4 Vol. 1 No. 40 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRAN SCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1982

November 16, 1982 Tape 2298 PM - 1 The house met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : Oider, please! LEAL ()UI ;si' I ONE MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three questions here for the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) possibly more depending.of course,upon his answers. Mr.

Speaker, these,of course, grow out of- they all relate to the same situation-they grow out of the state of affairs disclosed by , I guess, the Premier and the minister speaking last week at a press conference with relation to the financial situation in which the government find themselves. I wonder if I might begin by asking the minister if he could advise the House whether the government, by which I embrace both the political government, the ministry, and the officials who work for the government, the public service, whether the government from time to time carry out reviews of the Budget during the year?

To be more precise ,whether they carry out reviews with respect to the expenditure predictions and the revenue predictions,which are, after all,the basis on which the estimates are prepared, the estimates can only be estimates, but as the year goes by are reviews carried out by the government? And if they are, as I assume they are, perhaps the minister could tell us by whom, I do not mean by what individual, but what level or what branch of the service? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, yes,on a monthly basis a report is compiled by officials in the Department of Finance as to what the expenditures are like at that point in 4617

November 16, 1982 Tape 2298 PK 2 DR. COLLINS: time, and these are compiled on the basis of information that is sent in by the various departments. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of expenditures. Are there comparable reports for the revenue forecast contained in the Budget? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are, but I think it is somewhat more difficult to (Jet a good handle on the revenues. 1

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 229) SD - 1 DR. COLLINS: Let me say this, approximately 50 per cent of our revenues are from federal sources and we get proiections about once a quarter from the federal government on those various projected transfers. MR. ROBERTS; WhaL about sales tax, our own sales tax? DR.

COLLINS: We get again a monthly report there but,in terms of sales tax, as everyone knows,I suppose, there are sometimes delays in the monies being referred in We got the returns but sometimes there are delays in the monies accompanying them,and then we have to go after these monies, and in many cases we then have to put a penalty on and sometimes there are interest charges against overdue accounts, that type of thing. So at the end of, say, a particular month we may have an amount related to that month in retail sales tax which will change as the months go on because of these other charges I mentioned.

MR._ROBERTS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russoll): Supplementary, the hon. member for the Strait of BeHe Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate, I think, what the minister is saying. ruL f am sure he would agree - and ol I of us involved in the work of the Public Accounts Committee would be very familiar with this because it was a very prominent subject during our recent series of hcarinqs that Mr.

Carew and his associates attended and were most helpful to the Committee on - that the percentage of the sales tax that is not collected , while it may be a lot of dollars it is $15 million, I think, being carried on the books at present over a ten or twelve year period the percentage is relatively slight. So what I am suggesting to the minister, to put it in perspective, is that at the end of each month he has a reasonably accurate figure as to what the sales tax,and presumably the gasoline tax and the tobacco tax, the 4819

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2299 SD - 2 MR. ROBERTS: big three provincially imposed provincially collected taxes, what those three are yielding.

Now what I would like to know - let inc just take as a (ate the fist of September, which would be five months into th fiscal year, would there have been i review at the end of that period which would give the minister some indication of wher a we, the Province, stand with rcspe(t to, on the one hand, the expenditure, whether it is within the budget that is forecast and, on the other hand, the revenues, whether they are within the forecast set forth in his budget statement and in the detailed estimates? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Minister of l"iriancc. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned, on a monthly basis we qet these reports and with the S S 87O

November 16, 1982 Tape 2300 NM - 1 DR. COLLINS: provisoes I have mentioned that there has to be as time (toes on some refining of the fiqures, some updating of the figures, those monthly figures are the best that we can qet at that particular time. So at the end of September, or whatever it was, after five months we would have five months' accumulated reports. Now I might mention this, Mr. Speaker, that I suppose no government is perfect. I do not think our tovernment is perfect, there are certain delays- MR. ROBERTS: The Premier nvly not agree. PREMIER PECKEORD: I would not do that. DR.

COLLINS: - I mean the bureaucratic government. I am sure the ministerial government is perfect. But there is a larcie bureaucracy, that means that there are some inefficiencies in it, there has to be. I think there are inefficiencies in everyones private office, there are inefficiencies in cvoryon&s home and so on. And beginning last Fall we put on some pressure on the bureaucratic machinery to make sure that their accounts, their calculations, their returns, were expedited to the greatest degree possible, and that I think did validate our figures compared to previous years to a large degree.

It did improve the figures,I should say, not validate them. it did improve the figures but I would not for one minute - Mt. ROBERTS: The speed with which they caine in. COLLINS: The speed with which they came in and the accuracy. I would not for one minute suggest that they are now to the maximum improvement possible, in other words up to 100 per cent, but I think there was a considerable improvement. ? 1

November 16, 1982 Tape 2300 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I thank the minister. Let me go back,if I might, to the Ottawa forecasts which I assume, and perhaps the minister can correct me if I am wrong ,would be in respect of four items, the EPF financing, the equaliition financing, both of which we receive as a Province from Ottawa through shared arrangements, and the two provincially imposed but federally collected tax sources, namely,the Corporate Tax and the Personal Income Tax.

Those are the four major sources,I wou1d suqqest,from Ottawa. There is certainly a lot of money comes through them. And the minister, as I understood him to say, said that we receive quarterly estimates, cuarterly reports from Ottawa presumably oredicting what is qoinq to come in the next period of time and tellinq us what has been received in the quarter un'cr report. Could he tell us when these are received? I mean,do we get one,sayin March which deals with the quarter beginning the 1st. of April, going April, May, June? What is the timinq of that? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, I suppose I would have to check and see if every year was the same as this past year. I cannot vouch that is the case. But I know this year we got our first report in April, and you recall that the budget was brought down the end of May; we got our next one approximately - I guess it was three months later, we got it in July, and then we got the next one in October. C 22

November 16,1982 rape No. 2301 ah-1 MR.SPEAIKFR(Russell): The lion, member for the Strait of Belle Isle. .R.ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the minister received, or his [ficials did and they brought IL in to him, of course, a report in April whIch said what had been collected and, more importantly, said what was expected to be collected not only during the next quarter but I assume during the fiscal year. Is that correct?

I wonder then if the minister could tell us when he first became awar' - presumably from these reports, but if not from the reports from vhcnce - when he first became aware of the fact that there in all likelihood was going to be a deficit? lie brought his budget in about the end of May was it not, mid-May? DR._COLLINS: May 27th. MR.ROI3ERTS: May 27th, the end of May,and in that there was a small but significant surplus predicted on the current account - DR. COLLINS: l'ive million.

MR.ROBERTS: Five million-forgetting how current account - I mean,that is a theological question-but at the end of May ,which presumably \roilcI have incorporated the April report from Ottawa and would have incorporated the April monthly reports on the provincial tax sources, so at the end of May there was a $5 million surplus on the current accounL. T wonder if he could tell us when he first became aware that we were headed for a deficit,which turns out to be monstrous $60 millions? MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Chairman, as I mentioned we get quarterly reports,and we have for a number of years, from the federal government. I do not know if they came in those months but we certainly get 14 R?3

Novembe.r 16j 982 'rape No. 2301 ah-2 DR. COLLINS: them every quarter. . It has been our happy experience in the past that,as far as my memory serves me,every time we got an adjustment it was an upward adjustment. Those adjustments were usually related to prior year recalculations and inevifably, or almost inevitably anyway,we got an upward projectic:n. In the projection we got in July it was a negative projection,anci we were very concerned about that and we started putting an increased 3urveillance mechanism in place,and that type of thing, and a review mechanism.

But at that point in time we were not sure whether that was an aberration because it did not seem to be consistent with the projections we got in previous years in terms of theue quarterly re!rts of the federal

November 16, 1982 Tape 2302 EC - 1 DR. COLLINS: government. We suspected it was not an aberration but we thought, you know, that there was a possibility that that may have been an aberration. KR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. IR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the member for the Rt:rait of Belle Isle. Bk. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and / again, I thank the minister.

I wonder when he says - what I heard him say was that he has been seeing these quarterly reports for a number of years, of course, as minister, and inevitably, or all but inevitably, if they erred, they erred on the small 'c' conservative side; they said that you will be getting $10 millions and in actuality it turned out to be $10.5 millions or what- ever the numbers may have been. And then he saw one in July, reporting for the rest of the current fiscal year, the 1982-83 year, which said you are going to be getting less than we had predicted in our earlier forecasts.

Could he tell us - and I realize he is going from memory, but these are the sorts of figures,surely,that stick in a man's mind, you know, they are of some importance - the order of the aberration (lawn, was it, you know, $1 million, $5 million, $10 million, $20 million? What I am trying to get at is we have a $60 million deficit,or a predicted $60 million deficit coming up between now and the end of March, and the minister had some indication in July that the federally collected monies might not be up to scratch. Could he tell us,please, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, whether the July forecast was ngative on all four of the items? 4925

November 16, 1982 Tape 2302 EC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Because I assume, and I think the minister has confirmed, that all four items are included in the forecast, the four federally collected or federally paid items. And secondly, could he give cia some indication of the scale of the downward trend, downward numbers which they indicated? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should explain one thing here sc that there is no confusion on it, and this was explained when we had a briefing for the press and other brielinqs a little while ago.

When we were encjaqed in renegotiating the liscal Arrangements Act in the early Spring - MR. ROBERTS: That is the EJIF Act. DR. COLLINS: The LFF and o(-lUaliZatiOfl too - we were informed by the federal government that the 1980 census meant that we had a lesser entitlement than they had been projecting since 1975. MR. ROBERTS : Ihat wou Id he because we bail fewer PeoPle? DR. COLLINS: We had fewer people. We had 20,000 fewer Nowfoundlanders than everyone thought we had. MR. ROBERTS: Like the revenge of the cradle the other way around. DR.

COLLINS: Something of that order, althouqh I tIti nk it was tarqely out-migration more Liim anythinq - MR. ROBE1Id: Ii vt n a' i I h hi' ic I cot - DR. COLLINS: - although I think

Noveniher 16, 1982 Tape No. 2:303 MJ - 1 DR. 1. COLLINS: ho reverse revenge oi the c.iidic (lid come into it. Now That meant that we had overpaymonts on equalization and on LPP from the federal government for numbers of years, and the federal government indicated that they were qoing to look at three years of overpayments. They were not going to go back to 1975 , they gore only going to go back three years. Durincj the negotiations we got a very strong indication from them that they would a1ow this overpayment to be phased in, our repayment of that overpayment to us. I hope I am not confusing people.

We had to return to the federal government the overpayments we received because - MR. E. ROBERTS: Because Ihr'v sade us a Bilipavors loan, as IIFC would call it. DR. COLLINS: Much the same. And we have to repay that. But we got a strong indication from the federal government that they would allow us to repay in installmonts,not in a lump sum,and they said we could do that in terms of the equalization overpaynLnts as well as the El'F overpayments. We got strong indications on that and we built into our budget in May an installment of those repayments.

Now when we got the projections in July, the federal government had by that time confirmed that the equalization overpayment would indeed be phased in, but they, in the mean time, had changed their mind on the El'P and I do not know why they did that. I do not know why they decided to let us phase in or pay by installments our overpayment for equalization and not for CPU,. MR. ROBERTS: Presumably they treated us the same as other province:;. DR. COLLINS: Yes. It was the same for all provinces,but throuqhoiit the negotiations they took a harder 148?7

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2303 MJ - 2 DR. J. COLLINS. line on ElF anyway than equalization. MR. E. ROBERTS: Of course, everybody gets Ef'F and only tan 'have nots' get equalization. DR. COLLINS: Everybody gets EPI' and 1 suppose the 'have nots' get equalization so tiny are a little bit softer in that regard. Now, that July proJect Len oL our trans fcrs from the federal qovernn ant was a hi t of i shock to us because here we were faced with a lump, a total r'payment of the EPF overpayments. MR. ROBERTS: 110w much uas that in dollars? DR. COLLINS: The total amount was $25 million.

