December

8, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 80

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

On Sunday afternoon, December 6th., five miles from Nain, a

Mr. David Dicker, his daughter Sherry, age 13, his daughter Stacy-Lee, age 8,

and his son David Junior, age 5, and a friend, Shelly Dicker, age 11, were out

on a skidoo - actually two skidoos - and they went through the ice. All four

ended up in the water and Sherry, age 13, was riding the second skidoo when it

went through the ice. She immediately jumped off the sinking skidoo, jumped to

safer ice, and by doing so took hold to her friend who was on the same skidoo as

her, and dragged her to safety. At the same time then her father, sister, and

brother were still left in the water.

So with quick thinking on her part she took off her coat and

crawled back toward the edge of the ice, and with her coat was fortunate enough

to haul her brother and sister to safety. She got her brother and sister back on

safe ice. At this time her father was still trying to keep himself afloat in the

icy water. Subsequently she was fortunate enough to save her father and also her

friend who was on the other skidoo.

Mr. Speaker, not very often do we hear anything positive

coming out of the north coast of Labrador. We hear there are 120 cases going

before the court tomorrow and these kind of things. Today I am proud that a

constituent of mine had put her life in front of other people to save her

father, brother and sister, and friend.

I would ask this House to extend congratulations to this

young thirteen year old Sherry Dicker who took it upon herself, on a very cold

Sunday afternoon, with the lives of four others at stake, and ventured out into

the dangerous areas of this cold north Atlantic. Subsequently, the people of

Nain are extremely pleased that they have an outstanding citizen who deserves

credit and recognition for heroic deeds.

I ask you, Sir, on behalf of all members of this House, to

extend congratulations to Ms. Dicker on this great deed that she did. I want to

advise the House that tomorrow I will be in Nain, celebrating with the Nain

people in recognizing Ms. Dicker for her heroic deeds.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like other members of the House, I had not heard of this act

of heroism until the hon. gentleman raised it. He mentioned to me just before

the House opened he intended to make the statement and I told him that I for one

would welcome his doing so. Now that he has heard what I have to say I would

endorse what he has to say. I am not sure I would agree that nothing but bad

news comes out of the north coast of Labrador but lets put that kind of comment

aside. The act of this young lady, Sherry Dicker, is surly worthy of

commendation. She showed, from what the hon. gentleman said, extraordinary

presence of mind and extraordinary heroism and I think that we in the House, Mr.

Speaker, should recognize that.

I would suggest that perhaps we might ask the Clerk to send a

letter of commendation to the young woman. I suggest also, Sir, you might wish

to instruct the Clerk to refer the papers to the Bravery Committee, there is a

bravery award provided by the Province, instituted several years ago by the

previous administration and a good thing it is. Your Honour might, I suggest,

wish to ask the Clerk to refer the incident to the committee. I believe Mr.

David Dempster is the secretary of that committee, he is in the executive

council office. But anyway whoever it is refer it through to the committee and

ask that they too take appropriate action but certainly, I know I speak for all

my colleagues here and I suspect I speak for all of the House when I say that we

suggest, Your Honour, respectfully that you might cause a letter to be sent to

Miss Dicker to commend her on behalf of the men and women who sit here

representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for her extraordinary

presence of mind and her extraordinary heroism on this occasion.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join

with the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Government House Leader in

commending the act of bravery of this young Labradorian in acting to save the

lives of her family. It is truly

an act that is deserving of commendation and I

would concur with the Government House Leader that this ought to be passed on to

those who might be able to make a more formal assessment of her act and make the

appropriate action. I would like that letter to be sent by the House, declared

to be unanimous of all members of the House, we are all parties in the House

joining in the commendation to this young lady.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order today. It is

a concern that I and my colleagues have pertaining to the functioning or

workings, or lack thereof, of the Legislative Review Committees. When these

Legislative Review Committees were promised, and indeed implemented, most

people, especially us here in the House, looked upon it as a fresh approach to

dealing with legislation and making new laws and rules for the people of the

Province, but the committees, I think it is fair to say, have not functioned

very readily or very properly. Looking at I think the Social Legislation Review

Committee, it has only I believe met twice in 1992. I do not think any of the

other committees have met as much as that, perhaps once, twice at the maximum,

so I am rising to express concerns about the functionings of the Legislative

Review Committees. They are not working and if they are not going to work, Mr.

Speaker, one wonders why you would even go around saying that we have

Legislative Review Committees.

I guess the only time that either Legislative Review

Committee really worked was on Bill 53, the Lands Bill, that went about the

Province and of course the people of the Province became educated and as well

were allowed to express strong opinions and we saw quite an uproar and a furore

because of the hearings associated with Bill 53. Since that time, the

Legislative Review Committees have not functioned very well and I want to rise

in my place today to bring this to the attention of the Government House Leader

and others, because we feel that the Legislative Review Committees should meet

fairly regularly; they should have a chance to review the legislation, they

should have a chance to educate the public, they should have a chance to hear

public opinion on legislation that is proposed before this House and especially

now.

