seconded

the motion. I asked if the committee was ready for the question and I do not

know if that constitutes actually calling it. I would be prepared to hear the

submission by Mr. Harris.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be brief.

MR. HARRIS: I think I will be as brief or as

lengthy as I need. Mr. Chairman, thank you, for allowing me to speak on this

motion. I was not at the swearing in ceremony but I gather Mr. Roberts was sworn

in as Minister of the Crown and therefore has the right to act as Minister of

Justice although Ms Verge makes some good points about the necessity or

desirability of having the Minister of Justice in the House. I am sure Mr.

Roberts himself would like to be in the House to deal with this. This is a

committee of the House and he is a witness for the committee as are all the

others. I think committees always hear from witnesses, whether they are elected

or not, so I guess we can hear from Mr. Roberts as well as we could from any

other witnesses. Although I seconded the motion to get it on the floor I do not

believe we can suspend proceedings until we have someone who is in the House to

defend the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. I will

call a vote on the motion now. Those in favour of Ms. Verge's motion.

MS. VERGE: I have another submission to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we need to hear

any further submissions, would be my ruling.

MS. VERGE: With respect the Speaker in the full

House is much more tolerant and democratic and listens to all arguments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I am calling the

vote. That is why he is Speaker and I am not.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I understand the mover of a motion

has the right to speak on it to close debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would you like to move that

she be allowed to speak again?

MR. HARRIS: I do not think it needs a motion.

It is a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I am going to rule that she

is not. I am calling the question.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chairman, this is an awfully

autocratic operation. With respect committees traditionally operate more

informally than the full House but in the full House the Speaker always listens

to the full presentation of the mover of a motion and usually patiently listens

to the submissions of all members who wish to speak, especially on a procedural

point as important as this. Now, we had discussion about this in the House, if

you recall. The Speaker took a whole week to do research and in the end did not

make a ruling. He did not make a ruling on the substance of the motion. He

simply said that committees are in charge of their own procedures so he, the

Speaker, left it up to our committee to decide how we should proceed and whether

we should require elected ministers to speak for their respective departments in

answering questions about their estimates. That is what we are here discussing

this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. While I am in the

hands of the committee, does the committee want to indicate the question as

being called?

All those in favour of the motion, please say aye.

MS. VERGE: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Contrary?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is defeated. Ms.

Verge, would you like to begin questioning.

MS. VERGE: Well, as I explained earlier since

this committee is an extension of the House of Assembly it is a committee of the

House of Assembly. The Minister of Justice, who doesn't have a seat in the House

of Assembly, cannot participate in House of Assembly debates, can't answer

questions raised during Question Period. When we in the Opposition ask questions

in Question Period either the acting minister, the Government House Leader or

the Premier answers.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: The one thing I am used to is being

in the critical position of being on the Opposition from 1985 to 1989, and I

loved to have the opportunity to ask questions of any minister or any person in

the House of Assembly. I don't understand the point that the vice-chairman is

making because she has the opportunity now to question the minister and his

assistants and associates of the Department of Justice. So in trying to make the

point that he is not elected, he is quite intelligent enough to realize that he

is not elected. So are all of us, and we don't need to hear it. There is only

one press member listening, and that press member certainly understands that the

Minister of Justice does not yet have a seat. So the opportunity to ask

questions that she is very serious about, the estimates and the budget for the

Department of Justice, why not proceed to the questions? If she wants to keep on

making that point, then we will keep on doing what we have to do. I haven't been

in the critical position for the last four years, and I would love to sit here

until 2:00 or 3:00 this afternoon doing this. Nothing would give me any greater

pleasure.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that is a relevant

point of order because -

MS. VERGE: I would like to speak to the point

of order, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute please. Can I have

order for a minute? In my view Ms. Verge is in the process now of her fifteen

minute opportunity to open the questioning of the department. So what she wishes

to talk about in that context is up to her. I would rule that it is not a point

of order and I would ask Ms. Verge to continue.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to welcome

the Member for Port de Grave to this committee meeting. We have had five or six

meetings so far this spring examining the estimates of social departments and we

have missed the Member for Port de Grave. It is good that -

MR. DUMARESQUE: A point of order.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is certainly

unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, to be taking note of a member's absence or

presence in a committee. The hon. member should know better. You don't make

reference to a member's participation in the committee any more than you would

in the legislature. I think that the hon. member should state the case she has

before the Department of Justice, proceed with it and be relevant.

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

would ask the member not to refer to the committee members presence or absence

in the committee proceedings.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, I will certainly abide by

that ruling. I was just working my way up to complimenting the Member for Port

de Grave because I am sure the unelected Minister of Justice very much

appreciates the Member for Port de Grave, who is perhaps the most spirited of

all the government members, being here to come to his defence this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a special occasion.

MS. VERGE: Yes, this is a special occasion and

the best of the government backbenchers were required here this morning to mount

a good defence of the unelected Minister of Justice.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) she well knows what I

did as an Opposition member and my capabilities.

MS. VERGE: And that is why it is so noteworthy

that the member is here this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just this once.

MS. VERGE: As I was saying, Chairperson, we do

not have an elected representative of the government here this morning. The

committee system, as I think it was the Member for Mount Scio just noted, is

relatively new. It has been in place about thirteen years. Prior to that the

estimates were examined by the full House, and we still have examination of the

estimates of certain branches of the government, Executive Council for example,

taking place in the full House. We have a fair amount of time for general budget

debate in the full House, and throughout that process, of course, it is only

elected ministers who may answer for the government.

Here this morning, as I noted, the acting Minister

of Justice, Mr. Baker, was present at the outset and -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - I thought that was an indication

that the government had taken into account the representations that I had made

and other members of the official opposition had made in the full House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member

is misleading the committee and the people of the Province by indicating there

is an acting Minister of Justice. There is no acting Minister of Justice, and

you are not allowed obviously to directly mislead the committee or the people of

the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: To that point of order, Chairperson,

all I can say is that when I have asked Justice questions in the House of

Assembly I, on occasion, have prefaced my questions by pointing out that there

is not an elected minister. On two or three occasions the Premier was absent, so

I said to the Speaker that I would expect the acting Minister of Justice to

answer, and the Government House Leader, Mr. Baker, rose and answered the

question.

Apparently Mr. Baker is the acting Minister of

Justice, at least for Question Period in the House of Assembly he is functioning

in that role and answering to that description.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, to that point of

order, I think I can help with that explanation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for

Humber East, with her background in government proceedings, knows full well that

if the Premier is not in the House, or the Minister of Justice, that somebody

must speak on behalf of government. The natural person to answer and speak on

behalf of government for any department, if there is a minister absent at that

time, would be the Deputy Premier, or the President of Treasury Board, in his

capacity as speaking on behalf of government. Would the member prefer nobody

answer the questions? He was not appointed acting Minister of Justice, but in

Question Period he has the authority to speak on behalf of government. She

directed a question to government and he responded in answer to the question. If

he had not answered the question, then the shoe would have been on the other

foot. So you cannot assume that he is acting minister. He has to be appointed

acting minister by the Premier of the Province. That was not done, but he was

answering questions on behalf of government.

Again, it clearly shows that she is not interested

in the budget or the estimates or the operations of the Department of Justice. I

guess her experience there for a number of years shows the mismanagement she

experienced. She knows now it has been put in proper order and it is going to

improve in the future, and that is the reason why she is trying to just score

political points.

It is time to get on. We have some questions we

would like to ask the minister and his officials. If she is not ready after

thirty minutes - I mean that is a fifteen minute opening and discussions have

gone on thirty minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. There

is a difference of opinion. I would ask Ms. Verge to resume. She has five

minutes left in this segment.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

It is quite obvious there is no point of order. It

is just a case of the defencemen trying to take as much of my time as they can

spirit away.

I was making a point about the inappropriateness of

a government department coming before the estimates committee without an elected

minister. Bearing in mind the fact that this is a committee of the full House of

Assembly, at which elected ministers only may speak for the government, bearing

in mind that the full House of Assembly -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walsh on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, again they are made on

assumptions. There is nothing that one can point out to me anywhere, in

Beauchesne, or Roberts, or any other rules of order that says that only elected

ministers can come before committees. There is nothing in existence anywhere

that someone can point to unless they just want to throw the words out hoping

that the media will pick up on those words. That is just a fallacy and not a

fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. We have

already dealt with that point of order. We had a motion and the motion was

defeated.

MR. WALSH: Then we will have to deal with it

again, again, and again. The hon. Member for Humber East continues to

misrepresent the situation. Yes, there will be a point of order again, again,

and again. You just cannot make statements for the sake of making statements and

let them pass. It is not going to happen, not while I am on the committee. It

has not in the past and I am not going to let it happen in the future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then, I rule there is no point of

order and ask Ms. Verge to continue.

MS. VERGE: Of course there is no point of

order, Chairperson. Again it is a case of the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island trying to take my time.

MR. WALSH: A point of order again, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: I am not trying to do anything, Mr.

Chairman, other than deal with truth, fact and reality. I am not interested in

never, never land. I am not interested in people who dream in technicolour -

just fact and truth. I am not trying to take anybody's time but I will continue

to deal with the situation if it continues to arise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. That is a

point of clarification I believe rather than a point of order. I ask Ms. Verge

to continue.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

There is no precedent that can be cited for this

because it is unprecedented to have an unelected Cabinet minister let alone

Minister of Justice for months on end. It has been six months since the Premier

announced his intention to bring an unelected member into his Cabinet, to look

beyond his back benches and go outside the House of Assembly altogether to get a

Minister of Justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: We have to keep pointing out that

the hon. Member for Humber East is either intentionally misleading this

Committee of the House, or she is just playing political games, or really does

not understand. Unless my multiplication and my little bit of mathematics and

knowledge is incorrect I am not aware that the present Minister of Justice has

been appointed for six months. I think it would be much closer to three months

and there is no law on the books or no written words on the books that say the

hon. member must be elected within three months, thirty days or sixty days. We

are talking about thirty minutes gone by this morning with not one question. I

believe the press are well aware and no doubt have listened to the hon. Member

for Humber East. I myself have heard some of the press members ask: when is she

going to get into questioning the operation of the Department of Justice, the

Budget of the Department of Justice and the number of people who need some

questions answered? They are well aware of how to spell nonelected minister,

acting minister, or whatever and the hon. member knows that full well and there

are no political points being scored here this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Efford. There is

no point of order just a point of clarification.