We had budgeted for an installment of $6 million. MR._ROBERTS: About a quarter. DR._COLLINS: So here we were now faced with an extra requirement of repayment of $19 niiJbon. So the projections we got in July had those two things: One, that sudden EPF requirement and,two, certain turndowns in other things. Now, I might say that there was not negative tarndowns all along the boards. As a matter of fact, funnily enough personal income tax was up a bit,but S g 2 @

November 16, 1982 rape 2304 PK - 1 DR. COLLINS: corporate income tax was down very sharply. It was down from something like $54 million down to about $34 million or $32 million, that type of thing, almost halfed, something like 40 per cent less anyway. There was a very sharp turndown in that. There was a turndown also on equalization, unrelated to overpayments, based on population changes. There was just a turndown on equalization just because the economy had changed. MR. ROBERTS: A significant turndown, was it? DR.

COLLINS: I think it was, if my memory serves me, of the ordec of $6 million - $8 million, something of that order. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I thank the minister. Let me just follow this through now. He has told us that bad news came in July in that first of all the federal government said we are going to require you to pay back to us all your EPF overpayment - which is $19 millions more than you budgeted; we are going to expect to have all of that repaid during the 1982-1983 fiscal year.

And secondly, we got some bad news for you on corporate tax. And thirdly, we have some bad news fox you on equalization; you are not going La get aba L we expected you would get. Can the minister tell us wIt!IO[ LhaL paL ua 11AU DoiLcit - I do not want to get theological; I moan, when do you draw the line? But at that stage was the Province projecting a deficit on its current account? Because he has just accounted for $45 million. Can he tell us whether at that stage we were heading for a deficit? 29

November 16, 1982 Tape 2304 P1< - 2 MR. _SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Yes, as the hon. member mentioned that added up to a negative variance of $45 million. But as I mentioned there was somewhat unexpectedly a positive variance on personal income tax. MR. ROBERTS: DR. COLLINS: was about $12 million. lIR. NEARY: Of how much? If I remember correctly that Oh So the total negative variance was of the order of say $33 million. Now I am using very rounded figures MR. ROBERTS: I appreciate it. DR. COLLINS: - and just from memory but it was of that order.

And obviously that would put us in a definite budgetary position. Now I would like to recall to hon. members' minds that this was out of keeping with previous quarterly changes. So the question raised in our mind, is this something that is going to remain in place? Is it going to get worse the next time we get our projection? Is it going to get better the next time?

We were uncertain whether this was a piece of bad news that was going to stay in place or whether it was an aberration, but obviously we feared the worst,and I think it was prudent to do so, so we set in place then a very close review and monitoring 4 mechanism. MR._SPEAKER: The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister tells us that the government set in place a review and a monitoring mechanism which would 14 630

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2305 SD - 1 NIR.ROBLRTL: boll us presumably - the Premier 15 (living some instructions hero - presumably this would tell is, the Province, as we went along whore we were with respect c expenditures. Am I correct that the review and monitoring os with respect to expenditures or respect to revenue? DR. COLLINS: With respect to both. MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. The revenue would be monitored anyway through the types of information which the minister jnve us earlier on.

Now let me then ask about expendituros,becouse if we have a $61 million millstone around our necks these days and $33 million of it - before I go into expenditures,can the minister tell us the results of the September report which canto from Ottawa on these four sources? /\rc' we still heading for $33 million variance on those four sources or is it a little di.Ifeient? MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do want to emphasize I do not want to he held to these precise figures.

But there was a further negative variance in the October projection, when we got it in October. It was not as great. Again, if my memory serves me, it is around $6 million or $7 mi 11 i(lifl i.TS: Un addition to the previous one? DR. COLLINS [n addition to the previous one. MR. ROBERTS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. U MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: That is in addition to the $33 million, so let us round it off at $40 million. The minister i s using figures from memory and, I mean he is in effect echonq C.D.

Howe's old statement - alleged statement; he never did say it, in fact - f31

November 16, 1932 Tape No. ;305 SI) - 2 MR. ROBERTS: 'What is a million?'. But it is of the order of $40 million in negative variance. Now that means we are $21 million overspent on expenditures, that is presumably the way we get the $61 million - unJess, and lot me ask this then, unless we are down on retail sales tax: Are we down on retail sales tax? If so, by how much? And could the minister tell us again when he became aware of the fact we were heading for however far down we are on sales tax? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hoe. Ilinister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speakor, when the budget came down, towards the end of May , we had a pretty good handle on the first quarter of the year, that is the first quarter of the calendar year. MR. ROBERTS: Two inontho gone. DR. COLLINS: Pardon? MR. ROBERTS: Two montho gone. DR. COLLINS: No, of the calendar year. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I am sorry.

November 16, 1982 Tape 2306 NM - 1 DR. COLLINS: Sowe could,,I think, on the basis of the first quarter of the calendar year, give a reasonably good projection of what the first quarter of • our fiscal year was going to be like. I mcanyou know, it was a projection but it was a very close projection, • it was only a few months apart and presumably the economy was not going to go suddenly up or suddenly down. So we could build into our budget a pretty good idea of what retail sales tax would be in the first quarter of the fiscal year. And as events have turned Out that was pretty accurate.

It was not dead on but it was pretty accurate. By Lhe t:inie we jot the federal report in July,we had now some indication of what was happening in the second quarter of the fiscal year and that was considerably worse in terms of retail sales tax. And the fiqures up to the present,we have them in a preliminary fashion for October, and there has been some up and down but they have generally been in a negative phase. So up to the end of October we were looking at soiiething of the order of $9 million, $9.5 million less thin we projected in the May budget. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Sir, and may I again * 1:li ink my colleacjues for their assistance in letting me usue this line of questioning. So then we add them all • tojether and we are of the order of less than $50 million down on revenue, That is a lot of money. DR._COLLINS: Now that is the retail sales tax figures up to the end of October. If you annualized that, or projected it,wC were thinking it would be down about $16 million. 33

November 16, 1982 Tape 2306 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: So we add that on and we are down to $5 million overspent, again projecting forth for the year. Well.we will come back in due course to the minister and ask him for details of these $5 million in over expenditures, none of which,to my knowledqe,havo been authorized by the House even though the House is now again meeting. I do not know - were warrants tabled last week, special warrants of any sort? So we are not aware of any special warrants, these are over expenditures then on items that have been approved. DR. COLLINS: Projected.

Aqairi you are projecting for the full year. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes, projected. But, I mean, you know,all life is a projection, is it riot, Mr. Speaker? Now let me caine back, Can the minister tell us then why he and his colleagues chose to make no statement to the people of the Province? By the end of August it Ji 0

November 16,1982 Tape No. 2307 ah-1 MR. ROBERTS: would appear they rcalLzcd,they knew that in all likelihood- now, I know nothing is certain except death and taxes; not the yield [roni taxes but the fact of taxcs_ but they had every reason to believe on the best inlarmation which they had,and they got what information there was, that the total tax yield would be significantly down, that exnditures were up marqinallv.

Five million dollars on $1.5 billion is not a vast sum of nrine,, it is a lot of money in itself but not a big percentac so why did they not tell the peop[e of the Province that this was going to be the likely outcome?l mean,the minister will agree they did not tell. They told people outside the Province but they did not tell people in the Province. Could he tell the house, Sir, why this was so? MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think we did tell the people in the Province.Onc of the ways we told them was that we indicated there would be a very definite wage restraint progranuite. We sent out a signal in that respect in anticipation of not a very good year for the economy. That was something that every economist was projecting, that it would not be a very tood year in the early part of the year. SC) WO believed huni and we sent cii L that s Lqna I when We Sn id that those on the executive pay plan would be getting just a 5 per cent increase.

Shortly after that - I do not i-emember the ilute, it was sometime in June or July- I cannot recall in whit form this got out to the public but I am sure 1t did,that those on the management's pay plan would also only get 5 per cent and subsequently, in August, we indicated that the range of settlements we would see for those in the collective bargaining P. 3 5

November 16,1982 Tape No.2307 ah-2 DR. COLINS: Units would be in the range of 7-6-5 for the first year and 6-5-4 in the second year. So we were indicating to the people of the Province that the budget was causing us difficulties, ] think around the same time we were giving interviews with the press,and so on and so forth, indicating we would have to go into some sort of a formal budgetary review and we would ultimately end up in informing this hon. house at the earliest possible moment what that review indicated. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon . 111C111bet 1:0 r the Strait of Belle Isle. MR.ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, this is not the place to debate, so I will not draw any attention at all to the fact that when the government announced their 6-5-4 formula it was after the federal government had brought in the 6 and 5 formula so we were a punt bobbing along in the wake of the ship of state(federal). So again let me simply note that the minister did not tell us why he and his colleagues did not man-fashion make a statement to the people of this Province saying we were 4636

November 16, 1982 Tape 2308 EC - 1 MR.ROBERTS: heading for an horrendous deficit on current account. So let me then ask him why ho saw fit to tell people outside the Province that in all likelihood we were heading for a significant deficit at 3 time when he did not tell the people of the Province Lhcit? That i; the gist and the kernel of my question. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): I will permit the hon. the minister to answer and that will be the end of the Question Period. MR. ROBERTS: Ah, so quickly: Well, there will be other times, Sir. DR. COLLINS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, very quickly, as I think I Lndicatcd to the hon. member, we did indeed tell the people of the Province, perhaps not in the form that the hon. member now says we should have, but it is our view we did tell them. We told some people outside this Province in a more formal fashion,and the reason for that was that the credit rating agencies themselves had initiated a review of the financial status of various provinces including our own, so we had to make a formal presentation to them and, as is our wont, we laid out to them not only where we stood but where we projected we would stand.

MR.ROBERTS: You told them the truth but lid not tell the people of the Province the truth. Mci. SPEAKER: Order, please: REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Nll~ . GOBBlE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOBBlE: Mr. Speaker, I want to table copies of the Canada - Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency 14 837

November 16, 1982 Tape 2308 EC - 2 MR. GOUDIE: report and also the financial report of the Farm Development Loan Board. 000 MR. NEARY: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the regular order of business of this house be suspended to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, a crisis in hospitals and health care programmes brought about by government budgetary miscalculations and mismanagement. MR. MARShALL: Mr. Spcike r MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the technical question is the adjournment of the House for the purposes that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ncary) has given. I might say, on the matter of substance, there has been no change in the budget at the present time and I can say this is another one of the wild assumptions again of the Leader of the Opposition in an attempt to get 14 938

November 16, 1982 Tape 2309 PK - 1 MR. MARShALL: i little bit of press that the other Leader of the Opposition squeezed him out of today. But, Mr.

Speaker, the situation and I refer to Beauchesne on the matter of adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance, and of course it is covered in our Standing Orders, and I refer to page 92, paragraph 286, "The "specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration", for the discussion of which the adjournment of the house may be moved, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention" Paragraph 287 "Urgency' within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.' So on those two counts, Mr.

Speaker, I would argue that the motion is out of order, But there is another rule as well, Mr. Speaker, that requires the substance of the motion to be accurate and in this case the substance f the motion is inaccurate because there has been no change in the Budget of the government. MR. ROBERTS: Just pertaining to the reality, the Budget never did pertain to reality. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for Port au Port. MR. IJODDER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion refers to a crisis in hospitals and health care programmes. MR. ROBERTS: And there is a crisis. MR.