I guess what really prompted this, is today we are ready to

deal with Bill 56:

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, or The Police Commission Act as it is more commonly referred, and

my understanding is that the respective Legislative Review Committee has not

dealt with it and that is a pretty significant piece of legislation and we all

know the background and what has brought this about. But here we have a

Legislative Review Committee that is supposed to be functioning and working and

this very important pieces of legislation has not even been put to committee,

and they have not had a chance to go out and about and educate the public or

hear public opinion, so I want to rise -

MS. VERGE: Have the public educate us.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is what I mean or to receive

public opinion or expression about what is proposed in the legislation or to

recommend changes, so I want to rise in my place today because I consider it to

be a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted to bring it to the

attention of the Government House Leader, recognizing the flaws and so on of the

committees to date. I am hoping that it can be corrected so that it functions in

a more working way and a more satisfying way than it has in the past.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, if I may respond, I think the hon. gentleman

would acknowledge, and this is the tenor of the latter part of his remarks, that

it is not so much a point of order, it is really a raising a matter and having

it aired and perhaps I could respond to it in that manner.

I can make two or three comments, Sir. I accept what he says.

I have no reason to question, and everything I know confirms what he said. I

will deal with the Police Act when it is called for debate. But let it be said,

nobody has come to me as one individual, as the minister in whose name the bill

stands, and said that he or she would like to be heard by a committee. That did

happen with the Law Society Act. I spoke with the Chair, my hon. friend for

Harbour Grace, who very quickly arranged a hearing and the matter slowed.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the committees are masters of their

own procedures, but that raises an anomaly. My understanding is the rules of the

House were not changed when these committees were introduced. They are sort of

out there in a semi-limbo. The rules were not changed. The last time the rules

were changed in this House was when the Tories were ramming through restrictions

on debate a long time ago.

Perhaps we should revisit some of the rules, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I'm thinking of 'Witch-hunt Willie's'

rules. The hon. gentleman has forgotten 'Witch-hunt Willie.'

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to say that the rules -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) the rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. ROBERTS: - the rules were not changed when these

committees -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from

Kilbride has to learn that rudeness and ignorance - if he were simply a child he

would only be rude, but as an adult he is both rude and ignorant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: And rudeness and ignorance have nothing to

do with debate in this House, Sir. Now, if I may continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) change the rules. You have

got to be rude and ignorant to change them.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker, without the

hon. gentleman from Kilbride being both rude and ignorant. Now the point I am

making is, the rules -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

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

Every member is entitled to be able to carry on the business

of the House without being interfered with. So I ask hon. members to govern

themselves accordingly.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I was saying

is, the rules were not changed -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked the hon. member, not in a direct way, but in an

indirect way, to please afford the Government House Leader the courtesy that is

to be afforded every member, and ask the Government House Leader to clue up his

remarks on the point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I was just saying, the rules have not been

changed. Perhaps we should deal with them on that basis. My suggestion to the

hon. gentleman from Grand Bank, the House Leader, who I know is putting forward

the matter in good faith, is that we should add this to a list of two or three

matters which I think require the attention of members of the House. We have

already addressed the issue of petitions. We should, perhaps, add these

legislation review committees to it.

Perhaps, when the House rises and we all have a little more

time to attend to these things, he and I and the House Leader from the

independent group in the House might tend on Your Honour and see if we can find

some consensus with a view to coming back and seeing if we can find a way to

address it. Because if the system isn't working effectively, perhaps we should

change it. I don't want to go beyond that until I know the arguments, pro and

con, but my understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) before the legislation can

work effectively - it has in the past.

MR. WALSH: Boy, can you give it up or not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: If you can't give it up, get out!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Kilbride that there is a

correct way for making a comment and it should not be by way of an interference.

I ask the hon. member to clue up his remarks, please.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was simply drawing to an end

and saying that speaking for those on this side, Sir, we would gladly be

prepared to participate in that process, and if the rules need to be changed to

make the procedures more effective, then we are prepared to do our part, Sir.

Thank you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would like to make just one comment on

what the Minister of Justice, the $10,000-a-month man said, Mr. Speaker. The

rules - whether they need to be changed I am not sure; but the committees, when

they were established in the beginning, were working quite effectively, I

believe. I served on a committee with the Member for St. John's South on some

labour legislation which was very important to this Province, and the committees

did work very effectively.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It was on the Lands Act - and that

committee, chaired by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, now the new

minister, worked very effectively. Since this Government House Leader has come

into this House, he will not refer the legislation to the committees so they can

do their work. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, not the rules.