Ms. Verge, please continue.

MS. VERGE: What I said, and I am sure the

Member for Port de Grave knows what I said and knows the truth of it, it was

over six months ago when the Premier announced his plan or his intention of

going outside his caucus and choosing an unelected individual to be the Minister

of Justice, it has been three months since Mr. Roberts took up the position of

Minister of Justice.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I know that Mr. Efford is here for

the first time and if he were here before he would know that you don't interrupt

the committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are already on a point of

order. I think we should deal with that one first.

MR. HARRIS: I know that the government member

is being sensitive about Mr. Roberts because they sent in the three sauciest

backbenchers they could find this morning to run interference for the minister,

but these constant interruptions of the speaker, a stop has to be put to it, Mr.

Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Just because someone says 'point of

order'... there should be some sort of rule that if you say it four or five

times -like the boy who cried wolf - there should be some rule that you only get

two or three points of order, and after that when you are constantly being

slapped down by saying it is not a point of order, then someone should be told

to shut up and keep quiet and let someone speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps there should be but I

don't think there is,

so I would rule that it is not a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I brought it up

before and you ruled that it was a legitimate point of order, that you cannot as

a member of the House, make a reference to the presence or absence of another

member in committee. Hon. members here do not, at any time, make reference to

the hon. members who may be in court, maybe outside doing other things, we make

no reference to that, Mr. Chairman, so, I don't see why somebody should come in

here and make reference to the absence or the presence of another member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dumaresque. The

point is well taken and I ask members to abide by the practise of the House. Ms.

Verge's segment is now concluded. I don't know if there were any questions in

what she had to say. Would the minister like to respond?

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't hear any questions, Mr.

Chairman, so I can't respond. I think perhaps it would be appropriate if I were

to put on the record, for the benefit for the honourable lady, who obviously

doesn't understand the Constitutional proprieties or, for that matter, the

Constitutional practise, that she kept referring to me as the Acting Minister of

Justice. She is completely wrong -

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman -

MS. VERGE: There may be a misunderstanding but

I never referred to Mr. Roberts as the acting minister. Mr. Roberts is the

unelected minister; it is my understanding that Mr. Baker is the acting

minister, at least he answers to that description in the whole House.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. It is not a

point of order, it is a point of clarification.

Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is

no acting Minister of Justice in this Province. There is a Minister of Justice.

As the hon. gentleman for St. John's East pointed out, I have been duly sworn of

the Executive Council and, as the hon. Member for Humber East has pointed out a

number of times, I do not hold a seat in the House of Assembly. I will simply

say that nobody regrets that more than I, and the first time a seat becomes

available, I shall do the proper thing by seeking the nomination. We shall see

what happens then.

In the House of Assembly, since I cannot speak

because I am not a member, and that is a stunning insight into the obvious that

the honourable lady has given us on a number of occasions, one of my colleagues

speaks for me.

Now there are occasions when there will be an

acting minister and I would remind the hon. member if she casts her mind back to

the halcyon days when she was a member of the Cabinet, if a minister is away

from the Province, the practise is to designate an acting minister. In fact, my

colleague and friend from Port de Grave, will confirm there are alternate

ministers designated by Order in Council and that is the appropriate way to do

it. The business of government carries on.

From time to time I have been away from the

Province a very great deal of late and, in fact, I have to leave today. I want

to thank the Committee for accommodating itself to my schedule, which is not a

personal schedule, but this constitutional process is taking me away from the

Province for a very great deal of the last three months.

The only other point I would make is, I want to say

to my friend from St. John's East, it is very kind of him to say that the

government have asked the gentlemen from Port de Grave, Eagle River and Mount

Scio - Bell Island to come and run interference for me. Nobody, I think, would

ever say that I need anyone to run interference for me. My friend from Torngat,

who served in the House with me on the same side - because, of course, before he

was taken up on the mountain and shown the green and pleasant valleys down

below, he sat in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; he briefly crossed the Jordan

River into the Promised Land and is now back in the land of the Opposition.

I am grateful to see members of the Committee here

and I look forward to getting some questions, because I have four of the senior

officials of the department here. We are anxious to try to respond to any

questions that any member wishes to raise and we will do our best to answer

them.

I do want to say to my friend for St. John's East,

I hope I don't need somebody to run interference for me. If ever I get back in

the House - and I hope to. After nineteen years here I felt a little at home in

this place, Mr. Chairman. I don't need lectures from the hon. the Member for

Humber East about the House of Assembly. I was here before she was out of grade

school. With any luck, I'll be here long after she's gone. That remains to be

seen. I look forward to getting some questions and trying to answer them, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Is there

anybody anxious to ask Mr. Roberts questions? Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to

make a few comments to the Minister of Justice and possibly after I make those

comments there may be questions or just some comments that he can respond to.

During my past seven years as a sitting member of

the House of Assembly, in the two or three years I was Opposition critic for the

Department of Social Services, the one thing that I made a practise of was doing

a lot of research anytime that I had something brought to my attention, or as a

critic, that I should present to the then ministers of Social Services. Then,

going on from that, during my short term as Minister of Social Services, my two

years, I took a great deal of interest in doing the same thing and making myself

fully aware and knowledgeable about the problems that face two sectors of the

Department of Social Services. One is the young offenders, in the area of the

remand centre and the boys' home in Torbay and in Whitbourne; the other is the

area of child abuse. Let's deal with the young offenders first.

I would have liked to be a little bit longer in

that position because I had some good things in mind for it. I am sure the

minister and his officials are quite familiar with the needs of the young

offenders. I think of one thing that is happening in the system, the

incarceration or the confinement, although it is not a jail or a penitentiary,

it is an incarceration. The proper rehabilitation for those young people - I saw

instances of young boys, thirteen and fourteen years old, where I think if you

looked back through the family history and the family background of those boys,

there were many reasons why they ended up on the streets.

I remember one young boy in particular, and this is

the reason why I wanted to point this out this morning, because I heard his name

mentioned in the news three days ago, which confirms my concerns and my fears

for what happens to young people. When I was Minister of Social Services, he, as

a young boy, was brought before the courts. He was sixteen, if I can remember

his age correctly. He wasn't convicted but he was on probation. He went to his

parents after being held out of court. They did not hold him in court. They were

separated, very prominent people here in the city. He went to his father's place

of work, and sat in his father's car. When the father got off work he would not

take him, he drove him out of his car. The boy went to his mother and she drove

him away. He is now in adult penitentiary.

What happens is, despite the good intentions of the

Department of Social Services and all the people working there, the programs and

the numbers of people are still not in place to pay specific attention to the

needs of those young people, for looking at their backgrounds and the reasons

why these young boys or girls end up in trouble. I wonder if there will be some

point in time when the Department of Social Services and the government or the

Department of Justice combined, as a whole, can take a greater interest and put

a more stable plan in place to deal with not just their care while they are in

that particular institution, but to deal with, to go back through their

backgrounds.

This is where we need professional counselling, to

show them, I think, more love and tender care and try to replace what they have

lost in their young lives. Personally, I got involved with a number of them, and

I know that was what was lacking there. Once you showed them some interest - but

they don't have much opportunity. I know it is a concern of everybody in the

Department of Social Services. I know the staff that I worked with were an

excellent staff, but still there seems not to be enough done, and it is the same

with child abuse.

Goodness knows, there has been enough publicity and

talk and everything else with that but I would like to see, and I am sure it is

going to happen, not just the fact that it is talked about, but proper care has

to be put in place for the mothers and the children who are victims of sexual

abuse and child abuse. In fact, it was only last night, at 9:30, I finished with

a case in my own district, where the local pastor called me; we spent all day

yesterday at it and had to get the RCMP and a social worker to move in last

night and take a woman and her two kids from a very, very serious situation.

It is continuous. It is not just isolated to one

sector of the Province, it is continuous all over the Province, and I think,

more and more, today and in the future, that because of the number of incidents

- it is not that there are any more today than in the past, it is just that

there is more awareness and people are talking more openly and confiding in

neighbours or the local clergy, or whatever, in the area, but nevertheless, it

is a real fact and a part of life and we can no longer hide it under a cloud or

hide it in the closet. We have to face up to it.

It is not enough, as the social worker said to me

last night, to be aware of the situation. What happens now? I know the caseloads

of the social workers, child welfare workers and family counselling are

overburdened. It is really, really overburdened. I think the human tragedy of it

all is that those children will carry a scar for the rest of their lives, and

unless some major plans are put in place, not only those individuals, but

society as a whole is going to pay an even greater price in the future.

While we are all politicians, and although my hon.

friend from St. John's East might call me saucy, there is a role where one takes

things seriously, and this is a very serious role. I take my position seriously,

not only as the MHA for my district but for the Province, as a whole, and I

think, facing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the future, those are

two of the greatest obstacles, that we as a society, will have to overcome,

otherwise we are going to have a devastating situation in the generation which

follows and the scars - I do not know if they can ever be removed, but at least,

some improvements can be made.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister would

like to comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would first

of all, agree with and underline the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. The

problems he describes are among the most troublesome that face society today. In

some senses the Department of Justice deals with them, but in other senses we

don't. It is not a matter of evading responsibilities to tell my friend what he

already said, that of course, the responsibility for young offender's matters

rests in this Province, and I gather, in most but not all provinces, with the

Social Services Department. My colleague, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount,

addresses that. But that said, let me make two or three general comments which I

think would respond to the general comments made by my friend from Port de

Grave.

The problems of what to do, how to treat offenders,

whether they are young or old, you know, whether they are under the arbitrary

line that has been drawn in legislation as being a young offender -and we have

to draw a line somewhere; as you know, Mr, Chairman, it is a federal statute,

The Young Offenders Act, under the criminal law of power and the Constitution

and they have drawn a line and said: boys and girls, the young men and young

women below that line are to be treated as young offenders, those above it are

to be treated as adult offenders.