IIODDER: If the government opposite does not realize that there is a crisis in the hospitals and 4639

November 16, 1982 Tape 2309 PK - 2 MR. MODDER: in health care in this Province ,they must have their heads in the sand, Mr. Speaker. Because every day in the public media we hear of more layoffs and more cutbacks in the hospitals of this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. HODDER: So, Mr. Speaker, I submit - MR. NEARY: Why do you not canccl your cocktail parties and see that the hospitals remain open? MR. HODDER: - that the resolution Ls in order and that it should be debated here in the House of Assembly. SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear MR.

NEARY: Right: on: What could be more urgent than looking aftur sick oeople? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Urgent. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please: While the Chair is cognizant of the fact that the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) is of some importance and of some concern to a great many people, the Chair does not consider it important enough to adjourn the ordinary business of the House to consider this matter. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. MARSHALL: Order 47, Bill No. 60 MR. SPEAKER: Order 47. Notion, second readinci of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act". (Bill Nc. 60). SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh: 4840

November 6, 1982 Tape No. 2310 MJ - 1 MR. SPEJ\KER (Russell): Order, please! MR. WM. MARShALL: If I may, Mr. Speaker, the Orders of the Day ore Mill No. 60, Ortor No. 47, which I would ask Your Honour to take notice rather than the obvious ascending blood pressure of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Neary) Motion, second reading of a bill

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (No. 60) MR. G. OTTENUEIMFR: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAI<ER (Russell): The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTFNIIEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the orincinlo of this bill is an important one but a quite straiqhtforward one and it deals with the numbers of judges in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and the purpose of the bill is to increase the number of judqes from six to seven. As hon. members ire probably aware, all of these appointments are made by the Federal government.

These are federally appointed judges but enabling legislation is required on the part of the Province. lion, members may well recall that last year there were some additions to the judiciary. The Court ci Appeal was I neroaseil F rem three to ion r , the Trial Division of the Supreme Court was increased to six iudqes,anci this leqisaltion will p('rmit the appointment of an additional judqe,which will give a total of seven.

I should point out as well that next Fall it is the intention of the government toLIVO UiIo rqer of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court and the District Court and that of coursewill mean that there will no longer be a District Court or District Court judges they will all be members of the Trial Division of the Supreme Ceurt. There are at present eight District Court judges, I am pretty sure that is correct. MR. C. WARREN: Nine. There is one in Labrador. I. f( 4 1

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2310 MJ - 2 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: Nine. Yes. Of coursc 1Labrador is not appointed vet. MR. G. WARREN: But there are nine poesihflities. MR._OTTENIIEIMER: Nine possibiT ties. Ycs. Eight there, onc] the appointment of an additional one would make ninc So, for example, if the House concurs with this legislation ,and I would assume that it will, then with merger that would give a total of fifteen with the District Court judges as it Ls now,but in all probability it will give a total of sixteen because I would anticipate an appointment in Labrador within the ncxt few months.

Tenders were quite recently called. As a matter of fact, they were called some months ago and indeed about to be awarded and the lowest tenderer went out of business, went bankrupt or something happened. And iiow they have been tendered again, and 11 8 2

November 15, 1982 Tape 2311 NM - 1 MR. OTTENFIETMER: there are some renovations or alternations to be made in the buildinq But certainly I would anticipate within the next few months that there would be an appointment there which will give a total of nine district court judges and with the seven Supreme ('curt judges,which would be the total complement with he enactment of this legislation and an appointment by the federal government, we would have then with merqer a total of sixteen Supreme Court judges in the province altoqether.

So actually what this is is a bill to enable the appointment of one additional Supreme Court judge which would then bring the total to seven at this particular time, and with merger the total would be sixteen, that with the absorption of the district court judges into the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. But this particular bill, what this does of course is to allow the appointment of one additiona' judge, bringing the Trial Division of the Supreme Court from six to seven. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I go into details on the bill which the minister has so succinctly and so ably moved, let me first of all make a point which I believe has been made by a number of my colleagues, which I fully subscribe to,and that is to say that it seems - not it seems, it is a travesty and a mockery of the whole purpose of this Flouse that we are here debating even a bill this important at a time when this Province is facing an economic disturbance - I do not want to call it a crisis, a crisis may be too strong a phrnse - but economic troubles on the scale and of the maqnitude that confront us, particularly when the government of this Province obviously 8 4 3

November 15, 1982 Tape 2311 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: have not the least idea of how to cope with these problems, or how to deal with them, or how to alleviate them, or how to remedy them - MR. CARTER: (Inaudible). C MR. ROBERTS: - in the period ahead. I will not repeat that ad nauseam so the gentleman from St. Johns North (Mr. Carter) will not be able to understand it, but I do want to make the point and having made it [ will qo on to talk about the details of the bill. Let mc say that we on this side will support the bill.

It is not our choice that it be debated, but if the qovcrnment are qoinq to brinq it in we of course will debate it. We are forced to. The government are masters of the rules, are masters P L

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2312 SD - 1 of the orders of the house on four days of the week and this is one of them. We are prepared to support this Li 11 aol, in fact, we will go furthei - I hope he is not going too far from the Chambers He may be going out to feed his habit, his noxious habit of inhaling carcinogenic substances,and for the minister's own good he ought not to indulge in such a habit. I suppose he could say that his habit does help to balance the budget .

But I would say to him that is a dangerous road because the return on it to the Province on alcohol is far greater than even the return on cigarettes. So if he is going to smoke in the hope that somehow he will balance the budget / he would be bettor advised to go into the Controllers and spend his sustenance there including his - what was it? - his 25 per cent raise, or whatever it is the ministers gave themselves last year - and I do want to say to the ministry, and in particular the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenhoimer) and the President of the Council (Mr.

Marshall), that there ought to be provision made for two extra judges in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, not one. I am sure most hon. gentlemen are familiar with why we are doing this. The minister quite rightly pointed out that he and his colleagues do not eppont j udgen to the Supreme Court or :0 the District Court, they do appoint the judges of the U Provincial Court. Only the Government of Canada, the Governor in Council under the Constitution Act has the right and the authority to appoint what are called

Section 93 judges - 93or 94 - anyway to appoint federal judgos,but only the provinces can authorize the provincially constituted courtswhich includes the Supreme Court of this Province and the Supreme Court of every other Province. It is not our court anymore than the Supreme Court of Canada is not their court. Those are terms that every jurist and every lawyer finds highly offensive. Some courts are created by virture of statutes 4 84 5

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2312 SD - 2 MR. ROBERTS: enacted by PariLunent, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada; some are created by statutes enacted by the provincial Legislatures, including the Supreme Court of this and every other province. We do need extra judges in the High Court, the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, and I would suggest to the minister most earnestly that he ask to amend this bill. I am not sure if it need be done in Committee or it can be done in the I-louse.

We on this side would certainly give our consent if he wished to do it in the House and the rules said that it is a matter that required unanimous consent. I think we should provide for two extra judges,not one. Whether or not Ottawa chose to uppoint them is, of course, a mat tor for Ottawa to decide - we do not know what Ottawa is going to do-but I think if we create not just the seventh Trial Court judge but the seventh and the eighth Tri.di Court positiOnS we will have done our share. a

November 16, 1982 Tape 2313 EC - 1 MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying but a true saying that Justice delayed is justice denied,' and in this Province today, Sir, as the Canadian Bar Association - p Mk. MORGAN: (Inaudible) CARTER: The hon. ner.ber is denied. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the Abyss from Bonavisla South (Mr. Morgan) , a gentleman who does not have the courage to say outside the house what he says in the Mouse, and his soul mate, his heart mate, to quote the immortal John C. Crosbie, 'cheek to cheek, jowl to jowl, etc. to etc.' friend, the gentleman from St. John's North (fir.

Carter) , cannot restrain themselves in the face of my eloquent advocacy of a position, then let thorn tako themselves hence. Now, the point I am making, Sir, is that justice delayed is justice denied, and in this Province today, people seeking the justice,which is meted out by the Queen's courts,are not getting it; and the reason they are not getting it is that there are not enough judges.

The Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Newfoundland, one representing the trade union and the other representing the so-called professional interests of the so-called profession of which I am a member, have both told the minister, and subsequently LI the public through statements, that there is a great and uejent need for additional judges. We need not just one, we nood two. Today, here in St. John's, according to the information which I have, of the six judges who presently sit in the Trial Division, 484 7

November 16,1982 Tape No. 2314 ah-1 MR. ROBERTS: only one is available to hear matters. As I understand it,Mr. Justice Noel is on circuit in Western Labrador, Mr. Justice Lang, I believe, is in Goose Bay,which I understand .; his third trip of the year_this is the third circuit in Happy Valle—Goose By where it had fallen behind through no ilault of the judges with most unfortunate results_ Mr. Justice Steel,recovered from his recent illnesc is now doing a circuit in Corner Brook.

And I understand when he comes back another of the judges will have to go out because the number of matters set down out there is such that a judge will be needed. The Chief Justice , Mr. Justice Hickman,of cource is doing the Ocean Ranger enquiry. He has just finiched the Central Newfoundland circuit. Mr.

Justice Goodridge is doing circuits and will be doing a circuit even though he had asked and been granted,very censibly, leave to refrain from all other judicial duties until the end of March so that he could prepare and write his judgement on the CFLCo case, which is a matter of considerable irnportanco to the House and the people of this Province, a matter which resulted from an action brought by the Attorney General of Newfoundland - he is the plaintiff in the action. Mr.

Justice Goodridge has had to put aside his work on what is doubtless the most complicated matter ever dealt with in the courts of this Province, he has had to put that asicii' to do circuits and the result is that he will presumably be delayed in rendering his judgement on that most important matter, a matter which ought to be decided as quickly as possible. So that leaves us one udue, Mr. Speaker, to deal - MR.CARTER: You will never be appointed. MR.NEARY: You may be up before that judge - B

November 16,198 Tape No. 2314 ah-2 MR. ROBERTS: No. I say to my friend from Lapoile (Mr. Neary) that the gentleman from St. Johns North (Mr.Carter) will not be up before any judge because the judge has nothing to do with sanity. SOME 11ON.MEMBER;: Hear, hear: S MR.ROBERTS: The judge who is needed in the case of the gentleman from St. Johns North is one with psychiatric qualifications and perhaps sociological qualifications,and certainly one with charitable instincts. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point is an important one.. There is today only one judge of the Supreme Court available to hear matters.

MR.ANDREWS: Judcje not lest ye be judged. MR.ROBERTS: I am sorry. The gentleman from Burgco has once ajain honoured us with his thoughts whatever they were. MR.ANDREWS: Judge not. MR.ROBERTS: Judge not Jest ye be judged. I say to him from the same source ,Let he among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.' In which case the hon. gentleman, Sir, would be catching and not throwincj,i am sure. Now, Mr. Speaker, let an narry on because the point is an important one. I]

November 16, 1982 Tape 2315 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: The criminal trials are being given precedence, Mr. Speaker, and so they should be. The result is that civil matters are not being heard. That, Sir, is not a matter of the Proviric'e coming grinding to a halt, but it is a matter of difficulty, hardship evcr,being visited upon people, people waiting for a period of time to get into court to have their motor vehicle claim heard and disposed of, people waiting to get into court - MR. ANDREWS: (tnaudible). MR. ROBERTS: Look, if the gentleman from Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir (Mr.

Andrews) wants to be rude, of which he is capable, would he please be rude outside the House. I do not mind him being in here. lie has a right to be here. MR. ANDREWS: Go on, I am listening. MR. ROBERTS: No, I do not care whether he is listening or not. I know he cannot understand. All I am asking is would he be rude outside the House and not be rude inside the House. MR. ANDREWS: One ear is inside. MR. ROBERTS: lie can be crude anywhere he wants. Now, Sir SOMF' HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAXER (Aylward) : Order, please: MR. CARTER: Besides, the hon. member's time is )ust about up. Sit down. MF.ROBERTS-.