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

the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. I share

the concerns of the Opposition House Leader as to the operation of the committee

and I refer members of the House to Standing Orders 84 (

e) which says, "Standing

Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such

matters as may be referred to them by the House..."

Now, the Government House Leader made reference to himself

referring a certain matter to the Chairman of the Social Services Committee and

it seems there is a procedure here whereby the House itself must refer these

matters. And, perhaps, in our discussions between the House Leaders, we may

develop a procedure whereby as legislation comes on - and obviously not every

piece of legislation needs to be reviewed. For example, we have before us now

the Leasehold In St. John's Act, which is merely postponing a particular event

for two years. That need not, perhaps, go to a Social Legislation Review

Committee, but perhaps there ought to be a specific procedure in place when

legislation is tabled in the House, for it to be designated 'yea' or 'nay' as to

one that members feel ought to go to committee. I do concur that there seems to

be a breakdown in what was promised by the government in terms of the review of

legislation and I think that it needs to be resolved, despite what the Member

for St. John's South says.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am the Vice-Chairperson of the Social Legislation Review

Committee and I have served in that capacity since these Legislation Review

Committees were established by the Wells Administration. This was a legislative

reform that we, in the official Opposition welcomed and praised. We gave credit

to the Wells Administration for bringing in the improvement.

As my colleague from Kilbride said, the committees worked

quite well for a short time. It has only been in the last year or so that the

Social Committee has virtually ground to a halt. We have the experience of the

first couple of years, to which we should now revert. It is not good enough to

do as the Justice Minister, the Government House Leader, just suggested, and

wait until some unspecified time in the New Year, leading up to an election, to

revise the rules.

We have before us now a substantial piece of legislative

reform, namely, the Police Act, purporting to establish the police complaints

commission. Without any more excuses or delays, this bill, Bill 56, should be

referred to the Social Legislation Review Committee so that we can allow groups

and individuals, the minister knows are concerned about the bill, to contribute

their thoughts, so that collectively we can improve upon this draft legislation.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association is

definitely interested in submitting comments and a critique. I would think the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association, which has a vested interest in the

legislation, would want to share their thoughts. As well, there are individuals

in the Province who have had occasion to complain about the way they were

treated by the police and who have had no choice but to go public. These

individuals probably would want the chance to appear before the committee at a

public hearing and let us know what they think of the proposal.

So, Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have the committee

structure and we have the benefit of the positive experience of the first two

years of the committee. The Member for St. John's South chaired the Social

Committee and now the Member for Harbour Grace is chairing it, and both of those

members can back me up in saying that the Social Committee has worked well when

given a chance. Mr. Speaker, all we are asking now is that the positive

experience be resumed and that this Bill 56, The Act Revising The Constabulary

Act and purporting to create a police complaints commission go the Social

Legislation Review Committee without any more delay.

MR. SPEAKER: As hon. members know, there is no point of

order. The Chair was very flexible in allowing the points of order to be raised

because matters of committee ought not to be raised in the House; but maybe it

boils down to the fact, as we have said, that something is lacking in our rules

and it is a matter that we should resolve.

Before calling Ministerial Statements, on behalf of hon.

members I would like to extend a warm welcome to a group of Level II and Level

III students from Long Island Academy in the Green Bay district. They are

accompanied by their teachers and sponsors, Marina Hewlett, Janice Winsor and

Debbie Williams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Forestry Act passed by this honourable House

in 1990 requires the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture to undertake a timber

resource analysis and a forest management strategy every five years. This

analysis is to outline the state of the Province's forest resources and timber

supply. It would specify measures to ensure that our forests are being managed

in conformity with the principles of sustainable development.

Mr. Speaker, this analysis has now been completed and today I

wish to make available for general distribution copies of my department's '20

Year Forestry Development Plan'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: This document contains the results of the

timber resource analysis and outlines this government's plans for timber

management in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, our analysis indicated that as of 1990,

Newfoundland's forests contained about 200 million cubic meters of merchantable

timber and were capable of supporting an annual allowable harvest of 2.4 million

cubic meters on the Island and 600,000 cubic meters in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: These commercial volumes are contained on a

land base which is only 25 per cent of the total area of the Island, and even

less in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, our analysis also shows that the annual demand

for timber within the Province is about 2.8 million cubic meters. This demand is

almost equally shared among Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, Abitibi-Price

Inc., and Crown land operators. On Crown lands, over 50 per cent of the total

demand for timber is in the form of fuelwood. To put this into perspective, Mr.

Speaker, the annual volume of softwood harvested for fuelwood in this Province

is greater than the annual volume used by the mill at Grand Falls or at

Stephenville - a staggering statistic, Mr. Speaker. The demand for wood on the

Island part of the Province exceeds the supply, although our Labrador resource

is not being fully utilized.