But the problems of how to deal with these people

are - you know, I would not say they are insoluble, but I will say nobody has

found a satisfactory solution. Obviously, more money is needed, more counselling

is needed. We perhaps need to know a great deal more about why young men and

young women, or older men and older women, do these things. We have a number of

values to try to balance. We have the value in making sure that every person in

this society has the opportunity to develop her or his ability to the utmost and

to live as full and as meaningful and as rewarding a life as possible.

We also have another value in society, and that is

that we all have the right to live in comity - not in happiness, but to live in

society with each other, that I have the right to the assurance that my house

will not be broken into or that I won't have a rock thrown at me as I walk down

the street - and I don't mean political rocks, I mean real rocks.

It is a matter of trying to balance these things

off. In other words, if people do things that are against the law then they must

be punished. Now, how they are to be punished is a question to which there is no

universally accepted answer. Equally, Mr. Chairman, we must try to find out why

people do things wrong and what can be done about them.

I would make a particular reference to what the

gentleman from Port de Grave says about child abuse. That is a matter that has

got a great deal of attention in this Province in the last few years, for

reasons which are well known to every member of the Committee. The problem is

incredibly troublesome. I suspect that there is far more child abuse going on

than even we now know about and the statistics, as I am sure you and your

colleagues are aware, Sir, show a very great increase in the number of abuse

cases reported, and in the number of assault or sexual assault cases being

reported. Why do people do these things? Are they social? Are they personal? Are

they psychiatric? Nobody really knows.

I guess, all that I can say is that we, in the

Department of Justice - and I think I speak for every member of the ministry and

every official in any department who is concerned with these issues - are

becoming very much more aware of them. There has been a terrific revolution in

society in the last ten or twelve years on these matters.

We are increasing the resources that we devote to

them, but I am the first to acknowledge that we are not devoting nearly enough

resources to them even though we are devoting what we can. Government these days

is a matter of balancing, of deciding where scarce resources can best be

applied.

I would think what the hon. gentleman from Port de

Grave says and does is of great importance, as with every member of the

Committee, because the real answer to this is with individuals. If we believe

that we are all - I don't want to get theological - that we are all God's

creatures with a will and a mind of our own, which is the basic tenet, surely,

of our society, then we should each be responsible for our individual acts. Now,

there are those who have diminished capacity and handicaps - those are different

stories, but surely, the real answer lies with society.

The way to end child abuse is for men and women to

realize they cannot do these things to children. They know they are wrong, and

the way to help to end it is to have them reported and exposed. As I said in a

different context the other day, the really sobering message of the report of

Judge Hughes into the situation at Mount Cashel and elsewhere is that scores, if

not hundreds, of people knew what was going on in Mount Cashel. Scores, if not

hundreds, had some inkling of what was going on and nobody did anything about

it, or if they did, they didn't do enough. I am not trying to condemn them, I am

simply saying that the answer to the problem, in my judgement, lies with a

revolution between the ears, to use a phrase that a former Premier used in a

different context, but one that I would apply here.

I think the hon. member's point, the gentleman from

Port de Grave's point, is well taken and I can only say that we in the

department are very much aware of it and very much determined to try to continue

to make progress. I think that we have made a lot of progress, but we have a

long way to go yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Roberts.

Is there another Committee member? Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Mr. Roberts, just a couple of administrative sort

of matters first. On the day the Budget was brought down, somebody went over to

Brigus and tacked up a notice on the door and shut the doors and people were

told unceremoniously that the court was being shut down. Since then, I gather,

the operation of the facilities have been moved to St. John's, and the court is

open for hearings on days that trials have been set, but the court is

effectively closed. Two questions arise out of that, number one: Why is it that

all the people of the area, all of the Conception Bay North area, Port de Grave

district and the surrounding districts that have been served by the Brigus court

for many years - why are they to be deprived of ready access to court services?

Secondly, how can this be done without bringing

about any changes in the legislation establishing the courts in the Judicature

Act. People still have the right to file their documents at the Brigus court,

but the Brigus court is not open. Can you tell us about that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me respond to

the second question first because it is one to which I give a very precise

answer. The Judicature Act,

Section 22 from memory, of the 1986 Act, this number

of judicial centres, including Brigus, and then gives Cabinet or the Lieutenant

Governor in Council the power to add or to take away from that list. I don't

know whether that has, in fact, been done, and I apologize for that, but I have

been away from the Province so much. I literally haven't seen all the Cabinet

minutes, but I know that there will be a proclamation. Perhaps my deputy would

know. Has the proclamation been issued?

MS. SPRACKLIN: No, Sir. I believe the

legislation is on route now. There is a Cabinet paper that has been prepared.

MR. ROBERTS: There will be a proclamation. We

don't need to amend the Act. It may be amended for the sake of tidiness but 22,

Sub

Section 1 gives us the power.

MS. SPRACKLIN: That is correct and I think that

has been done. That part has been completed but with strict amendment to the

legislation. That is going to be done for the sake of tidiness and that is in

the works.

MR. ROBERTS: So the answer to that question, I

say to the hon. gentleman from St. John's East, is that the statute of the 1986

Act allows the government to do what we have done.

Now, let me come to the other half of the question.

I don't know what was said at Brigus on the day of the Budget but I do know what

the government did. I can tell you why we did it and perhaps, if you wish, we

could discuss it. Brigus was changed from being a judicial centre to a circuit

point, and the effect of that is there is no longer a judge assigned to Brigus.

Mr. Justice Bartlett had been there for many years, and Mr. Justice O'Regan had

recently been assigned there. His assignments, of course, were made by the Chief

Justice of the Trial Division, Chief Justice Hickman.

It is not a very old circuit point. In fact there

was no district court in Bonavista, Trinity, Conception until about 1971 or 1972

when Mr. Justice Noel, as he then became, was appointed a Judge of the District

Court. The court was then constituted in two parts. He subsequently moved to St.

John's and, in due course, Judge Bartlett was appointed to be a Judge of the

District Court and then became a Judge of the Supreme Court when the two

divisions were merged under the administration, I believe, of my hon. friend

from Humber East in the 1986 Act. So the history of Brigus as a judicial centre

for the Supreme Court goes back only twenty years. Now, that is a long time, but

it is not forever.

We closed it, and I am told, by the way, Mr.

Chairman, so the record is complete, the Order in Council has been passed under

22.1. In fact, it was passed before the end of April, because the new regime

came into effect on the first of May.

Let me tell you what we did and then why we did it.

Mr. Justice O'Regan, who, of course, is neither paid by the Province nor answers

to anybody except the Judicial Council of Canada - he is a judge of the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland - is now stationed in St. John's and is one of the judges

sitting here. He will sit from time to time in Brigus as the need arises. So

will other judges. In fact, I understand there will be trials, what? - possibly

week a month, is the estimate we have been given?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Ultimately, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: We understand that as much a week

a month will be given over to trials in Brigus. The courthouse there is still

available. The week a month, or a fortnight a month or whatever, the week a

month is the estimate we are given by the officials in the court. How much work

is done in Brigus will depend on council and parties, whether they want to have

trials in Brigus.

I believe the assistant deputy registrar there has

exercised her bumping privileges and is now acting in the Court of Appeal. The

lady, Mrs. Butler - my hon. friend may have dealt with her from time to time -

is now the assistant deputy registrar on the Court of Appeal. The normal bumping

process - these people have rights under collective agreements. I think we are

two positions down as a result of the change. Is that right?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Three.

MR. ROBERTS: Three, the assistant deputy

registrar, a crier and a secretary.

MS. SPRACKLIN: A court reporter.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, a court reporter, not a

crier.

MS. SPRACKLIN: All of them have filled

vacancies, I think.

MR. ROBERTS: All of them are still at work

because they filled vacancies elsewhere in the service, I believe, in the

Justice department or in the court system.

Now, what will the effect of this be? It will mean

three things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it will no longer be possible to file

court papers in Brigus. It is no longer a registry in the way that Corner Brook

is, or Grand Falls, Happy Valley, Grand Bank or Gander. It will be no longer

possible to file probate applications there. The research that we have done

shows that ninety-nine, maybe ninety-five, maybe ninety, but a very large part

of the filings that were made were made by mail or by fax. The number of times a

council or an individual party came into the court to file a document was quite

insignificant, a very small number of times. Stuff was filed by mail or more and

more by fax. My hon. friend will acknowledge that the rules of the Supreme Court

have got to address the issue of faxes. They are used in real life but the

courts don't yet deal with them.

So we do not see any change in that. All it will

mean is a lawyer in, say, Harbour Grace or, for that matter, in St. John's, who

wishes to file a paper, which would formerly be filed at Brigus, would now file

it with the registry at St. John's, or elsewhere. Because, of course, each

registry has jurisdiction over the entire Province.

The only other change, I suggest, and this may be a

small measure of inconvenience, is that if one needs to see a judge to get an

interlocutory order - I suppose the most common one would be an interlocutory

injunction in a labour dispute. These are often issued at strange hours. There

is a degree of inconvenience there. But all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that

when we weighed up the cost, the best utilization of the resources - it is our

decision, but we discussed it with the officials, we discussed it with those

responsible for the administration of the courts. We decided that the

inconvenience - and there may be some. Someone who needs an interlocutory order

at 4:00 on Sunday morning, is going to have to get into the car and drive to St.

John's, as opposed to driving to Brigus, where Mr. Justice Bartlett only lived

for about six months of the year.

The rest of the year, I believe, he lived in St.

John's and commuted. My friend from Port de Grave agrees. In fact, Judge

Bartlett lived in a house that my grandfather built, and lived in it until his

death. So there was no judge living in Brigus for a number of months each year.

But Judge Bartlett, of course, did his duties properly and well. So there is

that inconvenience, but we decided, on looking at it, that the inconvenience was

less than the gain that we would make. I don't know if that answers my friend's

questions. If not, I would be glad to try to respond further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris there is one minute

left in this segment.