I can only say, Mr. Speaker, unlike the gentleman from St. John's North (Mr. Carter) my time may yet come

whereas his past a number of years ago. '4 9 5n

November 16, 192 1ap 2315 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: The point is, Sir, that the criminal matters must be given precedence,and they are. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the Province civil matters are not being dealt with uxpeditiously, and through no fault of the judges. So say to the minister quite simply that he ought to authorize two new positions and then leave it up to Ottawa as to whether or not they create them or not, If they do not create them, if they do not appoint the people once the jobs are created, then of course let it be on their heads. Now let me make another point, Sir.

The minister spoke of merger, and perhaps he could refresh my memory. I do not think the House has yet dealt with the merger legislation. He confirms that I am correct. Presumably we will at some point be asked to approve legislation to merge the two federally appointed courts in this Province, the so-called District Court and the so-called Supreme Court, and he quite rightly said that will olve us, with the new position being authorized here today, sixteen or seventeen judges in all.

I will say to him now that the fact of merger will not in itself make any significant contribution towards expediting the litigation process in this Province. I say to him now that the District Court in St. John' 1 in which three judges sit regularly and more sit fairly steadily- Judge Cummings 1 and Judge Barry both spend a qreat deal of time hearing matters hero in St. John's-so five of the eight district court judges spend a great deal of time here. Three of them spend all their time here, the Chief Judge,Mr. Adams, and Judge McCarthy, and Judge Riche - they are two years behind MR.

CARTER: What is wrong with - 651

November 16, 1982 Tape 2316 P1< - I The hon. gentleman - Mr. Speaker, look.I ordinary do not mind fun, but once in a while even the gentleman for St. John's North (Mr. Carter) becomes a will-not. Now I do not know if Your Honour knows what a will-not is, and if Your Honour does not, I will not tell you. But would he please, would the hon. gentleman for St. John's North, please shut up. And he only does it to try to get some attention. MR. CARTER: You have to be partisan. MR.

ROBERTS: If he got that sort of paranoia and that sort of left-out feeling a , he ought to speak to his mother or to his wife who may be able to do something for his ego. MR. NEARY: Or his dog. MR. ROBERTS: Or his dog. No, no, no. What do you have against dogs? MR. NEARY: Ire could talk to his plants. MR._ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me carry on. MR. NEARY: Talk to his savoury. MR._ROBERTS: Let me carry on, Sir, because the point is an important one. And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) is not unfortunately involved in dayto-day practice.

He is counsel to his firm, he has nothing to do with the firm, he is in here running the Justice Department. But the merger will not solve any problems. The District Court in Corner Brook,a year or two behind. The District Court in Brigus,for the Bonavista-Trinity-Conceptiori District, a year behind. When I say a year behind,I mean if you were to set a matter down today, if you were to finish the paper work, Mr. Speaker, to the point where it is ready to go before the court, all the preliminary papers and so forth are filed and 52

November 16, 1982 Tape 2316 PK - 2 MR. ROBERTS: all the lovely paper work that we lawyers so love to indulge in, when that is all filed you could wait a year or two years for a day to be available when the court can hear you. And until the court hears you 1 the court cannot decide; even when it hears you you may still have to wait a period of son time before the court gives its udqment, hefore the judge makes his judgment. So merger is not going to solve that. There is no significant,.under-used capacity in the district courts. MR. CARTER: Oh,be quiet! MR._ROBERTS: And that is the whole point of it, Mr. Speaker.

You know,if the minister thinks there is significant under-used capacity,I would suggest to him that he perhaps should speak with Chief Judqe Adams and ask him for a report. I am sure the Chief Judqe will be delighted to give it to him. But my indication, Sir, is that there is no significant under-used capacity in the judges in the district courts, so merger is not going to help.

All merger is going to do is spread the work load around a little more because it means that the district court judges, as they now are, will be able to hear divorces and deal with probate matters and do jury trials in the criminal matters, matters which now can only he dealt with by the Supreme Court. So I say to the minister that is noL an ar(junIunL really LhaL has any significant merit to it, when he says to us that we are going to have merger and that will help to solve the problems. It will not , Sir.

Merger may or may not be a good idea1 let us wait and see1 but merger in itself will not in the least help to alleviate the problems. 4853

November 16, 1982 Tape 2316 PK - 3 Mn nflnrnmC - [et ne make one other point. I share his wish that there be an appointment in Labrador, that there be an appointment quickly in Labradoro a or 3 4 0

November 16, 1982 lope 2317 EC - 1 MR. WARREN: lear, hear MR. ROBERTS: It is not up to us to appoint in this house or in this qovernment,but I think it is high time an appointment was made. MR. NEARY: WeLl , have they proclaimed the loqislation br the extra appointtent? MR. ROBERTS: I believe the legislation is proclained. And I am glad to see that this bill is not subject to proclamation. It will become law, assuming it is passed by the House, when it receives assent from His Honour.

That will end the ridiculous situation we had in the past of the Province saying, 'After you, Alphonse,' and the feds saying, 'tIe, no, Carton, you go first. I mean, we are going to be straight about it, we are just coinc to enact tne leislation and then let the federal ciovernment do what they want. So I would say to the minister that he should amend it to pub the second one in. The cost to the Province would be relatively minimal and we should be aware of the cost ad even in this age of restraint, it is worthwhile.

What we are balking of is perhaps an extra secretary, and I do not even know if we jiod a great deal of extra office accommodation given that the office accommodation 'urrently being provided I r the judges is nothing short: of scandalous. I mean, there is no minister of the Crown, Sir, who would even think of working for five minutes in the kind of office conditions which the Province provides for the judges of the Supreme Court of this Province. Mr. Justice Lang operates from a room that was formerly used as the jury room in the Court flouso,and the other offices are sixty 85

November 16, 1982 Tape 2317 EC - 2 MR. ROBERTS: or seventy years old but, you know, maybe we cannot have offices, maybe oven the ministers will do without their plush offices and the carpet. MR. WEARY: They have two 3ffices, one here a and one in their departments. MR. ROBERTS: They have two, yes. If Your Honour wants to see what plush really is, go have a look at the 8th Floor and see what it cost, but anyway, put that aside. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the extra cost involved in creating the eighth judge in addition to the seventh judge will not be very groat..

Creating it does not moan that the job has to be appointed, but if we do not create it then we are putting it off for another year and it has taken us a year to get this far; the minister, I know, has had numerous representations, both from the Bar Association and from the Law Society officially and, 1 am sure, from lawyers throughout the Province. 1 am quite sure wherever the minister goes in amongst lawyers the first thing he is told is, 'Gerry' or 'Mr. Ottonhoimer' or 'Sir' or whatever he is called, or 'hey, you', whatever the type of salutation, 'i about some more judges?

You know, everybody is being clobbered. I am sure if he were to check with I guess his for er and hi future partners at Marshall, White, Ottenheimer and Green, that 14 fl

Novembc r 16, 1982 Tape No. 2318 MJ - 1 MR. C. ROBERTS: illustrious law firm that has SO contributed to the puiG 1 c WOO I i n this [rovi nce - two Minister of the Crown, the Chairman of the Board of Regents end heavens knows what else, we wi.t.1 see what come up. Watch next week's Gazette. MR. S. NEARY: The bond issue. MR. ROBERTS: No, the bond issues all go to Ed Poole in Corner Brook. Poor old Ed Poole. Ed Poole gets every single bond issue now in Corner Brook. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the minister spoke to his colleagues in the profession they would echo what I am saying.

There is a need for the eighth (udge. So, r sImply say to them that we will support the legislation even if it is only seven, but let us maice it eight. Let us move now, let the President of the Council (Mr. We. Marshall) move that the word 'seven' be changed to 'eight' and the word 'six' be changed to 'seven' and then let us enact the leqislal ion and leave it up to Ottawa to appoint the judges and we will carry on from there.

I mean , I can say to the minister that if he really wants the job as judge, the way to do it is to send in the application up to Ottawa, I can assure him from what I am told there are a lot of other people who sent in applications as well, and I am sure his will be considered on the merits as well as everybody etses. But we ought to create the eighth judge. So, I would simply say to the minister, let us do it and let us do it now and have it done. a SOME 110N. MEMBERS: hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate. OTTENIIEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The hoii. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENIIEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the essential difference, 4

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2318 MJ - 2 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: I think the only difference, between the hon. gentleman from the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. E. Roberts) and this side on this particular bill is the number. The bill seeks for an increase from 'six' to 'seven', the hon. to gentleman is proposing an increase from 'six' to 'eight', two additional Supreme Court judges. On that matter we are not at even. The govornment is of the opinion that we proceed with the addition of one.

I would point out, and I have said this before and it is obvious, that of course there is an additional 'ono'Suprenic Court judge in the offing in terms of the appointment to Labrador. I mean, he will be a District Court judge when he is appointed but by next Pall there will in fact be two additional people, one appointed directly to the Supreme Court, the other one,presumably having been appointed as a District Court judge, then obviously will become a Supreme Court judge.

We realize certainly the importance, there is no difference of opinion between us on the importance of having a sufficient number of Trial Court judges and that justice should be expedited to the extent possible. There is no difference between us on that,and all I can say is that certainly we will continue to monitor tho situation as a result of the appointment of the addition of one person and as a result of merger. We shall certainly continue to IIlOfl for the mutter and nobody i:an hiieei j n f- he iiiti ii A

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2319 SD - I 1 A MR. OT'lENIIETMER: a number of months or so from now or a year from now what the situation will be. But I can assure all hon. members that we will continue to monitor the situation but as of now we feel that we will stick with the addition of this one. Mr. Speaker, it qives me pleasure in moving second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole house on tomorrow. (Bill No. 60). M.R. MARS1lLL: Order 15, Bill No. 19.

Motion, second readinq of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1974. (Bill No. 19) MR. SPEAKER (Ayi ward) : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENIIEIMER: Mr. Speaker, what the enactment of this bill will do will provide that a Provincial Court judge, the same people who used to be called magistrates, may serve in a supernumerary capacity with retirement at fifty-five. Let me explain what that means: As the law now is,a Provincial Court judge is entitled under the relevant Pension Act to retire at fifty-five, It is optional. He must retire at sixty- five, he may retire at fifty-five.

But there is an anomaly, or it would certainly appear to be an anomaly in that he may not serve as a supernumerary until he is sixty-five. Now a supernumerary would be a Provincial Court judge who is retired but who may, at the discretion of the' qovernment,of the Minister of Justice, be called back into service for a period of time to releave somebody who is ill or to do a Provincial Court inquiry. And there are no retired Provincial Court judges working as supernumeraries now,but up until fairly recently there were - Provincial Court Judge Cramm and Provincial Court Judge LeCrow.

But there are none as of now serving as supernumeraries. What it means is that now 659

November 16,1982 Tape No. 2320 ah-1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: provincial court judge must be sixty-five before he may act as a supernumerary: a provincial court judge has a right to retire at fifty-five and certainly it seems absurd if one wishes on an ad hoc basis or for some specific reason or spacific period of time or a S specific provincial court enquiry to engage the services of a judge that the government would be limited to those who are sixty-five and not be able to pick from whatever reservoir there might be between fifty-five and sixty- fivc.That is what it comes to and I think it is pretty straightforward.

It is clearing up what would appear to be anomaly that whereby they are entitled to retire at fifty-five, they may noL be appointed in a supernumerary capacity until they are si<ty-five. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR.ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the bill is straightworward and the minister has told us what is in it. The words of the bill confirm the words of the minister and - MR.BATRD: What is this, a one-man show today?