Mr. Speaker, the forests of this Province are a priceless

heritage. Although they are being managed better now than ever before, the

analysis clearly shows that on the Island we are presently harvesting more

timber than we should. To alleviate the problems caused by this overcut and to

ensure future supplies, my department, with financial assistance provided under

the Canada-Newfoundland Co-operation Forestry Agreements, has been carrying out

major silvicultural programs for the past fifteen years or so - mostly this past

three or four years, Mr. Speaker. In fact, under the most recent

federal-provincial agreement signed in 1991, fully 70 per cent of the total

agreement value of $65 million has been allocated to silviculture. In addition

to our silvicultural efforts, plans are now well under way to reduce timber

harvesting on Crown lands to annual allowable cut levels. This is being done

over a five-year period to minimize adverse impacts on those who make their

living in the woods. We especially seek the co-operation of domestic fuelwood

users to ensure that fuelwood supplies are obtained from non-commercial stands.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of my department's 20 Year

Forestry Development Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: And intend to be around to see it into

action.

MR. FLIGHT: It is hoped that by releasing it for general

distribution, it will become the focal point of discussions that will lead to

continued improvements in forest management practices and forest policy in this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. This statement comes on

the heels of - a few days ago I had an opportunity to question the minister with

regard to a paper mill on the West Coast, and the fact that they were importing

wood from Prince Edward Island. That particular turn of events appeared to be

somewhat of a surprise to the minister and I asked him at the time why or how

this came about. Obviously, the company did not altogether consult with him.

I can appreciate the fact that we are harvesting more than we

need. I also appreciate the fact that the silviculture programs that are in use

now were developed by the former, former administration. Prior to that, since

Confederation, my district of Green Bay, heavily dependent on forestry, had not

seen an iota of forest management worth talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem here. I think in the way

he delivered the statement, the minister is tending to gloss over the fact that

we will have a really serious wood shortfall. The PEI example, I think, is only

the tip of the iceberg in terms of where the wood for our paper mills is coming

from. I think that if we are going to have stricter enforcement with regard to

domestic cutting limits, etc., we should also have in concert with it a major

public education program, so that people are told what wood they should cut in

order to maintain a sustainable yield of pulpwood for the three mills in our

Province.

So enforcement is fine, Mr. Speaker, but education is also

paramount. Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: May I have leave to speak to the Ministerial

Statement, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave of the

House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a

question of the Minister of Education. Yesterday, the President of Memorial

University said that the University's budget had been cut by $1.6 million for

the balance - presumably, the last four months - of this fiscal year. I believe

the minister confirmed it himself yesterday in some news reports. That would be

the equivalent, annualized, of a cut of about $4 million to $5 million over the

full year. So it is a pretty significant cut.

I want to ask the minister: Has he discussed the impact of

these cuts with the President of the University in the last couple of weeks in

particular, and specifically, as it might affect the winter semester which

begins in January? Does he have any concerns about the negative effects that

these cuts may have on student education, post-secondary education at the

University?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I really can't understand where

the Opposition is coming from. Last week they were screaming at this Opposition:

No wage rollbacks. Last week they were screaming: No more borrowing, no more tax

hikes, no more cuts. Now, the government is left with a $153 million problem in

our fiscal management of this Province. The Opposition want to abolish every

single way that we can deal with that problem. The reality is we had to take $17

million out of education. We did not specifically say to the University -

AN HON. MEMBER: That wasn't what you said yesterday! You

said you hadn't touched it!

MR. DECKER: We did not say specifically to the University

how they should deal with that problem, Mr. Speaker. We told them that we wanted

a refund of $1.6 million from their budget. Now, I discussed this with the

President of the University, maybe a month or more ago, in general terms that

there was a possibility we could be asking for some refund.

We are anxious that programs not be affected. We are anxious

that enrollment not be capped. There are certain general parameters that the

administration is concerned about. However, the hon. member will know that in

the final analysis, the decision as to how to deal with that $1.6 million

problem is a University problem. Just as each hospital board, each school board,

and so on, have to deal with their problems. We are not going to go in and tell

the University exactly what it must do. But, of course, we will be expecting

them to advise us before they make any moves as to what they intend to do.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the

minister deflected any question that I asked about whether or not he had any

concerns about the negative effects this might have on students' education. He

didn't address that question at all.