MR. HARRIS: The provincial court in Labrador

City/ Wabush has also been downgraded and now has no permanent judge. Is the

minister prepared to have another look at that? There was an objection at the

time that all of Labrador West, particularly a border town with Quebec and for

other reasons of jurisdiction; availability of a judge for matters particularly

of a family nature and the offering of the availability of speedy process,

particularly in the area of family matters and family violence and perhaps the

granting of orders of - the term escapes me at the moment, putting someone on

probation, a restraint order preventing someone from threatening the life of an

individual.

MR. ROBERTS: A peace bond.

MR. HARRIS: A peace bond is the term I am

looking for. These services are not available in Labrador West in the same

manner they would be with a resident judge so I wonder if the minister or the

officials could respond to that concern, particularly in Labrador City?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me respond if I may, Mr.

Chairman. The member asked if we would have another look at the issue so let me

say, yes. Let me go on to say that in my understanding the decision to no longer

have a judge permanently stationed at Wabush/Labrador City was taken a year ago.

I understand that the experience has shown that it was - a sufficiently wise

move, would perhaps be the right phrase. This is not a perfect world. We have

twenty-four provincial court judges and there are no vacancies. They sit at a

number of circuit points and we largely leave it to the chief judge, Chief Judge

Luther, as to where judges are stationed. In fact under the act we cannot

station judges, only the chief judge may station them.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, he places them. This is

judicial independence. I will undertake, Mr. Chairman, to have a word with the

chief judge and see if we should re-assign. We are not going to increase the

provincial court bench. I wish we could in some ways but it is just not in the

cards given our resources so it will be a matter of re-assigning. If we put a

judge in Western Labrador permanently then he or she would have to be taken from

somewhere else in Labrador or here on the Island. We will have a look at that. I

cannot go beyond that but I say to my hon. friend that the experience of the

year has shown no insuperable difficulties. There are many places in the

Province that do not have a resident judge. The problem in Western Labrador is

you are a long way away with no access except by air. We will have a look at it.

That is all I can tell him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to

give the minister a chance to give us an update on another very important issue

facing the Province and certainly facing the country and that is the

Constitution. The minister, as he indicated earlier, has spent considerable time

since taking over his portfolio following the constitutional debate. I know it

is very critical to this Province that we get some headway in that area

especially as it relates to a reformed senate. I know there are other areas that

are very important, shared jurisdiction, shared management of the fishery and so

forth, so I wonder if the minister would take a few minutes and give the

committee an update on where the debate is right now, some of the timetables

that may be in place and how, I guess, the whole debate may be going,

particularly as it relates to some of the interests of the Province.

MR. ROBERTS: I would be delighted to, Mr.

Chairman, because I think the question that my hon. friend for Eagle River has

raised is of coruscating importance and is just as important to the people of

this Province as it is to the people who live in any other part of Canada.

Let me just talk about the process for a moment or

two. The process is in the hands of what are called the constitutional affairs

ministers. Now that's a generic term. There are actually some ministers in

Canada who have a title of minister responsible for constitutional affairs. The

responsibility in our Province falls with the Premier, who is also the Minister

of Intergovernmental Affairs, but he asked me to work on it on a day by day

basis. I am doing so. The constitutional affairs ministers have been meeting on

an extraordinarily rigorous schedule. We began in Ottawa in mid-March and since

then we have met in Halifax, in Ottawa again, in Edmonton, in St. John, we were

in Vancouver last week, we are in Montreal for the rest of this week, and we

shall be in Toronto all of next week.

We are going through an extraordinarily wide range

of possible amendments to the Constitution. I should add that the process has

been broadened to include representatives of the four aboriginal groups, the

Assembly of First Nations, and they have members in this Province. The Innu in

Labrador and the Micmac Band at Conne River are both members of that. The Innuit

Tapirisat of Canada. There are people from Nain, I would say to my friend for

Torngat Mountains. Ches Anderson has been participating, making a contribution.

The Native Council of Canada, which again has people in this Province. Glenwood,

and they live out on the Little Bay Islands on the Northern Peninsula. In fact,

they were formerly clients of mine in another life. They are participating. Then

there is the Metis National Council of Canada. We have people in Labrador who

call themselves Metis but they are not in the Metis National Council. Kirby

Lethbridge, late of Paradise River, now of Happy Valley, is at these meetings.

So we are having this series of meetings and going

through an incredible variety of possible amendments. The arrangement we have is

that nothing is final until everything is final. What that means is we look at a

given topic or a number of topics and we then talk about it, come to some

tentative conclusions as far as we can, and leave it to stand for what will be a

first ministers meeting. The first ministers' meeting has not been set but we

anticipate it will take place in the latter part of June.

A number of these matters are of great concern to

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are holding very firm on a Triple E Senate. In my

judgement, there is a very reasonable chance we will carry the day. Four other

provinces stand with us on this. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba

stand with us in the Triple E group. We are deeply concerned about the distinct

society provisions. We are deeply concerned about the aboriginal peoples,

because there will be a third order of government in Canada if this revolution

in the Constitution comes to pass. That will have an impact on this Province as

well.

Let me say two other things. First of all, the

amount of goodwill that has come through in these negotiations is striking and

heartening. There are about 350 Canadians involved in the process, none of them

representing the Quebec government, although we are going to be in Montreal

tonight and the Quebec government are giving us a reception, all of the

delegates and all of the participants, about 350 as I said. That is considered a

bit of a step forward in this arcane world. The amount of goodwill and the

determination to reshape the constitution and to bring it into the 1990's in a

generous and sharing and caring Canada, that is very striking and very

heartening.

Secondly, let me place on the record that

Newfoundland and Labrador is making a very substantial effort, and I believe we

are making a contribution. We have nine or ten officials, several of them in my

department, the director of the constitutional law unit, Ken Tyler, and Gail

Welsh, one of the senior solicitors in the constitutional law unit, are assigned

to us you can sort of say full-time. We have not seen them for anything else.

The deputy minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Fred Way; Mr. Ray Hawco,

who is an assistant DM in Intergovernmental Affairs responsible for native

policy, well-known to my friend from Torngat; Mr. Phonse Faour, well-known to

many members of the committee, who is now a deputy clerk of the Cabinet, is

working with us full-time. Who have I left out, now? Ms. Barbara Knight, an

assistant deputy minister in Intergovernmental Affairs. We have been aided by

two members of the House of Assembly; Your Reverence, The Chair, and the

gentleman from Humber West have been with us on occasion, both of whom had a

deep involvement in constitutional matters.

We are making a very large effort because we

believe it is important. I think it will work. In my judgement at the end of the

day there will be a deal that is acceptable to the people of Canada and to their

governments. I can tell my hon. friend from Eagle River that there is a lot of

work yet to be done, and the deal is far from done. It is going to take

an act

of goodwill on the part of every Canadian, but I believe that is there to be

done.

MR. DUMARESQUE: In terms of the deadline, is it

the last of May now that some deadline passes, and what is the relevance of the

tabling of the referendum bill in Ottawa?

MR. ROBERTS: Well my hon. friend raises two

questions. The referendum bill in Ottawa has no specific significance. We are

these negotiations, an old friend of mine - we are fond of reminding people at

the table that he and I were fellow newspaper editors thirty years ago, he at U.

of A. and I at U. of T. - it is being tabled now because the Government of

Canada wants to have the ability to hold a referendum should the occasion arise,

and because of their parliamentary timetable they must bring it forward now

because the House will rise shortly for its summer recess.

The 31 May deadline is one that was created at the

meeting in Ottawa in mid-March where the process began. It represented a date

arrived at by counting back from the Quebec referendum, and the Quebec

referendum, Bill C-150 I think they call it, is set for the 26th of October. Of

course, you have to count back to allow for a campaign period and then to allow

for a setting of the question, so effectively the first week in August is the

cutoff date for Quebec purposes.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they have just moved it -

MR. ROBERTS: They are tabling legislation - I

do not know where it stands - to relax that date, which is of course assigned by

Mr. Bourassa and his colleagues. They are taking the process seriously and they

are responding in good faith to what is a good faith initiative that has been

put forward to them.

So the deadline is one of our own creation. We are

holding to it. It is not a matter of looking for sympathy, but I can tell you

the officials concerned have been working. I can tell you every one of those

people I named was working in this building yesterday. They left at seven

o'clock this morning to go to Montreal, and they will be at work, as we all

will, for the next three or four days. It is a maximum effort by a very large

number of people right across this country.

I think we will come close to the 31st of May. The

process will then go on because of course all we are doing is preparing the road

through, like a John the Baptist if you wish, for the First Ministers. I would

say to my hon. friend, nobody has asked us to have a dance of the seven veils as

yet.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

I would like to continue on the Constitution for a minute. I understand by

newspaper reports a few days ago that our Province and one other province - I

think it was Alberta - were not really favouring this third order of government,

or the self-government approach. I think The Globe and Mail carried a story that

Newfoundland and Alberta were sort of against the rest of the provinces with

respect to the request by the native people. So would the minister respond to

this particular issue? I will ask the minister four or five questions and the

minister can respond to them after I am finished, if it is okay with the

minister.

MR. ROBERTS: Whichever way my hon. friend would

prefer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WARREN: My second question, Mr. Minister: I

understand that the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, which has

beds for I think fifty people, at the present time I understand there is

something like eighty people housed in this particular correctional centre, way

above how many they can officially accommodate. So if the minister could would

he advise me on this particular situation.

In various areas of our Province there is a

caseload in the courts. I am left to believe that in Labrador the caseload far

exceeds other portions of the Province by the length of time while waiting -

MR. ROBERTS: Is my hon. friend speaking of the

Provincial Court or is he speaking of the Supreme Court or is he speaking of

both?

MR. WARREN: Basically the Provincial Court. The

reason I say this is I have a constituent of mine who was initially charged way

in excess of a year ago. Much longer, in fact. With all due respect to Judge

Igloliorte, this is not coming directly from him but from people working with

the system in Labrador. The man is overworked. He just cannot keep up with the

demand that is required in Labrador.