MR.ROBERTS: My friend from Corner Brook understands the meaning of Kipling's words, 'Take up the white man's burden,/ Send forth the best ye breed. and on that basis - MR.BAIRD: Is that Richard Kipling? MR.ROBERTS: Richard Kipling,yes, an old reative of John Kipling. I have always undurstood, Sir, that the hon. gentleman from Ilumber West (Mr.Baird) is a qreat Kipler and he is pretty good at kippling in his spare time. I will tell you this, he is a first-class Vice-Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. SOME JION.MEMBERS: flear, hear PfT;fl

November 16,1982 Tape No. 2320 ah-2 a 4 MR.ROBERTS: I will say if any member of the house, Sir, wants anybody to be in charge of vice the one to do it is the gentlemen iron Humber West (Mr. Raird) . I know I speak for all of my colleagues. MR. ANDRIIWS: Who is the Chairman? MR.ROBERTS: Who is the Chairman? Ah, the Chairperson. We are liberated, the Chairperson. Anyway , Mr. Speaker, we stroll down the byways and highways from the provincial courts into the Public Accounts and then let us stroll back up to the provincial courts.

First of all,maybe the minister In closing could confirm again an understanding I have that when a judge of the provincial court retires at fifty-five he does not necessarily get full pension. He gets whatever rights are his under the Public Service Retirement Act. And am I correct in understanding that service as a judge counts as service under the Public Service I'ensions Act?lf so,so it should. There is no reason why a judge should not be able to retire early in the sense of fifty-five of being early. He does not have to retire,and I do not know really if many of them do or not.

Iut let me also ask the minister, while we are speaking on the provincial court, if he could bring us up to date on the situation with respect to the provincial court facilities here in St. John's. Nw 1 ask that because,as the minister has publicly unnounced tenders have been called for the provision of new courtroom space and new office space , I guess, as well for the judqes. T believe some 20,000 square feet is being souqht' I understand that tenders have been called and have closed :3 8 61

November 16, 1982 Tape 2321 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: and can the minister tell us when we night expect some announcement? I do not care who gets it, what I care is that somebody gets the tender, some person or company, And furthermore,when it miqhL I come about that we see the provincial court move for two reasons, first of all their present facilities are inadequate for them, and,secondly, when they move my understanding is that the space which they now occupy in the courthouse will become available for use by the high court, the Supreme Court. So perhaps the minister could tell us that.

Now we are into November month, will there be any award of a tender by the New 'ear? I know the Pulbic Works Minister is the spokesman on these matters but the minister surely is consulted, he is the client department and since the Public Works Minister is working publicly elsewhere, publicly or privately as the case may be, and is not here in the house, it is only the minister I can ask. So could the minister tell us where we are on the question of provincial court as well, Mr. Speaker' But the bill itself is straightforward and we are certainly quite prepared to support it. MR. OTTENHEINER: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward) : If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the two questions from the hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) , my understandinq is that the tender call is now completed and that the various bids are under review with respect to their suitability, and cost, etc., that they are now under review. And indeed it would be the hope that they would be suitable and that the necessary moves Li 962

November 16, 1982 Tape 2321 NM - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: could be made,but they are under review now. With respect to the hon. qentieman's question, yos,the provincial court judges do come under the provincial, or the Public Service e Pensions Act, and there is not a compulsory retirement at fifty-five, there is,I belicve,at sixty-five, and if a person takes early retirement his pension, depending on his years of service, obviously would not be the same as if he had stayed until sixty-five, or whatever age for that particular person. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1974," (No. 19), read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole house on tomorrow. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1977," (No. 41) MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, much of this legislation is housekeeping, tidying up, although this does brinq in some substantive matters. 6

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2322 SD - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: One of the things that the enactment of this bill will do io provide that a Provincial Court judge, after he has completed law school and his period of articlinq and has been admitted to the Dar, he will be enrolled as a member of the Law Society and then be struck off as a member. One has to he struck off because judges, of course, cannot be members of the Law Society.

But in order for that Provincial Court judge's tenure, if one wishes, or years of service to be recognized perhaps for some position he might apply or become eligible for in the future he has to be enrolled prior to being struck off. That is about what it comes to. This provision is made at the request of the Provincial Court judges but with the full agreement of the Newfoundland Law Society. Furthermore, also, the present practice is that a Provincial Court judga is admitted to the Law Society only after he has completed three years of service as a Provincial Court judge after receiving a law degree.

In other words, after three years of service as a l'rovincial Court judge, after his law degree, he may be admitted to the Law Society. This amendment would permit recognition for the years that person may have served as a Provincial Court judge prior to being admitted to the Law Society. It is made with those people in mind who have benefitted from the professional traininq programme whereby what used to be called lay magistrates 1 lay provincial judges , are enabled to get a law degree throuqh an arrangement worked cut with Dalhousie.

So that with this amendment, after a person has received his law degree, been admitted to the Low Society and is back operatinq as a Provincial Court judcje,there may be recognition of his years of service as a Provincial Court judge when he was a iay judge during the period of time before he got his law degree. This, too, is at the request of the Provincial Court Judges Association and with the agreement of the Law Society. It 8 6

Novembcr 16, 1982 Tape No. 2322 SD - 2 MR. OTTENIIEIMER: The only other matters covered here are that the articling period for students will be increased from nine months to one year. It has been nine months in Newfoundland for, I do not know, many year, decades, I supposes W. £ 865

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2323 MJ - 1 MR. G. OTTENIJEIMER: I am not sure if it is one year in every province but I believe it is one year in ovary provinco,and I do not think that that is an unnecessary hardship on the articled studenln and it should provide a person with an additional three months presumably of supervised articlesh:ip. Then the person should have cjreater maturity or professional competence or more practical experience by an increase of three months, in the period of articleship - not that that is necessarily a reason for doing it but it does bring the porlud of

article - ship- ping into conformity with the practice in the other jurisdictions of Canada. And the other mattor which is covered is that the Law Seciety under Lh law ocioty Act has a Discipline Committee and the Discipline Committee may number from thro to seven , and this will permit the Discipline Committee to sit in a panel. In other words, it would not be required that the entire Discipline Committe hear a particular matter, but a panel of it, bearing in mind that the Committe may be a minimum of three and a maximum of seven and that is brought in at the request of the Law Society and appears to be a - MR.

E. ROBERTS: A maximum of seven ? Where doer, it say that? MR. OTTENHEIMER A maximum of seven. No, I do not think it said that. No, it is now. . 'l'hat would be in the Law Society Act,not in the amendment. That would be in some

section of the act which I do not have with mo,but the Discipline Committe may be from three to seven. Well , this does, what the amendment here does - MR. E. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: In the new

Section 44 (2) (1), it is RR

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2323 MJ - 2 MR. C. ROBERTS:

Section 6 of the amending bill, the is not less than three and there is no maximun opccrlied. So, in theory it could be thirteen,which is the otal Discipline Committee created by 44 (1) .So perhaps he minister might wish to look that through with a view to mendinq it in Committee,because I agree with him that three to seven is fair enough. MR. C. OTTENIIEIMER: Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENIIETMER: Mr. Speaker, what 44 (1) does is it permits the appointment of a Discipline Committee of - MR. ROBERTS: Of three to thirteen. MR.

OTTENJIETMER: - three to thirteen, which is a change from three to seven. And then what 44 subsection (1) would allow that Discipline Committee to hear matters as a panel of not less than three members, one of whom shall - MR. ROBERTS: And not more than? MR. OTTENJIETMER: It does not say 'not more than' but presumably it could not be more obviously than the thirteen because that is the whole Commit tee. MR. ROBERTS: Right. But I do not know if the minister wants to make it 'not less than three and not more than seven - You appeared to be undor the imoressio'. Mr.

Cpeaker, that that is the way it read and that is not the way it reads. MR. 0TTEN1IEI:MER: Yes. The hon. gentleman is quite correct. Yes. And I will have to check to see what precisely their intention is there. Fi 7

November 16, 1982 Tape 2324 EC - 1 Cure. We can pick that up at Committee. MR. OTTENIIEIMER: But what it would endeavour to 4 do is it will enlarge the MOximui.i size of the Di3cjpline Corrinittee from seven to thirteen and will allow it to sit as a panci 4 one year instead of nine months articiing,and the alter- ations which are made with respect to provincial court judges, the essential matters; the other one is one of linguistic uniformity in which the words 'actually' and 'actively' are co-ordinated, but it is very difficult to understand what is going to result from that. I think it is linguistic purism. MR.

ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would speak first with reference to the minister's last comment. I am not sure it is I inqui stiic purity as much as sheer tautology The diti.crence btwren ac,elv and 'actually' is Lho sort of thinq that only my brethren in the Law Society could get uptight about. Mr. Speaker, the bill is non- controversial in that it does not do anything of very great importance and we are prepared to support it.

I do have one or two points though, growing out of the way the Law Society carries on its affairs, which I wcnd to brinq to the attention of the minister and the llouSr. Iirst of alt, let me say that, as one member of the Bar, and I am sure I speak for every member of the Bar, we welcome the fact that the Law Society - and this is reflected in this bill - is

Noveober 16, 1902 Tape 2324 EC - 2 MR. RcBERTS: becoming more active in a disciplinary process. The law Society is like a lot of these self-governing so-called societies that exist by virtue of statute, exist by virtue of the beneficence this house; it tends to forget that. Lawyers think [lay are self-perpetuating and an oligarchy of the worst art, so do the doctors and the beauticians and the architects and heaven knows whom else we have incorporated. I would think that the history of the disciplinary process in the Law Society of Newfoundland has not been an edifying process.

I would think that,if the truth were fully known, the members of the Bar have not disciplined themselves as fully and as properly as they ought to have done. I think, Mr. Speaker, now though that that is changing and I think this amendment reflects that. We in this Ihouse should encourage it and those of us who are members of the Bar should encourage it as well. But we have a great deal of power as members of the Bar and we have been given very great privileges. We do not discipline ourselves nearly effectively enough. On that line, let me go on to another point and uwi;eat to the minister that perhaps - iI?.

CAjITER: (Inaudible) rL. tOBERTS: Speaking of cii sciline, Sir, Itiere ought to be a need for self-discipline. a lot me carry on, Sir, to make ii ii i iii , w nv I teachers in our Law Society - [irs. l'raLt, and .L forget who the other one is, there are Iwo, 1 believe, lay bonchors -and that has been a sign i. lican t leavening experience. I would suggest to the minister there ought to be more lay benchers. A bigger 8 H 9

November 16, 1982 Tape 2325 PK - 1 MR. ROBERTS: percentage of the bench ought to be lay. I would also suggest to the minister that the discioline process ought to involve lay people. Discipline processes tend to becore incestuous, inbred to the point of incestuousness. Speaking of incest there is an obvious product of incest over here, Sir, in imliecility, sirnplicity,assinity ,snnility, all combined S into one magnificent six-footthree pile of something thiL I am not allowed to describe. Mr.

Speaker, the minister I would ask to have a look at this question of lay benchers and the question of perhaps lay benchers or non-bencher lay people involved in the discinlinary process. There is no reason that cannot be so. It may be said these people are sitting as courts. That is true. They are sitting in a quasi-judicial process. But , Mr.

Speaker, let us not get so caught up in the legal technicalities that we forget that what they have to do is to hear a case, decide on some facts, make a finding , make a ruling, recommend to the benchers, because the disciplinary power itself is vested in the benchers -these panels that are dealt with by this bill are investigatory and consider a way and make a report, but they have no power to adjudicate as such or to levy a penalty - and I think it might help very much, Sir, it may help the Bar and it might help the Bar's image in this Province, the Bar's standing in the eyes of the Provinco if lay people were to be involved.