Let me ask him this, being a bit more specific: Since 1990,

Memorial's operating grants have been basically and essentially frozen, tuition

fees at the university have jumped by about 25 per cent, enrolment has increased

by about 2,000 people and they already have over there, in many faculties, a

shortage of course offerings; I want to ask him, Does he think that these cuts -

because they are significant, and he has admitted that himself - does he think

that these cuts might mean that the university will have to accept fewer

applicants? - I am talking about for the winter semester in particular. Does he

think that it might mean further cuts in course offerings where there is already

a significant shortage and does he think that these cuts might mean another

increase in tuition fees?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not want in any way to

underestimate just how serious a problem this is. At no time are we trying to

say that this is not a severe problem. It is a severe problem. The university

has a budget it receives from government, of about $120 million. We are asking

for $1.6 million of that back. As the hon. member said, in a certain respect,

their budget was frozen. They did get grants for some extra - in certain areas,

where they are specified, Mr. Speaker but as to whether or not I am concerned,

yes I am concerned. I am also concerned about the $153 million problem that the

Province has, Mr. Speaker. There is a greater concern which overrides everything

and that is the financial integrity of this Province, and we have to deal with

that through all the various sectors where the government spends money. We

cannot say to the university you are going to be exempt and say to a hospital

you have to bear part of the burden. We have to treat this fairly, Mr. Speaker,

without discrimination and the university has to deal with the problem of $1.6

million. I would certainly hope that they will deal with this with the same

wisdom with which they dealt with other problems they have had over the past

number of years.

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

MR. SIMMS: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Given that the Premier and the Minister of Finance have both

said publicly that the cuts outlined in the mini-Budget are really only the

beginning, because the more and deeper cuts are likely to come in the spring in

the new Budget, if this government brings in a new Budget before the next

election, I want to ask the minister does he think that the thousands of young

people who see higher education as their only hope for the future, are now

likely to have to bear much more of the cost themselves or, if not, have to

leave university, drop out altogether? Is it likely to be university degrees for

the rich and welfare for the poor? Is that what he thinks is likely to occur?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, 'I would not have you ignorant,

brethren,' I believe is the way to put it - I would not have you ignorant,

brethren, we are living in a very difficult time. Had we not done what we did

with this mini-Budget, as it has been called, we would have had a problem of

around $200 million in the next year. So, Mr. Speaker, we are living in an age

when we are having very difficult fiscal problems. As to whether or not this is

going to mean that education becomes something simply for the rich, I would

certainly hope that is not so. When you consider that the Province is already

putting $120 million into that Budget, it is difficult to reach the conclusion

that we are only doing that for the rich. Mr. Speaker, we are living in a tough

age. I can tell you what would be worse for the young people of this Province,

it would be worse for the young people of this Province if we were to throw our

hands up in the air and let the Province go into bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker; that

would have a lot worse impact on the young people of this Province than saying

to the university, you have to find savings of $1.6 million.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there are many in this Province

who think this government have thrown their hands up in the air and given up all

administration.

I want to ask him a final question about his government's own

Strategic Economic Plan. This is the document that members of the government

continuously espouse as the only hope for our future. In that document, as he

would know, throughout, there are references about improving the level and

quality of education for our young people - that is sprinkled throughout that

document everywhere. I want to ask the minister now, In light of what he has

just told us, are these merely words? Have they, in fact, abandoned their

strategic plan where they have emphasised the importance of education as being

the real opportunity for the future? I mean, what are these, just more words

that are used in documents and that you do not really mean it? Because obviously

you don't mean it if you are not going to put the financial resources into it.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this administration is totally

committed to our Strategic Economic Plan. This is the first time in the history

of this Province that there has been in place a strategic economic plan so that

we can tell the people of this Province where we plan to go. And I admit, Mr.

Speaker, that there is, indeed, a major role for education to play in our

Strategic Economic Plan. However, if we were to get up and discriminate against

any sector and say we are not going to touch education, we are not going to

touch health, we are not going to touch transportation or we are not going to

touch some other sector, then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be up

criticizing government because we had allowed one sector to go without bearing

any part of the burden.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in that 1 per cent and 3

per cent refund that we are asking for, we told the various institutions,

including the university, to look first to their operation or look first to - in

the Department of Education, for example, right on our own floor, we are saving

$1 million this year. We are cutting out some travel, we are cutting out some

non-essential travel, some non-essentials which are there, and we are asking all

the institutions to look, look to the way they spend their money. Maybe there is

not a single solitary cent wasted, well, if there is not, that would be

different, but if they can see somewhere they can make a saving without directly

impacting on the education of the student, Mr. Speaker, we expect them to do

that first before they have to dig deeper. I believe that the co-operation is

there and I believe it will work out for the best.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question also to the Minister of

Education.

The minister stated in the House yesterday that budgets for

community colleges would be cut, he said probably in the $2 million to $3

million range. Now, that twenty-four hours have elapsed, could he now tell the

House what that exact figure is?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we are

dealing with a total of $17 million, which was read out when the hon. the

Minister of Finance delivered his Budget. I don't think I can be expected to

carry every single $1 million, $1.5 million, $2 million here and $100,000 there,

around in my head. It would be extemely difficult; I don't have that ability. I

am not sure if the figure I mentioned yesterday about the College (inaudible) -

let me explain what is happening in the community colleges.