In fact, last year in the estimates I asked your

predecessor then if there was some thought of having an extra judge allotted to

the Happy Valley - Goose Bay court. At that time the minister who reviewed the

case did admit there was a heavy work load in that particular area. I believe my

constituents are not getting justice in due course as required. I think,

regardless of whether you go to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Nain or along the

coast, it is the same thing. The judges just cannot keep up with the

requirements that are there.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Minister, that going

on the Premier's promise of fairness and balance, I think that we need fairness

and balance in the justice system in Labrador. I do not think we are getting it

at the present time.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, let

me deal with the third question first, the question of the work load in the

Provincial Court in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, which also includes the coast of

Labrador.

First, to clear away any misapprehension there may

be, I understand the problems - and there are problems there, as my hon. friend

says - the problems are not related to the fact there is no judge in Western

Labrador, in Wabush and Labrador City. There is a judge, Judge Igloliorte, at

present in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. But as my hon. friend knows, Judge

Igloliorte I believe intends to move, and I understand Chief Judge Luther may be

moving him. I'm not supposed to say that? I wasn't supposed to say that. But I

mean I have heard it outside my ministerial role. Anyway, it is not up to us

where judges go. Chief Judge Luther is in charge of that.

I understand there is a very heavy work load placed

on the judge who is stationed in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. I do not need to tell

my hon. friend, because I know he will agree that Judge Igloliorte is a splendid

example of everything that is fine about the Bench in this Province. He is

certainly carrying his share of the work load. I understand that the problem is

particularly acute in the coastal circuits. I can tell my hon. friend that I am

told that Judge Luther - who is in charge, it's not a matter of passing the

buck, he runs the Provincial Court, it's his responsibility - has assigned

another judge, I do not know who. He or she may not have been identified but

there will be additional circuits held on the coast of Labrador. We hope that

will address the problem and resolve it.

I can also tell my hon. friend that the Askov

decision, of which he may have heard, the Supreme Court of Canada sent a signal

to every prosecutor in the country, every Crown in the country, that if

prosecutions were not moved forward with reasonable expedition the accused could

come before the court and say: my rights under the Charter have been violated,

please take the appropriate steps. The Supreme Court said eight months in Askov,

but it has since relaxed that requirement somewhat. Nonetheless, every

prosecutor in Canada will tell you that she or he is very much aware of Askov

and the message sent by the Supreme Court.

So I cannot tell my learned - my hon. friend, I'm

sorry. He's learned, but not in the sense we use that phrase in a parliamentary

sense. But my hon. friend, I cannot tell him that there will be no difficulties.

I can tell him that the difficulties have been identified. We are addressing

them. I hope they will be resolved. Because like him I would agree that justice

must be quick. I also believe very much in fairness and balance. Perhaps you

will permit me to say that: who knows, I may someday have a closer acquaintance

with Happy Valley - Goose Bay than I at present have.

MR. WARREN: Maybe Torngat Mountains, sir.

MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps. If my hon. friend would

do the decent thing, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to.... As long as it is

not my friend for Eagle River. The decent thing for him is to stay in the House

and continue serving his constituents as he is.

The correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay. Not surprisingly, my hon. friend's information is correct. At least half

the time he gets it right, and this is one of the times he has it right. I do

not know if the precise numbers are there. They might vary from day to day. Let

me put it in perspective. We have a serious overcrowding problem in the

penitentiary and prison system in this Province. We have 20 per cent more

inmates than we have officially established places. There is nothing we can do

about that, in the sense we do not control the intake. I am told that the

average Provincial Court sentence has gone up from thirty to thirty-seven days

in the last few years.

Seven days might not seem like a lot. There is an

old Western song, "Seven Lonely Days Make One Lonely Week." But that is a 25 per

cent increase, I would say to my hon. friend; that means a 25 per cent increase

in the numbers of men and women going through the system. I am told that in

Happy Valley - Goose Bay it was designed for two inmates per cell. Certainly

they are there. On occasions, a floor mattress is put in for a third inmate, the

numbers of floor mattresses may vary.

Now I do not want to pretend, there is fairness and

balance, we are doing the same thing at the penitentiary here in St. John's. I

am not at all happy with it, my colleagues aren't, but we have no choice; either

that or we must let these people go and the judicial system sentences them. It

is bad enough now, people get out on weekend passes so these cursed weekend

sentences can come in. The crowd comes in Friday night and another crowd goes

home for the weekend so the crowd can come in Friday night and serve their

weekend sentences, you know it is the mad hatter's tea party.

We are very conscious of life and health safety and

I can tell my hon. friend that I am assured, and I have every reason to take

comfort in these assurances, that matters of life and health safety are

addressed and there is no problem, maybe a degree of inconvenience, but I guess

going to prison is not quite the same as putting up at the Newfoundland Hotel or

even the Aurora Inn in Goose Bay or the Hamilton Inn.

Now my hon. friend's third question was on

aboriginal matters. I do not know which newspaper report he saw, but it is

wrong. One of the difficulties of this process is, the meetings are in camera

and all concerned have observed that with remarkable fidelity. Joe Clark, by

consent, briefs the press at the end of the day and we are all at liberty to

address the issues we want to, but since I am not running for election in that

forum, I respond only to questions that come from the media, and there is not a

lot of interest in the national media on Ed Roberts, who is a sort of

insignificant anonymous figure and that is good for his soul.

The Premier at the Halifax meeting, speaking for

acknowledged the inherent right to self-government. It was a moment in history

and like many moments in history, it almost passed unnoticed. We have been

trying to flesh out that skeleton. Newfoundland and Alberta have raised a

concern.

I will take whatever time you allow me, Mr.

Chairman, but I do not want to trespass on the committee's time, but let me just

tell you the problem. There will be a third order of government, so Canada will

have a provincial order of government with ten provinces and twelve in due

course or more, but at least twelve, maybe thirteen, Nunavut, The Western Arctic

and Yukon. The federal government would be an order of government of course, and

then the Aboriginal governments, and we do not know how many there are. I get

figures ranging from one to 900, take your pick, and my hon. friend is smiling,

I think he would agree. I mean there is no consistency and these Aboriginal

governments will vary from something akin to a municipality to something

probably midway between a province and the federal government, we really do not

know.

The problem is we are trying to define whether the

powers of the self of this third order of an individual part of this third order

are defined in the Constitution before the inherent right becomes enforceable or

justifiable, which is the new buzz word we are using. In other words,

declaration of inherent right, negotiation of self-government agreement,

enforceability, or whether it is the other way around. Whether the declaration

then the enforceability, then the negotiation process, my hon. friend will

acknowledge and readily understand that if we are going to go the second route,

declaration, enforceable right, working out details, we must put bounds on the

right.

Could the federal government sign an agreement

giving an aboriginal government the right to have embassies or to issue its own

currency, or to have its own defence force, or to take over some provincial

power?

These are very real questions. So all I will say to

my friend, without going into the tedious details of these tedious discussions,

is that Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador are among the provinces that are

making quite strongly the point that we cannot have it both ways. I think my

hon. friend, upon reflection, I know he is deeply concerned with these issues,

would agree that you cannot have it both ways. That is where we are. Now I hope

that answers his question, but again, if not, I would be happy to respond

further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we will be taking a

ten minute break. We should all try to get back within the ten minutes because

it is a business day and the Committee will not be here all day. So, ten

minutes. There is coffee available in the caucus room, I believe, if any of the

guests would like to have a cup.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Sure. I have some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MS. VERGE: I'd like to get some statistics from

the minister and the other officials. First, statistics for the most recent year

as well as previous years indicating the number of sexual assault prosecutions,

sexual assaults against children, and sexual assaults against adult women. Then,

physical assaults, indicating if possible how many occurred in a family or

domestic setting. What I am really trying to get at are the trends. I am led to

believe that we are still seeing an increase in the number of reports, in the

number of prosecutions, of sexual assaults against children. Is that borne out

in the Justice statistics?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, all that I can say by

way of response to the hon. member is that we do not have the statistics here. I

shall undertake to get them. My understanding is that the procedure adopted by

committees is that they are filed with the committee and sent to the members. I

understand that the - when I say the trend is up, there are more charges being

laid, there are more matters being prosecuted, there are more convictions being

registered. But we just do not have the precise figures. My officials I believe

have made a note of the exact questions asked by the hon. member and we shall

get her an answer as quickly as possible.

MS. VERGE: I will start with assault convictions,

sexual assaults against children. Is there a

summary of sentences indicating

again whether there is a pattern?

MR. ROBERTS: We could -

MS. VERGE: Do the Crown attorneys have a

compilation of sentences for child sexual assault convictions? If so, can that

be provided to members of the Committee?

MR. ROBERTS: I can't answer that. I'd like to

reserve on it for two reasons. I will undertake to get the hon. member an

answer, of course. But there are two points. We obviously have or can get

information on sentences. That is simply a matter of putting it together. I'd

want to look at how much effort will be involved, if in fact we do not already

do it

The other question I would say to my friend may raise

an issue that I would want to tread wearily on. There may well be instructions

to the crown prosecuting attorneys on the ranges of sentences that the crown

might consider appropriate on certain offences. I just don't know the answer. I

don't get deeply involved in prosecutions for obvious reasons.

If there were such instructions then I think we would

be very wary of making them public because that would simply, you know - this is

an adversarial system.

MS. VERGE: I didn't ask for the instructions.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. I am just simply saying -

MS. VERGE: I asked for a compilation on the actual

sentences -

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know if we have one.

MS. VERGE: - which obviously are all in the domain

of public knowledge. It is just a matter of getting a list of sentences again to

indicate if there is a pattern or if there is a trend.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank the hon. member for her

clarification because I had misunderstood her question. My answer is: I don't

know if we have one. If we have one I have never seen it. I am not aware that

one is kept. If however we do have one I shall undertake to make it available to

her and the committee. If we don't have one I want to reserve, Mr. Chairman, if

I may, on the issue of whether we compile one. I would want to see how much work

is involved. There are an awful lot of these cases, but we shall gladly provide

the hon. member with whatever we can.

MS. VERGE: In terms of work load for police and

crown attorneys, are there statistics about the volume both in absolute terms

and as a percentage of the total number of cases that are assaults against

children or assaults against adults in a family context? What I am trying to get

at is the number of child abuse investigations and prosecutions, the number of

family violence or domestic violence reports and prosecutions absolutely and as

a percentage of the total caseload.