Next I wonder if the minister S could tell us where we are on the rules of court. Now I know that he is not responsible. It is not that he is irresponsible, this is a matter beyond his responsibility. But where are we on the new rules of court? They have been in draft forrn,I know, 487fl

November 16, 1982 Tape 2325 PK - 2 p A MR. ROBERTS: for a significant period of Lime, going back-wbat?-maybo to Mr. Curtis's time as Aftorney General., certainly back to Chief Justice Hickman's june as Attorney General, and through all of the minister's Listinguished tenure of that position. AN HON. MEMBER: Some of them have been enacted. MR. ROBERTS: Some of them have been enacted. The Discovery proceedings have been enacted with whatever results, but the rest of them have not. Can the minister tell us where we are? And since they have not been enacted could he tell us when they might be enacted?

And can he tell us whether there is anything he can do to bring them in? I think I voice the feelings of the professionno matter what their political adherences, Lh,it we really should have the new rules of court in. He may say they should be Limed with merger. You know, I am no!: sure that is relevant because both courts operate under the same rules now. The quicker we get them in, the quicker we can come to grips with them to begin simplifying some of our procedures and bringing in new procedures,where they are needed,to deal with new types of problems. Mr.

Speaker, the rest of the bill is straightforward with only one comment: Can the minister tell us what the policy of the government is with respect to a situation which has not yet to my knowledge happened but which may? Ladies and gentleman are aeeoir,t to fe magistrates - well Frovincial Court judges; not federal judges, but Provincial judges. One is selected each year1 by some process to go to Dalhousio 14fi 7

November 16, 1982 Tape 2326 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: to take a law course, and since it is a three year course there are three there at any given time. And they are there on full sa]ai-y and with perks and all that, and that is fair enough and they take their law degree and in due course they write their exams and in due course they pass them and in due course they are admitted as members of the Bar. And there are provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that permit them to do that and to count thei r service, and that is all fine and good and very much to the point. None of these men or women has ever practiced law.

They have sat as judges, as magistrates, and they carry on sitting as magistrates. 'phere may even be a contract, I do not know whether there is or not, there may even be a contract, a written contract between the individual and the Crown by which in return for being sent off to law school and getting the benefit of a leqal education at the expense of the Province, th cc years salary, three years expenses, three years educational leave, there may be a contract saying they will carry on on the bench, not go into practice.

My question then is just this; What happens, and it has not happened yet but it will happen sooner or later when one of these judges, not benchers but men sitting on the bench, to draw a distinction, having been educated legally by the people of the Province, not by his own financial involvements, what does the minister do when that judge says, Well, Deputy Minister or Minister, I am going to resign now, I am fifty-five, I got my full pension, I am goinci to resign and T am going to go set up the practice of 1a'? You know, is there any restriction? Ought there to be any? In my view there should be.

There is a restriction on federally appointed L P 7 2

November 16, 1982 Tape 2326 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: judges in the Judges Act, they are now allowed to go back into practice for five yars, as I recall. There have been cases where men have ctua1ly resigned from the Supreme Court of Canada to go hack into practice and so as a result a rule has been brought in. I think it is five years. But A 7 3

November 16,1982 'lape No. 2327 oh-i MR.ROBERTS: the minister will concede that what I am suggesting could happen and in all likelihood will happen. I do not know how many people have gone through that course at Da] now - ten, fifteen, twenty_ but at some point one of tiem perfectly genuinely, perfectly honestly, perfectly properly, is going to terminate his time as a provincial court judge and then go into the practice of law. Now I do not know if that is proper or not but he goes into the practice of law.

What I am asking the minister is if he could tell us what the policy of the government might be: will if there is no policy , as may be the case, iouiO the minister have a look at it with a view to lettinq us have some statement perhaps embodied in legislation? After all remember,these men or women as the case may be are members of the Law Society only because of this act and because of the Law Society Act. They are in a very unique position. They have not gone through the process that everybody else goes through to get to the Bar . They come by a different route designed to reflect the fact they are judges.

So, fine, they are a judge, therefore they get to be a member of the bar, a member of the Law Society once they complete their legal education. When they cease to be a judge, should they still be able to claim the benefit 01 being a member of the bar, a position which they garnered legitimately and properly, but garnered or a result of the fact they were on the bench? The minister, I think, will follow my quite strong I or of argument. In any event,it is not a matter of politic, it is a matter of judicial administration. Perhaps he could tell us what the story is on that and what we might anticipate.

Thank you, Sir. A 7

November 16,1982 rape No. 2327 ah-2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) if the hon. minister speaks now he closes the debate. The hon. Minister of Justice. KP.OTTENIIETMER: Mr. Speaker, to review and It omment on some of the matters referred to by the hon. gentleman for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.Roberts), certainly i think he is absolutely right when he says that the Law Society is much more conscious now of the need to assiduously pursue its responsibilities with respect to protection of the public good, the unique kind of position, in a loose sense of trusteeship that it has.

I am inclined to agree that more lay benchers would be a good move,not only from the point of view of the image of the profession of the Law Society but also to bring in view[jo ints from know fedguobie people with interests and background in other areas,and not lawyers by profession. With respect to the rules of court they are,my understanding is, now completed after more consultations with numerous groups over the past few years. There are apparently if you wish, two lines of thought that argue that they should come in with merger.

I have also heard it argued they should come in perhapF; six months after so as not to hive too many radical , if one wishes, changes at Lhe same time. I suppose that is a matter that we m 1have to decide and get the best advice we can on; either they come in with merger or they come in some criod of time alter. L R 7

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2128 SD - 1 MR, OTTENHEIMER: With respect to the Daihousie law programme,that will soon coma to an end. I t:hink in two years that programme will be over because Lliore will be no other lay provincial judges in the system who want to take advantage of going to law school because we do not require it. There are some who opted not to so do. But all appointments to the provincial Bench in the Future will be people who are already lawyers. So in two years that programme will, he over.

The hon. gentleman asked with respect to if a person who has gone to law school through this system and then worked as a Provincial Court judqe for a period of time then decided to go into private practice, or even on retirement went into private practice; as he mentioned the situation has not arisin, but our policy to date has been not to put an impediment in his way. Now this is not the same case, of course, or if somebody wool and then they have to sign a contract to work as a Provincial. Court judge for so many years.

Obviously if they broke that contract you have an actual breach of contract, but that is not to matter. Let us say you have a y unq man or a young woman of twenty-Five in the 11rovincial ('curt and they go to law school; at twenty-eight they come out and they are lawyers and they are Provincial Court judges at twonty-oiqhfr; and then at forty years of age, of tier twelve yeir; of service, they want to go into private practice. I reilly think it would be an undue restriction upon them to preclude them From going into private practice.

It is a matter that certainlv could be discussed with the Provincial Court judqes,but think it would be an unnecessary restriction upon them. Thot is my view anyway. Mr. Speaker, I move second reach flq. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1977,' read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole (louse on tomorrow. (Bill No. 41)

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2328 SD - 2 MR. MARShALL: Order 17, Diii. No. 34. Motion, second reading of a bill, "/\n 7\ct 'P0 Amend The Jury Act. (Bill No. 34). MR. SPEAKER (Ayiward) : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENIIEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this bill will do two things, one of which, no doubt, the hon. member opposite will wish to comment on bocauso it deals with the geographical area from which jurors are drawn. It does two things with respect to the jury. It will be recalled that when we brought in a now Jury Act a couple of years ago the provision with respect to clergymen was1 and I will 877

November 16, 1982 Tape 2329 NM - 1 MR.

OTTENHEIMER: read it "A person may apply to be exempted from serving as a juror on the ground that he belongs to a religion or a religious order that makes service as a juror incompatible with the beliefs or practices of the religion." Now after that we have representation from a number of clerqy, different denominations, who said something to the eltict, "It is not against our religious convictions as such, you know,to serve as a juror, it is not something we regard as immoral or improper or wrong, it is not incompatible with our beliefs, so we do not want a total exclusion, a disqualification, to be disqualified, but we feel that it might be at variance with our pastoral duLio." There is a difference.

IL is not against a religious conviction, but it is - MR. WARREN : Contrary to our ha ckg iou nd MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, but it might be contrary to our pastoral duties. So what we have donc,thereforo, what this amendment will do will nay to the not to the effoct,it will say, 'where a person's pastoral. or religious duties or beliefs Would conflict with his service as a juror, that person shall on application be exempted from serving as a juror.' All he has to do, or she, is make an application and say, "Look, it is contrary to my pastoral duties," or whatever and there is an automatic exemption.

But we did not want to have disqualification because there might well be some clergy who might wish to serve. So,you know,we do not want to disqualify, so what it is is that any clergy person who believes that it is in conflict with their pastoral or 11 8 7 8

November 16, 1982 Tape 2329 NM - 2 MR. OTTENIIEIMER: religious duties may apply for an exemption. This has been done in consultation with and with the agreement of the various clergy who w1re in touch with us on it. So that is that matter.

The other thing that this amendment to The Jury 1\ct does is to extend the boundaries with respect to the enumeration for jury duty in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, and I believe I gave an undertakinq durinq the estimates to the hon. gentleman that we would do this so that not only is the Happy Valley-Goose Bay community included for purposes of jury, but also the communities of Northwest River, Sheshashit, and Mud Lakes, these are included also.

The hon. gentleman will probably say that the whole area should be included, you know, and 'mpanel jurors from all over Labrador,and I am aware of his feelingsand indeed I share them,that the involvement in jury duty should be available to every- body, even those living in 4F17q

November 16, 1982 Tape 2330 PK - 1 MR. OrI'ENHEIMER: quite isolated communities, and it should be possible to have jury trials in these smaller communities. And he knows that I essentially agree with that principle. I do not think it is practicable to do it right now. I think that after there is the appointment of a judge in the Happy Valley/Goose Bay area who will be there permanently, then it should well be possible to achieve some of those goals. But now, of course, all that we have in terms of federally appointed judges are circuits, peopLo going up from St.

John's on circuit because the only place the Supreme Court exists now is in St. John's, and that is one of the great benefits of merger, then we will have a Supreme Court judge actually resident in Happy Valloy/Gooso Bay and I think it should be possible to achieve those objectives. But this is certainly an improvement because it enlarges the enumeration area for jury duty to include Northwest River, Sheshashit and Mud Lake. MR. SPEAKER (Mr. ward): The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this bill.

We on this side do agree, Mr. Minister, that you have made an improvement in the Jury Act. However, Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if we are probably not going out on the limb a hit when we say, A person may apply to be exempt from scrvinj as a juror on the yrounds that serving as a juror may cause serious hardship or loss to him or others. I am just wondering if we are not makinq it too flexible for a person to ask for exemptions from the jury. That is my only concern there, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. fl 11

November 16, 1982 Tape 2330 PK - 2 MR. WARREN: however, on Section (3) and I have to compliment the minister for taking the advice of an Opposition member, not very often do we get a minister a(Jreoing with the Opposition, but in this case the Minister Of Justice (Mr. Ottonheimer) did agree to undertake

November 16, 1982 Tape 2331 EC - 1 MR. WARREN: what I requested some two and one-half years ago, that the jury enumeration in respect of Happy Valley - Goose I3ay should be expanded. I think the minister has gone halfway in this regard. however, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister still is not taking in the geographical area and the population of Labrador when he was talking about just extending it to Mud Lake, Sheshatshit and North West Fiver. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that the minister should seriously look at not necessarily extending it all along thu labrador Coast but he should seriously look at the possibility of giving the people - in particular I am thinking about the native people North of Goose Bay - the opportunity of sitting on a jury. And, Mr. Speaker, I think we have read in Atlantic Insight magazine some two years aye of how a native person from Davis Inlet was tried and convicted by a jury made up completely of white people, an Indian person who could speak very little English, and he was tried and convicted by a jury of twelve white people.

I am sure that if we were in his position I do not think we would agree to having twelve Indian people deciding our fate. So, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like for the minister to take upon hiinsel f what he said a few minutes ago, that once we have the extra judge stationed in Labrador that the minister will see fit to extend the boundaries to Nain, Hopedale and Davis Inlet whore there are native people.