All the community colleges had some surpluses, or most of

them had some surpluses, on their budgets, Mr. Speaker, significant surpluses.

These surpluses arrive - as hon. members would understand, the colleges quite

often enter into contracts with the Federal Government to deliver educational

programs. This is where manpower comes in and buys so many seats or where there

is a special initiative of Employment and Immigration to buy a particular

course. As a result of that, all the colleges had in their budgets, in total, a

surplus in the vicinity of $4 million. It was money that was not given by the

Province, it was provincial institutions which raised this money, provincial

employees, and that money was sitting in there in their budgets.

Last summer, I wrote the colleges - because at that time we

anticipated that there would be some budget problems coming up in this year - I

wrote the colleges and asked them not to spend this surplus money in the event

that we should need it for a rainy day, in the event that we had a budgetary

problem. During this budgetary process, we have gone back to the colleges now

and said: that surplus you have, we will deduct an equivalent amount of your

grant from you. So, I suppose, in a sense, we are taking $4 million from them,

but remember, Mr. Speaker, it is $4 million which they had built up in surplus.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we have a clawback going, too, with the community

colleges. That is $4 million that was budgeted in this fiscal year and that is

now taken back from them. I am sure the minister is aware of the headline in The

Evening Telegram that says: Colleges swamped -applications triple the number of

spots. With reduced funding for these colleges, will there now be fewer spots

and programs available?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if we had not had this fiscal

problem, I would suggest that same headline would have appeared. The reality is

that over the past number of years - I suppose it is because of the economy -

more and more students are applying for seats in the colleges, so there are some

lineups, there are some people waiting. Now, the headline in the paper doesn't

tell the complete story, because if there are 1,000 people on a waiting list to

get into a college, you will probably find, Mr. Speaker, that they are on the

waiting list at all five colleges. So if you have 200 on each college waiting

list, it could be repeated and you could have the same people. So the actual

number of bodies who are waiting will not necessarily relate to the number of

people on the waiting list. It has been found in the past that normally it takes

three applications to get one person. If you have three people on the waiting

list, when the times comes that usually translates, Mr. Speaker, into one person

getting in. Now I believe in the last year or so you might find that that has

changed a bit and probably it is two to one.

The other problem with the waiting list, Mr. Speaker: A lot

of students are applying to become nursing assistants, for example. There is a

considerable waiting list for nursing assistants. Well, it is a conscious

decision by government, in co-operation with the nursing assistants association,

only to allow so many nursing assistants through the system. It is no good to

train a thousand nursing assistants if there are only fifty jobs out there. It

is no good to train a thousand welders if there are only ten jobs out there. So

some of the waiting lists have developed with the students who are applying for

occupations in which we know there will be no jobs waiting for them. So that

adds to it.

So it is not a simple matter of 5,000 students out there

saying we must get into university or we must get into the colleges. The waiting

list would have to be examined a little more closely and you will find, Mr.

Speaker, it is not good, it is not desirable, it is not what we want, but you

have to get the full facts before you can pass judgement on it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Ferryland

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister had statistics to show us the actual number

of people that would refute the accuracy of this telegram headline, maybe he

should have stated to the House what the actual figure is. Actually, the

centerpiece of this government's Strategic Economic Plan is higher education and

training. Will the minister tell the House how he hopes to achieve this if there

is a reduced opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get skills

training in those community colleges? Has he already forgotten the Strategic

Economic Plan that this government produced?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the second part of the hon.

member's question I already answered when his leader asked basically the same

question. The first part about the applicants and this sort of thing: Cabot

College, 761; Eastern College - they are all here, Mr. Speaker. I will table it

as the hon. member asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister responsible for our

wildlife resources. It is the first time since I have been elected, Mr. Speaker,

that I have had a particularly large number of enquiries from the King's

Point/Rattling Brook area of my district with regard to the annual moose kill,

specifically from the point of view that a lot of people who are ordinarily

successful in their hunt have not been this year and the season is closed in

that particular area. They pointed out to me that it was a warm September, and

nobody likes to hunt in warm weather because it is poisoning the meat, etc, and

on the last weekend for the kill this year there was a blizzard, so people

couldn't get out.

So I ask the minister: Has he had representations about the

number of unsuccessful moose hunters, in my area in particular, or in general,

and whether or not there is a possible lengthening of the season to accommodate

this?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In direct reference to the member's question, yes, we have

had some representations from parts of the Province about hunters who have been

unsuccessful. Yes, we have had some comments from hunters who were questioning

the warm part of the season and also questioning, because of some snowstorms or

bad weather, if the season could be extended. We have had those requests.