MR. ROBERTS: I may be missing something, but I

think that is much the same question as the first one the hon. member asked. I

am told there are such statistics, you know, the number of matters dealt with by

the major assault unit within the RNC, and of course the RCMP keep figures for

the areas in which they provide services. We will get them and provide them to

you, sir, and to the members of the committee. Then we can take them on from

there. The answer is yes, records are kept to that order. I don't have them

here.

MS. VERGE: Net statistics about police in the

Province, we have two forces doing provincial police work. I would like the

total number of members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police, and the number of women members of each force working

in the province and the percentage of the total for each who are women.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I do not have a gender

breakdown here, Mr. Chairman. We can get you one. That is not difficult. I do

have, I think, numbers on the number of RCMP and the numbers of the RNC. I

understand we have 339. Am I correct Ed?

MR. KENT: When you count the commission officers

we would have about 350.

MR. ROBERTS: We have about 350 members in the RNC.

Now I am not saying all of those positions are filled at this moment. There may

be the usual staff processes. In the RCMP we have 480 officers, male and female.

These are not kept by gender, but we will see if we can get this information. If

you want the rest of it the RCMP are responsible for policing 62 per cent of the

population of the Province, and they are in forty-six detachments. The RNC would

take the other 38 per cent and have detachments here.

MS. VERGE: Yes, I know all that.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I know.

MS. VERGE: I am interested -

MR. ROBERTS: I know the hon. lady knows, but I

want to make sure the committee knows too.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I would like to have the current

numbers of women in each of the two police forces and the percentage of the

total of each. Obviously, I can do my own arithmetic -

MR. ROBERTS: We will get that.

MS. VERGE: - but I think it is important for the

public to know how we are doing in terms of correcting a very long standing

imbalance in the composition by sex of our police forces.

Lottery revenue is up by about 50 per cent over the

past year. It has risen from about $20 million a year ago to something

approaching $30 million now. I understand the main explanation for the dramatic

rise in income from lotteries was the introduction about a year ago of video

slot machines operated by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. I would like to have

the statistics for the number of video slot machines presently, the number for

each quarter during the last fiscal year, and an indication of whether there are

any plans to increase the number of video slot machines in the Province over the

next year or two?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, obviously we will do

what we can, and I put it that way. I asked one of my officials here and I was a

little taken aback because there is no revenue item in our estimates to cover

these things. These fall within Finance. The revenue comes within the purview of

my colleague the Minister of Finance. We have a licensing responsibility. What I

will undertake to do is speak with Mr. Vivian, or have somebody speak with him,

and we shall get what information we can in response. The rest, I assume, is

available through the Minister of Finance but I understand lotteries is a growth

business and whether that is good, bad, indifferent I cannot say. There is a

divided responsibility there. I think we license some of these things. For

example the directors on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation are the Deputy

Minister of Finance and the Secretary of Treasury Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms. Verge.

Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: I have just a couple of points, Mr.

Chairman. I do not want to take up a great deal of time. I will probably direct

this to the minister but it is in response to the question the vice-chair, Ms.

Verge, just asked the minister. I have heard this same question at least five or

six times over the last three or four years and again when I was Minister of

Social Services. I am really surprised that the hon. member, who has been

kicking up such a fuss in the House of Assembly about wanting to ask the

Minister of Justice a number of questions relative to his department, would ask

the minister the number of cases of sexual assaults against women, the number of

cases against children, and whether they are on the increase. Well, it is common

knowledge that the reports are certainly on the increase but the Minister of

Social Services carries those statistics and I can tell her very clearly that

they are on the increase. I told her the numbers, I think, last year and the

year before on the exact number of cases reported and the types of situations

around each family but there are no statistics to tell you if it is on the

increase against mothers and children. It happens all over the area but that is

a statistic of the Department of Social Services and not one of the Department

of Justice. The Minister of Social Services and all the officials could give,

and have given, answers to those questions.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Chairperson.

This is not a productive use of the time of the

committee but obviously while the member for Port de Grave may not realize this

assaults are a criminal activity and it is very much the responsibility of the

Department of Justice.

MR. EFFORD: I was not taking up time. I understand

what you are saying but I was clarifying for you, if you did not understand it,

that those statistics can be obtained. You asked, what were the cases on the

increase? What were the numbers of the present day cases?

MS. VERGE: When I asked for cases I was talking

about police investigations and prosecutions.

MR. EFFORD: That was the third part of your

question. Anyway I was just making that point because I think it is important.

When I made my first comments I realized that young offenders and sexual

assaults against children are the responsibility of social services but what I

was trying to get at, from where I was sitting, was what was happening once

these people are led into the system and led into the adult correctional system.

I think that is the main concern I have because once they get into the adult

system at eighteen years of age, and as it is such a large system, they tend to

get lost. That is the point I was making. What happens in the system? What

happens to the children who are abused? Whether it is 1000 cases or 10,000 cases

is an important issue but what happens to the victims after the assaults and the

convictions have taken place, and also to the young offenders? I realize it is

the responsibility of the Department of Social Services.

There is one young man I referred to, and I could have

referred to dozens and dozens, who was a young offender and ended up just last

week, as was reported in the news, down in the penitentiary. In fact he was one

of the escapees who has, I think, since returned to the penitentiary. That is

where I think the system, all of it, is not necessarily the responsibility of

the Department of Justice any more than it is that of the Department of Social

Services, Heath, Education, or anything. The whole system is failing to deal

with that and that is where we are paying the price. It is not a matter of

whether there are eighty in the jail cells versus accommodation for fifty. It is

a matter of human beings getting lost in the system. I think that is what we are

talking about and that is the concern I had. I think it is not the fact that the

actual cases are on the increase it is just the fact that they are being talked

about more and the public are being made aware of them by the media and by

people coming forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister have anything he

wishes to respond to?

MR. ROBERTS: What I would do is agree with the

hon. Member for Port de Grave. I touched upon this before and I assume you do

not want to get into it again now even if I were competent to address the issue.

There is a great deal wrong with the whole prison system and the whole way in

which we treat offenders in this country. It is not unlike, and I must say this,

Winston Churchill's famous aphorism about democracy, 'it was the worst system

ever tried except any other system that was ever devised.' I say to my hon.

friend the problem is nobody knows how to improve it. What he says is right, the

recidivism rate in Canada is huge. The incarceration rate in Canada

proportionately is twice or thrice many comparable societies. On the other hand

the murder rate here is a tenth of the American rate. Nobody has the answers to

these questions but we must move forward on them because they go right to the

heart of our society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: In response to your last comment I do

not believe there is nothing we can do about the system. You indicated that the

prisons are overflowing in part because we have no control over it and the

judges can sentence how they like. There is one aspect, I suppose, that can be

directly dealt with by government in terms of the prison population. Perhaps we

can start by asking: do you have the answer to the following question which

would be how many, or what percentage of people in our prisons are there because

they are unable to pay fines that have been imposed upon them by the courts, and

could you tell us the cost per day of keeping these people, all individuals in

prison in the provincial system? I think there is a cost per day figure that is

probably fairly readily available but perhaps the other one is not; how many

people are there because they have not paid fines? There can be a response to

that and that would be like some other provinces have, what they call a fine

option program, some form of alternative to prison for those who are unable to

pay fines. Indeed, if there were some other sort of quasi rehabilitative program

based in the community, then the provincial court judges who are the main people

responsible for sentencing in criminal matters, might not be so anxious to fill

up our prisons to overflowing, so can you respond to that perhaps and give us

some specific answers about what might be done?

MR. ROBERTS: I would be delighted to respond, Mr.

Chairman, but before I do so let me say that the hon. gentleman quite properly

brought me up when I said 'nothing we can do' I was speaking in a very general

sense. There are many things we can do but there is no one answer, there is

certainly no easy answer; there is no universally accepted answer and any answer

is bound to be expensive. The hon. gentleman I think raises a very important

point. I am told we do not have numbers of how many or the percentage of persons

who go through our prison system who are there because of their failure to pay

fines but it would be significant -

MR. HARRIS: Can we get it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh we can get it for you.

MR. ROBERTS: We can get that and I will undertake

to have it provided for you. I should say we tried to anticipate the questions

we might be asked; we are batting about 50 per cent I would say at this stage,

whether that is good or bad, others will have to decide. The cost per day is

about $130 per person, so to keep an individual in jail for a week, costs

roughly $900 and that would be board and lodging, a little below the rates of

the Hotel Newfoundland and the Radisson, but still very expensive.

We are deeply involved in trying to develop a fines

option program. Now I do not want to go into it in detail because I am not sure

the Cabinet has addressed it so I cannot announce government policy and I am

certainly not going to say what I recommended to the Cabinet because I think

that is constitutionally highly improper, and I know that I am not being asked

to, but let me just talk of some of the parameters generally.

There is whispering going on behind me about things we

have done in Cabinet. I have not been in Cabinet meetings for weeks, if the

truth be known, because the Cabinet meets on Thursdays and I have been all over

the country on Thursdays, but there are two types of fine option situations. One

is partially in our jurisdiction, partially the criminal code, where a judge

will say: I fine you $1,000 or in lieu of that so many days in jail; that is

essentially a criminal code or a charging statute, a penal statute provision.

Some of those under the

summary jurisdiction act is ours, but the criminal code

of course is federal.

There is also a situation where we have one kind of

fine option, you know: we sentence you to community service instead of jail.

There is another one where a guy simply cannot pay the fine and he is told: it

is $500 or two weeks in jail, whatever the current equation is. The guy says:

well I do not have the $500, you cannot get blood from a turnip, I will have to

go to jail. That does not help anybody if he does not have the $500.