In fact, I do not see any reason at all why there cannot be court hearings in Nain - Nain is a thriving community, facilities arc aviiiable, hotel accommodations are available - but I think it is practically impossiblu in hlopedale or Makkovik or Postville and these smaller communities to hold trials. 4 982

I. November 16, 1982 Tape 2331 EC - 2 MR.WARREN: But the community of Nain is the furthermost Northern point in the Province and the minister should seriously look at having judges hold court hearings in that Northern community. We cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that the native people are just: as important in this Province as aic you and I. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKEB (Russell) : The hon. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with this bill but I want first of all to underline the point which my colleague Iron Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) made. 1 think it is a very, very cjooil poLnt, the probom inherent 4 B B

November 16, 1982 Papa No. 2332 SD - 1 MR. ROBERTS: in providing a system of law and justice - the two are not always the same - to the native people. I do not really like that phrase because really we are all natives, but the Inuit and the Indian people MR. SIMMS: Aboriginal. MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am not even sure on 'aborigine] The Indian people are not aboriginal in this Piovinco, the Inuit are.

The Indian people, who are Algonquin if my memory serves me - the Naskapi and the Montaqnais are both members of the Algonquin family of tribes - the Montaqnais and Naskapi people, I say to my friend from Grand Falls, came fairly late to the Province, to the area of the Central Plateau of Labrador. About the mid-nineteenth century, when Lord Strathcona - Donald Smith as he then was - was at Northwest River in the 1820s and the 1830s, I think there were Indian people who migrated up. The reason they came in a Northwesterly direction from the North Shore of the St.

Lawrence on up into Labrador was that there was a general population move during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the Algonquin people who are less warlike than the Iroquois people - the two great Indian families in Ontario and Northern New York, that port of North America - and the Iroquois were a very fierce people and the Iroquois drove the Algonquin peoples North and West. That is how the Montagnais and Naskapi came to the Labrador, but they are not aboriginal. The Inuit have been in the Labrador seven, eight, nine, ton thousand years, that kind of time frame. MR.

SIMt1S: Almost as long as the hon. member over there. MR.ROBERTS: Yes. And no doubt the hon. member will be there long after the hon. minister has (lOflO to whatev reward, perhaps a permanent job with the Piper's Hole Park, whatever reward the future holds for him. But in any event, the problems are very real and I thought the comments of my hon. friend were

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2332 SD - 2 MR. ROBERTS: really very much in point. This is not the place to (Jo into it in detail , but the story of what Lhe white man, the white person has done to the Indian and the suit in labrador with the best of motives, they very best of (liristisn and charitable and humanitarian motives, but the ;Lory of what we have done is one of the saddest chapters in ui: history. We talk of the Beothuks - althouqh I think that historical myth has now been exploded. Dr.

Fred Rowe, amonq others, has shown it to he a sham that the Beothuks were wiped out and annihilated by the European peoples on this Island, at least by direct action. They may have been wiped out by smallpox and by tuberculosis and diseases which were unknown to them until they were brouqht to this Island by the European people from North Europe who had these diseases - but that story is not one of any substance, not one of any truth that the Beaothuks were ir)cd out. What is true is that the resul.ts of fifty or a hundred years of white man's carinq, and p 88 F

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2333 MJ - 1 MR. E. ROBERTS: legitimately, honestly, honourably caring for the Indian and the Tnuit people of labrador has been a very sad

chapter in our history. A very sad chapter, one of which no Newfoundlandor and no Labradorian, be he settler or be he Indian or be he Inuit, could be the least i,Lt, proud, and we seem to be carrying that on. We have destroyed their way of life and substituted the worst features of our way of life, the alcohol. YOu know, any member in the iic)Use - I know the gent I eruan I mm Grand a!

I a has been into these communities, I know he is familiar with the groblems - anybody who wants to see the underside of what can happen in this Province should have a look at what we as a society have done to the Indian and Inuit people. And the type of problem my friend speaks of is entirely a very real one and I would hope the minister would heed what my friend said and carry it through. I wanted to make just two points, Mr. Speaker: First of all the amendments are relatively straightforward and we are broadening the exemptions From jury duty. I think that is fair enough.

If somebody has as a matter of conscience a belief that prohibits him or here from serving on a jury, then he should not he required by the civil authority to serve on a jury. And equally, of course, whore a person can convince the judge that there woo] (I be a hardship visited on him, equally he should he excused and I am quite content to leave it to the judge. Mr. Speaker, there is, however, another problem that the minister might look at. MR. J. CARTER: lie is looking at one now. MR. ROBERTS: And that is the question of a juror who is involved in a long trial and thereby nays his walea.

Now, I do not do any criminal law but T am tempted to, when I see the hon. gentleman from St. Johns North (Mr. J. Carter) (4 fi 9 6

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2333 MJ - 2 MR. . ROBERTS: and Bonavista South (Mr. J . Morgan) I am tempted to think of cert:iin offenses in the Criminal Code - just i liable homicide aid things like this, the insanity Juiense, diminished responsibility, all of these apply to the Jon. gentlemen. That is withut netting into the weirder categories. We no longer have sexual offenses. Aggravated assualt, it over there was an aggravated assualt in this house it is the hen, gentleman from St. Johns North (Mr. J. Carter) SOMI IION. MIIMBEIB; : Oh, oh I MR. ROREIfIE : Mr. C1eaker, T may be on soft ground - MR.

P. hA I PB: Do you I ike the member for St John's North? MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Humber West (Mr. P. Baird) - was it? - I thought I heard his stentorian tones - said, 'Do I like the gentleman from St. John's North?' I love him. I love him dearly. As an attempting practicing Christian I am told to love everybody. And what better example of how tar T am prepared to go. SOME lION. MEMBERS: Bear, hear! MR. J. MORGAN: You certainly love yourself. MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from Bonavista South is the lasL one to talk of self-love. Narcissus, Mr. Speaker, was a piker compared to the gentleman.

By the way, a hair is out of place: It is the fourteenth one from the back of that gorgeously shaped head. MR. MORGAN: L)an me your mirror. MR. ROBERTS: 'Loan me a mirror. ' The hon. gentleman carries his own mirror with him, Sir, along with his powder puff. MR. L. S [MMS: Your guys (inaudible) MR. ROBERTS: I agree. I thank my friend from 1,86 7

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2333 MJ - 3 MR. E. ROBERTS: Grand Falls (Mr. L. Simins) . 1 would call him by his Ministerial title but I can never remember it. Is it Parks and Wildlife or Wildlife and Parks or Recreation and Parks or Procreation and Tourism or what is it? R

November 15, 1982 Tape 2334 NM - 1 MR. SIMNS: Ciii tre. .'J liEN. MEMUER: Culture, Recreation and Youth. MR. ROBERTS: Culture Now that is a subject of which the hon. gentleman may be at home but which is orcign to most of his colleagues, I assurchim. MR. BAIRD: Relevancy, Mr. Speaker. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, relevancy, I say relevancy to my friend from Flumber West (Mr. Baird) and I am qiad he raises this issue of relevancy, because if ever, Sir, there was somebody who was relevant to culture and the jury - Mr.

Speaker, I do not know where all our paqes have paged off to, but if one of them would do me the kindness to get me another glass of that delicious water, which is about the only thing we have not taxed until Thursday. Now let me come back to the question of the jury.

If a person is selected - and I want to get the ministers attention when we are ready there - if a person is selected to serve on a jury he or she of course must serve or face a contempt of court proceeding and there have been one or two instances recently when some of 11cr Majesty's judges have had individuals in and said, "You have not responded to a summons for jury duty," and quite properly taken him to task. Now that person then loses his wages. I do not know if he gets reimbursed. MR. CARTER: We are losing our patience. MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman has lost his reason, not his patience.

Let me say to the minister that that is something we should look at. Equally, and here I know I am on strong ground,and my friend from Torngat (Mr. Warren) 1; P 8 9

November 16, 1982 Tape 2334 NM 2 MR. ROBERTS: and more than that my friend from Eaqie River (Mr.

Iliscock) are very much aware of this, a witneos who comes into a Supreme Court trial, and we have had a very poignant and pointed example in the Fowler case, the lady from Cap3tan Island, who has been convicted thrice of an offence in connection with the death of her husbanc - I am not sure if it is second depree murder or what but anyway has thrice been convicted, twice the Court; of Appeals threw out the conviction; the third time round, I do not know if there has been an appeal or not,but a jury has convicted her and I believe the lady has been sentenced and presumably is serving her time.

Now, in each case, of course, the same witnesses were called1 they had to be, the people in Capstan Island who happened to be there at the time that what was found to be a murder of some sort took place, the lady the jury found did in fact shoot her husband and caused his death. Now, Mr. Speaker, these men came in- most of them happened to be men,I think, who gave evidence - they came in, they had to be here the opening day, and they wore here throughout until they were called, Some of them lost two or three weeks at the height of the fishing season.

The season in Southern Labrador is short enough anyway, and some of these men,I understand, have lost in effect a year's wages, a year's income, because they had to come as witnesses at a trial. It is bad enough to do it once or twice, but the trial that was held a month or two past, whenever it was held, was three times, and there is no way to compensate these people. So I say to the minister two things; number one, could he have a look at introducing a

November 16, 1982 Tape 2334 NM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: reform, not to compensate a person for the first two or three days but a man who is called as a witness, subpoenaed as a witness and loses two or three weeks, in effect his whole season,. IF the minister were to lose two or three weeks it would not 9 1

November 16,1982 Tape No. 2335 oh-i MR. ROBERTS: be his whole year because he is paid foetniglitly or monthly or however he is paid throughout the year. But these men only have a very short season and the season on the on the Straits of Labrador is very, very short, a matter of weeks at the most and they lost - MR.CARTER: Did you complain about it at the time? MRROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I complained about it at the tine. The hon. gentleman from St. John's North (Mr.

Carter) will be relieved to know that when these people were my constituents, as I am sure my friend from r:aqle Idver (Mr.11iscock) has (lone subsequently, T. was in touch with the minister on more than one occasion,and the minister will confirm that, to ask what could be done about this problem with the witnesses. So for once he has made a sensible comment and I am delighted to (Jive him a sensible answer and rJcrrioI.sh hinr again. MR.CARTER: What was done in the end? MR.ROBERTS: What was clone in the end was nothing.

So I now say to the minister again could he give some consideration,even to an cx yrat Ii grant. These people have little enough ol this world's goods. Capstan Islan(I is a very small community. Are there twelve VOL( Lhcrc now There und to he twelve or twenty. MR._llISCOQ<: Thir ty-n Lricr MR. ROBERTS: Thirty-nine. Twelve families. A very small community. The tragedy was tragedy enough. One of their own relatives shot, murdered, an incredibly p n 2

November 16,1982 Tape No. 2335 ah-2 MR.ROBERTS: torturous legal process, three jury trials, two courts of appeal hcarngs. MR.UISCOCK: There may be another. MR.ROIIERTS: Well, there may be another. I Ia not know if it has been appealed or not, I have no LcIea. But , you know, all this trauma in a very small community. They are all related to each other. The lady was from Buckles Point inForteau. She was from another community. But could the minister - as

an act of charity, let the government have some heart—could the minister have a look at this situation and see what hardship may have been visited upon these people and then consider making an cx gratia award ? You know,the Cabinet can do those things. They have done far less worthy things, in my view, far less worthy things. This present Cabinet has,perhaps for good motives,done far less worthy things than that. Let them consider the case of these - I do not know even how many, Are there six or seven or eight men involved in it, called in as witnesses in the Powler trial? 4R.IITSCOCK: Probably nine.