We really have no control over the weather and there is not

much we can do about that. The season that we have in place is one that has

evolved over a good number of years, in a lot of cases in consultation with rod

and gun clubs and lots of other people who are involved in the sport of hunting.

Mr. Speaker, that is the most that we can do at this point in time. We will

certainly be more than willing to review our position in light of what happened

this year so that we can try to address next year's concerns. But at this point

in time there is very little we can do with respect to that subject.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

minister: There has been in past years a situation where additional moose

licenses have been given out after you have a quick analysis of what happened in

a particular fall. It seems to me that given the number of calls I have had from

my area that it is a particular circumstance that might be dealt with by a

particular response on the part of the minister and I am wondering if he feels

that way as well.

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is not as much with the fact that additional

moose licenses were granted. That was done because we felt that the population

of moose was there to meet that need. Part of the problem we are facing in terms

of moose hunting in the Province is the actual habit of some of the hunters

themselves. We find, and our officials tell me, that far too many wish to hunt

close to the road, and in a lot of cases the early kills that take place in

various zones take place close to the secondary roads. I do not mean the

highways themselves, so that in itself causes a problem, where not enough people

are actually getting back into the country. Now in your particular area that may

not be the case but we have found that there are enough moose there to meet the

needs. I cannot say that every hunter out there in any given year is guaranteed

success but I can say to you that the moose are there and there is no reason why

hunters, if they have the time and the abilities, can reach out and get their

moose. In your particular area I am not sure what may have caused those problems

but I would be willing to ask my officials to up date me on what may have

happened in your given area and we can take that from there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a final supplementary to the minister. He mentioned that

people like to kill animals that were close to the road. In the Green Bay -

White Bay area where I hail from there are roads all over the place. It is a

forestry area and the entire countryside is crisscrossed by roads that hunters

can use. Even given that a large number have been unsuccessful this year so I

ask the minister to keep this in mind when he looks into the matter.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Tourism and

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I say that we have absolutely no

problem in looking into the matter to see what may have caused that anomaly in

your area this year. I cannot answer right offhand. I can say to you that we

have been told that in central Newfoundland one of the biggest problems we are

having is that most of the hunters are staying close to the roads and are not

taking the advantage to get back into the country where we still find there are

a lot of game, a lot of good game, that could be killed by those who are moose

hunting. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in asking our

officials to investigate to see what may have happened in the Green Bay area.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. Over two years ago now, Mr. Speaker, the former minister responsible

for municipal affairs came in with the idea of amalgamation and amalgamating a

number of municipalities in the Province. One of the groupings at that

particular time were some in my area, namely the town of Deer Lake, the LSD

districts of Spillway, St. Jude's and Nicholsville. I wonder if the minister

could inform the House this evening the status of the particular grouping in my

area as of today?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: As of today, Mr. Speaker, the particular

grouping to which the hon. member refers have been written approximately a week

ago and asked if they had any final comments following a review of their

objections or otherwise with the local regional manager. We are looking for

additional comments from them before the final decision is made or

recommendations made to Cabinet. I am not sure whether I have received a reply

on that or not. I do not recall receiving all the replies but some of them have

come in.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister give his assurances here in the House today

that if those particular communities do not want amalgamation that he will go

along with their requests and recommend to Cabinet that they not be amalgamated?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I will take the proposals from his communities

under advisement and I guarantee him I will certainly discuss it with him before

a final recommendation or decision is made.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, could the minister probably

explain to me, and explain to the House as a whole, why the Department of

Municipal Affairs are paying municipalities in the Province under the MOG

system, namely the road component, approximately $459 now and can justify, and

maybe confirm, maybe I am wrong, justify why they pay the Department of

Transportation $1000 a kilometre and pay municipalities in the Province

approximately $450? Could the minister confirm that, and if it is confirmed tell

me if there's any justification for it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The figure that the hon. member mentions, Mr.

Speaker, as a road component of the MOG is approximately right. The other figure

I'm not quite sure of, that the municipalities pay to the hon. minister's

department for road clearing. The stories and reports that I've gotten from

various councils is that it varies throughout the Province, and I'm not sure if

that's correct either.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, last question to the Minister

responsible for Transportation. Could the Minister responsible for

Transportation then confirm to the House that his department is charging back to

municipalities through the MOG system approximately $1,000 per kilometre, where

they're getting paid approximately $450 (Inaudible) Department of Municipal

Affairs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of

the policy with respect to winter operations in communities is as follows. That

basically municipalities are responsible for their own snow clearing. Where snow

clearing services cannot be obtained on a reasonable basis, then the department

would provide that snow clearing service at cost, whatever that cost happens to

be. For community councils I believe the figure is $1,000 per kilometre. That's

the figure that's charged to the council. Exactly how that's collected - whether

it's collected through the MOG or not - I'm not entirely sure. But the cost is

$1,000 a kilometre. With respect to local service districts and communities

which have no form of local government, my understanding is that the service is

provided free of charge to those particular communities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Health. Medical experts in Quebec have informed the Quebec

government that type C meningococcal bacteria will peak this winter in its

six-year cycle. Could the minister tell us if his own medical experts have

indicated to him what's going to happen in Newfoundland this winter? Will that

disease be peaking here as well this winter?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of

meningococcal disease has been foremost over the past number of years. Our

department is looking very carefully at it and we are following the approved

procedures that are generally recognised as being approved in Canada. But we're

always open to any new thoughts that come along, and we keep in total touch with

the national and international scene.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec Minister of