We are looking at other options and other ways to - I

mean the purpose of a criminal sentence is to punish, to deter, all these

principles. It is to have an effective punishment that is fair to the individual

who has been sentenced and fair to the society who sentences him, so what I say

to my hon. friend is, I hope that very shortly, we shall be able to announce at

least a pilot program here in the St. John's area, which is the greater part of

the problem, the more immediate part, the larger part, and it will be along we

hope, some fairly imaginative lines, but the system is not working now. It is

not working properly and we want to try to improve it.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. I am pleased to see that

something is happening there but I would appreciate the numbers and I

acknowledge that the minister has undertaken to provide the statistics to the

committee with respect to people serving time as opposed to paying fines.

Another area of great interest to me and to many members of the community, Mr.

Minister, and that has to do with the provision of services to victims of sexual

assault.

The Springdale Crime Prevention Committee has written

to me and others I think expressing concern about problems in the Green Bay area

where they have indicated that there have been in excess of 150 reported cases

of sexual abuse. They go on to say: if we believe statistics, this is only a

small percentage of the actual sexual assaults that occur. They are concerned

that there is a need for preventative and rehabilitative programs as well as

counselling services for victims and their families. They say there are no such

programs offered in Green Bay, and in fact very few exist in the Province.

What they specifically ask, Mr. Minister, is that

there be a sexual abuse victims service coordinator for the district of Green

Bay. Now this would presumably be part of the minister's program. But I would go

further than that and ask: having had a look at the program, there does not

appear to be any provision for extra counselling outside of the court process

itself. But we know that the court process is particularly traumatic for victims

of sexual abuse. Equally important after the court process has taken care of the

'justice' side of things, that there still is the trauma of life that the

individual victim of sexual abuse has to go through, and it is a very complex

and perhaps sometimes a long-standing problem that requires long periods of

counselling.

What plans does the minister have, having taken the

action in the crimes compensation area of taking the money out of the hands of

the victims who could presumably buy services with that, and make them available

I suppose by creating a market for them, what alternatives does the minister

have in that area? Is the minister able to respond to the request by the

Springdale Crime Prevention Committee to have a victims services coordinator

stationed in, presumably, Springdale or in the Green Bay district?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me first give

credit where credit is due. That letter I think was a copy of a presentation

made to the PC caucus when it visited Stephenville -

MR. HARRIS: It's a letter to me.

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon? Yes, I have it too. They sent

it to me. Fair enough. Common practise is to send it to everybody. What I want

to say is that was a presentation made to the PC caucus. Now I was not there.

Even were I elected, I say to my friend for Humber East, I would not have been

there, but that is on grounds of taste and political judgement.

Now let me come to the problem itself. My hon. and

learned friend, to use the context - there was once a member who was honourable,

learned and gallant, but there is nobody in the House now who is gallant. There

are some who are learned, and all are honourable.

First of all, sexual assault victims certainly have

undergone trauma and certainly need help. I would make the point - and I take it

my friend would agree - that they are not the only people who need help. They

may be the most traumatic and certainly they got the most attention in this

Province, for understandable and proper reasons.

Second, the response to that comes from a number of

departments. Social Services, Health, because of course all these people are

entitled to the benefits of counselling provided - I'm talking now of

psychiatric counselling, these can be psychiatric problems - and we have a role

in the Department of Justice. We have increased the victims services branch

activity substantially. The estimates reflect that. But I am the first to say we

have not done enough. We are making progress. We are focusing at this stage on

helping people to work their way through the court process. My hon. friend says

that is only part of it and he is right. There is the post-court process.

I am not sure that is a Justice Department matter. I

acknowledge it is a government or a societal matter. I would also agree with him

that not enough has been done, but once again, I must say, the fact of life in

government is we are juggling ever scarcer resources.

Now, let me come through to the other point you raised

because I want to address it if I may, Mr. Chairman. It is this: we ended the

Crimes Compensation Program and took some of the money - we haven't ended it,

there was $1 million there this year. We have decided to put our resources - and

I use 'our resources' because the federal government backed out of this, got the

provinces in and left them hanging high and dry once again, those charitable

ladies and gentlemen up in Ottawa. They have shown no concern for criminal

compensation, but we have decided that the best way we can use our resources is

in the victim impact, the Victim Services Society. We have set up branches in

Happy Valley, Gander, Corner Brook, and in St. John's. Here in St. John's we

have contracted the Salvation Army.

I hope and expect - but certainly make no guarantees,

I can't make them - we will expand that in the years to come. I think I should

say, too, that on the Crimes Compensation Program, my hon. learned friend says

these people could have purchased something. Maybe they could have. They

certainly had an amount of money they could spend as they want, but the awards,

by definition, were quite small, $4,000 and $5,000. I have the report here. The

average award has been quite small.

The reason the costs have been going up astronomically

in that program is that the number of people coming forward to claim under it

has been increasing. I will say, and I think my hon. friend would agree, that

you can't buy a lot of counselling for $4,000 or $5,000. Now, I am not saying

you can't buy any, and I am certainly not saying that it wouldn't have been more

desirable to keep the program than to end it. What I will say is we faced a

decision. We did what we believed to be the best decision given the factors I

have just told you about. I am convinced it is the right decision, but can tell

my learned friend that it was as tough as any decision we had to take this year

in connection with the Budget. I don't know if I have addressed his concerns

satisfactorily. I mean, I am satisfied with them, but I have tried to address

them, and again, I would be happy to carry on because I think this is a very

important area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: There is one point I wouldn't want to

leave on the record without correcting it: The minister may not be fully aware,

but in addition to the lump sum payments that Crimes Compensation were able to

make to individuals, they quite often, where counselling was indicated, also

indicated that the Crimes Compensation Board would pay for counselling upon the

submission of invoices to the board. That was, in fact, over the last couple of

years, I understand from the people at the Crimes Compensation Board, becoming a

part of the awards, particularly sexual assault cases where individuals were

given access to counselling, where services were available and could be

purchased, that the Crimes Compensation Board would pay for it. That was

available throughout the Province whether there was a victim services

co-ordinator, as you have now, enforcing it. Wherever anybody could get

counselling there was counselling paid for by the Commission.

MR. ROBERTS: I may be under misapprehension and if

so I will gladly acknowledge it. My understanding is that the Crimes

Compensation Board doesn't purchase counselling services. Let me read the

concluding

section of the reports from Mr. Badcock. This is the report for the

current year, ending 31 March 1991, which I just happen to have here. 'The board

acknowledges the valued contribution of all court officials, police forces,

hospitals, doctors, counsellors, and legal counsel involved in the presentation

of matters for its consideration. The police reports to the Province have been

very co-operative in providing reports that are of great assistance to the

board. Without these reports, victims would have to explain the events at the

hearing. Doctors' and counsellors' reports are especially essential to the board

and it acknowledged with appreciation the submission of these reports from

skilled physicians and counsellors at very reasonable fees.' That is the end of

the report.

MR. HARRIS: I am speaking of the awards,

themselves. The Crimes Compensation allowed a maximum of up to, I think, $20,000

per individual and the $5,000 or $6,000 you are talking about is one aspect of

the award for pain and suffering. But the provision of services in the nature of

counselling is something that the board would, as part of its award, say that

they would pay for on behalf of the victim. So victims would have to submit

invoices based on their obtaining counselling that they had to pay for, and the

board would then pay it as part of the ongoing award. So it wasn't something

that would have to come out of what the individual was receiving but was

something that was part of the award of the board, itself. I can discuss it with

the minister afterwards, but I did not want to leave the record showing that the

crimes compensation scheme had victims paying for services out of the lump sum

award that they might have received.

MR. ROBERTS: I will ask my deputy minister, Ms.

Spracklin, who is more familiar, to answer that. Before I do, let me just - we

are having a consultation, as you can see, Mr. Chairman. Last year the board

spent $353,000 - $339,000 was in lump sum awards. I am reading from the report.

I am leaving out the hundreds and the cents. But $339,000 was spent on lump sum

awards which are just given in a cheque, presumably. Blended awards came to

$4,180; monthly periodic payments brought forward from previous years came to

$6,600; and they have the power to revisit awards and review them, and that came

to $3,445. That gives you the total. The feds contributed less than 40 per cent

of it. But Ms. Spracklin, I think, can add to it, because we think the hon.

gentleman is right, it is just that we can't find the figures here.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Chairperson. The

legislation governing the Crimes Compensation Program requires that the minister

responsible table an annual report of the board in the House of Assembly.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: That has not been done yet this session

of the House, and I would like to ask, first of all, that that be done this

afternoon, and that copies be made available -

MR. HARRIS: The minister can come to the House

this afternoon and table it.

MS. VERGE: - through the full House.

MR. ROBERTS: I would like nothing better than to

come to the House and take a seat, but I can't today. The hon. lady is correct.

We are under an obligation to table it. We shall table it. The copy I have, I

saw on the weekend. This is not - when I say it is not ready, it's got my

scribblings all over it. But we shall table it as obliged to, and gladly. I

would think it is a story that members would want to read about, and we are

proud of the work of Mr. Badcock and his colleagues. We will table it as soon as

we can. I do not even know how many copies there are around.

MS. VERGE: Unfortunately, not proud enough to

allow it to continue.

MR. ROBERTS: That's a cheap shot, and I am not

even going to respond to that kind of cheap shot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Ms. Spracklin going to have

something to say or has that passed?

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to add to not the cheap

shots, but to Mr. Harris' points?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I can, if Mr. Harris wants. Mr.

Harris is correct that the board could make an award for expenses incurred by a

victim in obtaining medical assistance including the costs of counselling. The

major problem that we faced, and our attention was directed to it by victims,

was that number one, there is no counselling out there to purchase, outside the

major centres. There just aren't counsellors there. You couldn't assist them by

giving them money for that.

Secondly, they had to have a certificate of

conviction, by and large, to come before the board. That would be two or three

years, sometimes, after the actual offence, from the time of the offence to when

the thing went through preliminary hearing, trial and conclusion, and then came

on before the board. So they were basically asking for community services at the

time of victimization and forward, rather than having to wait. I think they were

feeling as victimized by the system as they were by the original crime.

So our objective, frankly, is to try to deliver

counselling at the community level to victims and not make them wait all this

time. It would be our intention to work with volunteer and other groups in the

community to develop those services at a community level. Obviously, we are

going to have to have help from Social Services, and Health, as well. There are

various levels of help needed. Some help can be provided by support peer group

counselling. Others may need more specialized care which really has to be

delivered in the health care setting.