MR.ROI3ERTS: Nine,my friend from Eagle River says. Let them have a look, They thrice had to come forward and give their evidences These murder trials , of course, tend to be lengthy and tend to be involved. We are dealing with a very serious matter and they have had to suffer very great financial loss because of that. So I know it is not strictly speaking part of the Jury Act,but we are talking about the court process and could the minister consider that and hopefully, you know, make some cx gratia award to them.

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2336 lB-i MR. ROBERTS: I suspect the truth of the matter is most of those men have not made any income this year. They lost a large part of their fishing season. I am looking at my friend from Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) MR. HISCOCK: Three. MR. ROBERTS: It is three years. There have been three separate trials. So on that note,which I leave with the minister, let me say again that we are prepared to support the bill.

IL is hardly the most crucial legislation, but since the government insists that we deal with these bills as opposed to dealing with the realities of the financial picture of the Province, then so be it, we have to deal with them. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) If the hon. minister speaks now he closes the debate. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, certainly the problem of witnesses, especially with respect to a lenqthly trial and one which is some distance from people's residences is a serious one.

Obviously there is an obligation for people to co-operate with the administration of justice and this applies to witnesses and can apply also to jurors. What measures could be taken in terms of, you know, lencjthly trials, if one put a time in excess of three days or four days or five days or whatever it happened to be, certainly is a matter we would certainly look at. It is difficult, I know the hon. gentleman will agree, to handle these matters on an 4 ex gratia basis,although matters are handled on an ox qratia basis, yes, but it is difficult to get a pattern of consistencey on an cx gratia basis.

But certainly I will look at it with respect to the matters referred to on the geographical boundaries. Certainly there is no difference of opinion that the people throughout all parts of the Province should have as much involvement as possible in the serving on jury function. B4

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2336 IB-2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: It is to be hoped that with improved facilities and with a full -time judge in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, it will be possible in the future Lu further extend that area from which people serve as jurors. U Mr. Speaker, I move second reading. On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Jury Act, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 34) MR. MARSHALL: Order 18, Bill No. 39. Aotion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act. (Bill No. 39) MR.

SPEAKER (RUSSELL): The hon. Kinister of Justice. MR. OTTEN1IEIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to the OMbudsman Act arid it will accomplish two things. C 5

November 16, 1982 Tape 2337 EC - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Number one, it will bring the Waterford Hospital within the area of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and ,number two, it will give the Ombudsman authority with respect to complaints against the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. These arc the two things it will do, to give a bit of background. It will be recalled that a couple of years ago there was a reference to the Supreme Court as to whether the Waterford Hospital was covered by the Parliamentary Commissioner (Onbudsmar) Act and the decision of the Supreme Court was that it did not.

The act did not cover the Waterford Hospital, the Ombudsman did not have authority to investigate any alleged incidents at the Waterford Hospital. It will be recalled as well that there was a report to the house of Assembly by the Ombudsman in which he stated ais opinion that the Waterford Hospital should be brought within the ambit of the act and certainly the government concurs with this view. So with the enactment of this legislation, the Waterford Flospital will be within the area of juris- diction of the Ombudsman, that is one thine it c'oes.

The second thing it does ic that if there are any complaints with respect to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Ombudsman will have jurisdiction to investigate those complaints and to make whatever report he deems necessary. So it is very straightforward. It amends the act to give the Ombudsman jurisdiction in those two areas that he has not previously had, one, the Waterford Hospital and,two, with respect to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, complaints against thorn. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SP1 (Alward) : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

November 16, 1982 Tape 2337 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we support this bill. As the hon. the minister indicated, the Ombudsman has been lobbying for several years now for an amendment La the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act to include access to records of the Waterford 1-lospital and would assume that there must have been a Jittlo bit of prussure put on by the Police Brotherhood to also include Lho Newfoundland Constabulary. Mr.

Speaker, this is a step in th2 ricjht direction, because if members will recall, I think it was about three years ago when the Ombudsman used as a test case, was refused access to a person's rc(ords at the WaLerford Hospital,and the Ombudsman has been lobbying for this change ever sin-cc. As a matter of fact, 4.

November 16, 1982 Tape 2338 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: I would suspect that in recent years that I am the only member of the House of Assembly who cal]d on the Ombudsman in his office, called on him, made a courtesy call on the Ombudsman, and up to that time, that was last Fall I think it was, up to that time I was the only member of the House of Assembly - MR. SIMMS: How do you know that? MR.NEARY: The Ombudsman told me that some other member had called on him but - MR. SIMMS: But not a courtesy call. MR.NEARY: No, not courtesy - it was courtesy all right, but it had to do with some other business.

It did not have to do with his job as Ombudsman. But I called upon him as a member of the house of Assemb1y. I made, I suppose, what you would call a semi-official visit to the Ombudsmans offics - 4R.SIMMS: Were you Leader then? MR. NEARY: No, I was not Leader-this was one of the matters that we discussed at that time. And it was a sore spot with the Ombudsman. Tdhcther members care to accept it or not it is a major item, Mr. Speaker, it now opens up the whole field of examining hospitals records. So it is a major piece of legislation. I am surprised that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) did not play it up a little more. It is a major victory for the Ombudsman and for the people who have been lobbying for this. We on this side of the house mentioned it before in our variow; speeches that we have been making every year when the Ombudsman tables his report in this House. But, Mr. Speaker, having praised the bill a little bit, I have to again come back to our pet peeve on this side of the House regarding the Ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, we argue that the Ombudsman does not have enough authority and we have been arguing for sons tine that there is 14 A 98

Noviiibe r I 6 , 1982 Tape 2 338 PK 2 MR. NEARY: a great need to put some teeth in the legislation establishing a Parliamentary Commissioner or an Ombudsman in this Province. We have been arguing, Mr. Speaker, that the Ombudsman should be able to go a step further than just table his report here in the House1 that when a minister of the Crown is found in violation of any of the statutes of this Province, when he is found to be in violation of established practices and procedures that the Ombudsman should be able to recommend a penalty. Because we have seen, Mr. Speaker, from 4 f1 9 q

November 16, 1982 Tape 2339 - 1 MR. NEARY: experience in this house, the uselessness in the Ombudsman bringing to the attention of members of the House some practice carried out or policy carried out by a minister that is not in keeping with the established practices and policies laid clown in hP; Province. MR. ILODDER: In particular the Minister Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) MR. NEARY: I am thinking about the Minister of Fisheries iii particular, whom the Ombudsman singled out in his report last year, singled out, and all was forgiven by the Premier. And it would not be so bad, Mr.

Speaker, if that was the first time that hon. gentleman was singled out for recognition. MR. HODDER: The man did not get his compensation. MR. NEARY: That is right, the man did not get his compensation and the Premier did not see fit to overrule or to discipline the Minister of Fisheries. That was the third, if not the fourth violation on the part of that minister. We somc'Li men wonder on this side of the house, as well as the people all around the Province, what that minister has on the Premier. Now, the Premier can argue all he likes. The Premier can argue, Mr.

Speaker, as he does, that the Minister of Fisheries, the member for Bonavista South is electable and the Minister of Social Services, the member for St. John a East Extern (Jr. P ickcy) is electable, hat is the only arqurient the Premier can use, they are electable. In other words, he puts politien before their jobs. The Premier says, Oh, we cannot discipline the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Social Services, they are eloctabie. So they are allowed to do what they like because they are electable. 4Eflfl

November 16, 1982 Tape 2339 EC - 2 MR.NEARY: They can go out and do what they like, Mr. Speaker. They can overrule the Public orvice Commission,as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) iid in the case of the appointment of a fisheries officer in Western Newfoundland. And because he is electable in his district, it is all overlooked, Mr. Speaker, it is all overlooked. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough.

It is not good enough, and the Ombudsman must be awfully frustrated when year after year he draws to the attention of members of this Mouse, as is his right and his responsibility to do on, certain matters that he thinks have been a violation of the rules and regulations laid down by this llouse,and the policies established in the running of this Province. There is no recourse, the report is merely tabled in the house, Mr. Speaker, laid on the table of the house. I 9

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2340 MJ - 1 MR. S. NEARY: Members can take it home and read it, or take it to their offices and read it, or they can read it while they are sitting in their seats and that is the end of it. Mr. Speaker, is that good enough? Is that way to treat a servant of this House? Is that the way treat the Ombudsman, a servant of this House, one of the three appointments made by this house - the other two; the Auditor General and the Comptroller of the Public Treasury - the only three servants Who are appointed by the Leqislature?

And year after year the Ombudsman brings his report in, lays it on the table of the House and it is just laughed at. We cannot do anything about it on this side of the Mouse except bing it up like I am bringing it up now. That is all we can do, Mr. Speaker. We can only do our duty. What I am really saying, Mr. Speaker, is this: That the public really have no protection. They have no protection, Mr. Speaker. We have that precedent on public record of where the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. J. Morgan) overruled the Public Service Commission with the approval of the Premier.

The Ombudsman said it was wrong, it was improper; it was wrong and the man should be compensated, the number one name on the list. MR.TULK: And the minister dismissed hfm. MR. WEARY: The number one name on the list. MR.J. MORGAN: You had to say it again, did you? MR. NEARY: Yes. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker - I have not said it for a long time - you have to put it in baby talk so that some hon. gentlemen understand the message that you are trying to got through. MR. L. SIMMS: We have no trouble doing that. MR. WEARY: All. members on the opposite side are not as intelligent and as smart as the member for Grand 9 0 2

November 16, 1982 Tape No. 2340 MJ - 2 MR. S. NEARY: Pails (Mr. L. Simms) . They ire not all geniuses. MR. L. SIMMS; Do not go attacking me now. MR. NEARY: You know, if you could buy the It hon. gentleman for what he is worth and sell him for what he thinks he is worth you make yourselves a fortune, Mr. Speaker. MR, It. TULK: You know what his ministry is? lie is the Minister of Wildlife. MR. NEARY: lie is the Minister of Wildlife. I mean, you talk about slashing and cutting, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of departments over there that were made for hon. gentleman. And ao, Mr.

Speaker, I am not going to belabour the point. The Minister of Justice (Mr. G. Ottenheimer) cannot answer it. It is indefensible. There are no penalties. It is left up to the government - mostly to the Premier - whether or not ministers U Ti

November 16, 1982 Tape 2341 PK - 1 MR. NEAR?: who violate established procedures and policies Lhat are laid down and approved by this House it is more or less up to the Godfather, the Premier,whether or not a minister should be disciplined. MR. WARREN: They are safe enough. MR._NEAR?: And we saw what happened in the case of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). tjnlesF, Mr. Speaker, that precedent is removed from public record, we can only assume in future that this administration will not take any recommendations from the Ombudsman seriously. MR. HODDER: The hon.

Minister of Fisheries is standing in the door and he is afraid to come in. MR. NEAR?: It is on the record. MR. TULK: lie is scared to come in. MR. NEAR?: It is on the record and unless it is scrubbed from the record, unless it is erased from the record it will be a black mark forever on this administration in their dealing with the reports of the Ombudsman. MR. BAIRD: Your time is up. riR. CARTER: Terrible '1anders. MR. HODDER: No, Sir. Read the Oihudman's report. MR. NEAR?: And so, Mr. Speaker,we are going to support this amendment MR. TULK: The minister should be dismissed. MR.

NEAR?: But it gives us an opportunity 4 as Your Honour knows, as the minister knows to bring up this whole matter of the effectiveness of the Ombudsman in this Province. MR. 1-JODDER: The minister is out there and he is afraid to come in. MR. NEAR?: The Ombudsman can only deal mainly with mistakes that are made by ministers or their public servants. 139[)t4

November 16, 1982 Tape 2341 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: And then they have to go back and ask the minister to remedy a mistake that he has made, and if the minister does not change it, then bring it to the