So, it is the intention of our Victim Services

Division to assist in the process of developing the necessary services. It is

not going to happen overnight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Warren.

MR. HARRIS: Is there a specific answer for the

people of Springdale who presented, in person, as the minister quite rightly

points out, to the PC caucus, put by letter to the other two -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, I have to interrupt you.

You have had your turn. Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: If the minister wants to respond to

Mr. Harris' comments -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there is no provision

in the Estimates for this position. That is really as far as I can go. We do not

envisage it in this current fiscal year. The hon. gentleman would agree, I

think, that it would be wrong to make policies simply on the basis of a group

making a request. That is a legitimate thing to be addressed, but we are not

going to simply appoint these people where requests were made. We are going to

look at the needs of the entire Province and apply our resources as best we can.

But I think I have written to the people in Springdale. I am pausing because

there is so much mail that I have dictated and not yet had a chance to sign. It

may be one of those letters.

Your concern is genuine. I acknowledge it. It is just

that we are not going to be able to put somebody in Springdale for this purpose

this year. No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to continue on the same format I did earlier, asking a number of questions and

the minister could answer them.

Recently the House passed a resolution that the name

of the Province change from Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. As a constitutional lawyer - that is the term I would use for you now,

Sir, as you have indicated that you have been deeply involved with the

constitutional process in our Province. Would the minister advise if provinces

other than Newfoundland, and the federal government, have to be involved in this

matter in order for us to change the name of our Province to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

My second question to the minister -

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member

raises a good point, of course, but, as he well knows, being vice-chairman of

the committee empowered to look into this issue, one certainly would not want to

just throw it out for a commentary. We have been mandated by the Legislature to

go out and research this question. I would hope the hon. member would allow for

that process to take place rather than see it thrown out to the Committee today.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order.

I don't know what my hon. colleague is up to. The Minister of Justice is the

Minister of Justice for our Province, and surely goodness, instead of us going

out around the Province to meetings trying to find out whether it is right or

wrong, we have a constitutional lawyer here in our presence now, who is part of

this government.

MR. HARRIS: He was appointed for that very reason.

MR. WARREN: This is exactly why I am asking the

minister the question. So, if my hon. colleague is upset now because he is

afraid the minister might give the right answer or the wrong answer, sobeit. I

think it is a good question for the minister.

MR. HARRIS: He won't be able to travel around the

Province and grandstand.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what any

hon. gentleman is up to but let me say this: I don't have a copy of the

Constitution Act here. There is a section; from memory it is

Section 43 of the

1982 amendments. It is in the amending formula part which says that where a

matter affects only one province, a constitution in respect to that matter may

be changed upon resolution of the Legislature of that province and two Houses of

Parliament in Ottawa.

The issue would be whether a change in the legal name

of this Province from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador affects only one

province. I do not think it proper of me to offer an opinion here now, and I do

not think my hon. friend from Torngat is asking for one. If he is, I would agree

with my hon. friend from Eagle River that I shouldn't give it.

There are a number of amending provisions in the

constitution. There are unanimity provisions, there are 7/50 provisions, and

then there is the 'one province only' provision; so the issue would be into

which it falls. I think it would be premature for me to offer an opinion. I

don't know whether the Committee will ask us for an opinion. Quite candidly, I

am not sure that we can advise the Committee. Our job is to advise the minister.

The House seeks its own legal advice from wherever it seems appropriate; but I

guess that is a question for another day.

What I will say to my friend from Torngat is, there is

a

section in the Constitution, I think it is 43, but please don't hold me to

that, that says - I don't know if either Ms. Murphy or one of my colleagues here

... nobody seems to want to volunteer an answer but it is there anyway - if the

matter affects only this Province, or any one province, but that is the issue.

Of course, my learned friend will acknowledge that

since 1964 the Government of this Province have called themselves the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is followed properly and faithfully.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Minister, by the government in

1964 calling us the Province of -

MR. ROBERTS: The House of Assembly passed it, yes.

MR. WARREN: That is right - the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Actually, it is on our letterhead and things like

that. That is basically why I ask you the question, could it be just by our own

Legislature and the two Houses in Ottawa, the House of Commons and then also the

Senate?

MR. ROBERTS: A good question.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Minister, a number of months ago

there was a serious, fatal fire in the Innu community of Davis Inlet. It has

been a considerable time since this tragedy took place, and there is a lot of

concern expressed throughout my district, and probably in other parts of the

Province, that - and I probably reflect back to Springdale Street a few years

ago when there was a fatal fire; a person died on Springdale Street. It was just

a matter of a month or a couple of months thereafter that there was an inquiry.

I am just wondering, has the minister decided to proceed with an inquiry into

this fatal fire tragedy, or is the minister satisfied with the police report? I

think that is my question.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, to that, Mr. Chairman,

because I think it is a terribly good question, first of all let me straighten

out one point. I do not take these decisions. The Act vests them with the

Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin Flynn. I know there was an RCMP

investigation, as there would be in any such situation. I do not know if that

has been completed. I do not know if Mr. Flynn has taken a decision. I have just

asked one of my officials to see if we can find out by telephone if I can make

an answer. I don't know when the Committee rises. We will be here for a little

bit. If I can make an answer I shall. It is not my decision and, as far as I am

aware, no decision has been taken. It is Mr. Flynn's decision whether there is

an inquiry or not. I don't want to go beyond that until I know whereof I speak.

My hon. friend, having served in the ministry, would agree that is wise practice

for a minister.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I

am going to deal with the Native issues on several other short topics.

In Nova Scotia recently, Staff Sergeant Emerson

Kaiser, who had performed here in our Province with the RCMP over a number of

years -

MR. ROBERTS: He was an inspector, I think.

MR. WARREN: That is right. He has recently been

appointed to organize or to co-ordinate a Native police force in Nova Scotia.

When I heard this I thought it was a good move on somebody's part. I know the

minister has only been in the Department of Justice a short time but he has been

in the ministry for a number of years and I am sure he is aware of the Native

concerns in our Province. Has the minister had other examples of consideration

of a Native police force?

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend says I have been in

the ministry, and that is true, but I have to tell him it was almost twenty

years to the day from the day I left Government House, no longer a minister, to

the day I went into Government House and joined the Cabinet again, so what

happened twenty years ago is not altogether relevant. I am told by my colleagues

to stop telling war stories. I hear that frequently.

The Nova Scotia authorities have a good man in Emerson

Kaiser, in my view. This is a subject I have not gone into but it is an area

that we have to address.

The problems of policing the aboriginal communities

are very troubling. My hon. friend is familiar with Davis Inlet and Nain. While

there are other communities in his district, those seem to be the two most

prominent ones. The matter is complicated very much because of the fact we are

on the verge of some kind of self-government, as he and I discussed earlier, Mr.

Chairman. We don't know what form that will take. It may well include some

policing functions. All I can say to my friend is that all of us in the

department - and I think I speak for the RCMP, as well, on this point - take

this matter very, very seriously.

The regular police mechanisms, it would appear, may

not be appropriate to police these communities and you probably have to extend

that to the regular justice systems at least to some extent. Now, this is an

awfully thorny issue, I say to my friend, and a very contentious one.

We are also in the middle of a negotiation process, as

my friend knows, with both the LIA and the Innu nation and that has impacts on

policing, as well. I assume he does not want me to get into this question of

aboriginal hunting and fishing rights but these are issues with which we must

address the Supreme Court. Ian Sparrow has blessed us with this. Indeed, when he

spoke in Nova Scotia, I thought he was going to mention the 1752 Micmac Treaty.

There is an argument, as my hon. friend knows, that this may apply to this

Province. So, all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that in some ways these are

extremely complex issues with interfaces on a great number of public policy

areas. I don't plan any immediate moves but it is an area I hope to put some

attention on, assuming the electorate, in due course, wherever I may seek a

seat, blesses me and allows me to carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would any other members like to have

the floor at this point?

Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Minister, one final question to

you, Sir, with respect to the Whitbourne Boys' Home. I understand there was an

issue of grave concern there some time ago between the inmates and the

custodians. Would the minister like to bring us up to date on the events that

took place at the Whitbourne Boys' Home on this particular occasion?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, because the home falls

under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Social Services, the

hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, I cannot answer that.

MR. WARREN: But, Mr. Minister, the police were

also involved in that, I understand.

MR. ROBERTS: My policy is to make no comment on

any police investigation. If they were requested by the authorities to

investigate, they would investigate. If charges need to be laid they will lay

them. I will read about them in the newspaper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MS. VERGE: I have a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, the discussion this

morning has been fairly wide-ranging. As much as possible, I and my colleagues

have let it go and done our very best to co-operate with the members of the

Opposition so that -

MS. VERGE: You've done a good job of running

interference, I'll give you that.

MR. WALSH: - as many questions as possible could

be asked. I am wondering, are we ready to at least deal with the Estimates in

terms of 2.1.01 all the way through to 5.1.10. That would simply leave Executive

and Support and Services to be dealt with. I am prepared to make that motion now

MR. DUMARESQUE: Seconded.

MS. VERGE: I have some detailed questions.

MR. WALSH: - unless there are some questions we

want to deal with right into, and I suggest we go to those now, Mr. Chairman, if

we could. We could deal with them as opposed to the wide-ranging questions. Some

of the detail they may wish, would come up in those areas. But I am prepared to

move 2.1.01 through.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I second that.

MR. WALSH: I am prepared, unless there are some

questions that somebody would like to go to now.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have already indicated

that I have some questions in mind that I would like to ask. So, in my opinion,

we are not ready to ram through the works.

MR. ROBERTS: May I, Mr. Chairman, simply respond,

to follow up on the Davis Inlet point? I am told the Crown - and that would be

the attorneys, Mr. Flynn or one of his

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Committees
Citation	1992-05-19
Type	committee
Volume / chapter	committees_standingcommittees_socialservices_ga41session4_1992-05-19_ssc-jus_.htm
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bd019d5d80752cb9e8002577e1ee08bb7237b639

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).