Health, Mr. Ct, has indicated that all residents between six months and twenty

years of age are going to be vaccinated. Which will be approximately 1.6 million

people. Now since we share a border with Quebec, is there any cause for concern,

I ask the minister, here in this Province? Has the minister given any thought to

a similar inoculation program for Newfoundland? Why will he, for instance, not

inoculate?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this question

and we have no plans to emulate the Province of Quebec. Their problems may be

somewhat different from ours.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. In the mini-Budget statement by

the Minister of Finance last Friday a mention was made of the government's plan

to repeal the restraints on collective bargaining contained in Bill 17. I wonder

if the Minister of Employment could assure the House that these constraints and

these restraints on collective bargaining in the public sector will not be

replaced by other restraints on free collective bargaining?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question, although I don't know exactly what's intended by it. Because the

statement is clear for itself. I guess people are still used to trying to read

some things into what is said other than what is there.

The fact of the matter is there will be a bill passed,

legislation brought before the House before Christmas to repeal the reference to

the third year in Bill 17, and there will be an invitation issued from the

President of Treasury Board, since Treasury Board does the negotiations with all

of the public sector unions on behalf of government, regardless of what

departments they work in, to invite them to come back to the bargaining table

and help us together to try and resolve the difficulties that we still face in

the future year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the risk of trying to read something into it, I am more

interested in reading something out of the government's plans. Can the minister

assure the House that despite the aims of the government to achieve a reduction

in compensation, that they have no intention - nor will they - do that by

legislative restraints on collective bargaining?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again I do not understand what

the hon. member is actually referring to, or trying to suggest might be in the

future. All I can tell him is that before we close this Legislature at this

particular sitting, we have given a commitment that the reference that the

unions, the public service unions, found to not be to their liking, and they

were complaining about with respect to limitations imposed upon collective

bargaining in a future year - the next fiscal year - by Bill 17, that we have

given a commitment which we will honour to remove that reference from the

legislation.

We will then entertain, at the bargaining table and through

free and open collective bargaining, all types of presentations and

representations; and as I indicated in my comments on the Financial Statement

yesterday in the Legislature, I am looking forward to the fact that the public

service unions will demonstrate ingenuity, all kinds of creative, ingenious ways

to protect the benefits and interests of their members while also helping the

government protect the most important part, which is the financial integrity and

the ability of the Province to meet those needs that they will express on behalf

of their members.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I say to the Government House Leader, it is in response

to yesterday where we agreed that we would give notice today, and today I give

notice in the name of the Member for Mount Pearl who is unavoidably absent,

attending a funeral. The resolution is as follows:

WHEREAS the provincial economy is shrinking and unemployment

is increasing; and

WHEREAS the tax burden imposed on individuals and businesses

by this administration has harmed the economy; and

WHEREAS the administration has failed to execute effective

policies to stimulate the economy and decrease unemployment;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that in an attempt to stimulate the

economy and thereby create jobs, the provincial government immediately take

steps to reduce the level of taxation in the Province.

That is the Private Members' resolution that we shall put

forward tomorrow.

Seconded by the Member for Humber East.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House the hon. Member for Mount Pearl asked

some questions and I agreed to find out the answers for him.

There are two series of questions. One had to do with the

annualization of the tax measures that we had brought in. He had thought that

the personal income tax would bring in next year an additional $36 million. I

have since been informed that we are projecting not $36 million but $21.8

million; and that the gasoline tax which he had thought would bring in $15.7

million, we are estimating to be $13.3 million next year; and the tobacco tax

which he had thought would bring in something like $11 million, I believe, will

actually bring in something like $21.1 million extra next year.

In addition, we are expecting vehicle licences to bring in $4

million next year, but that the corporate income tax which we have reduced will

result in $10 million less next year, so that the net increase of $10 million in

taxes this year will mean an additional $40 million next year - in the next

fiscal year.

Another series of questions that he asked had to do with the

'other'

definitions in statement 2 in the Ministerial Statement made by the

Minister of Finance. He asked for the breakdown of the 'other'.

The original Budget had $8,250,000 for 'other' and now there

is $18 million. Without going into all the details of that, which I will table,

I will indicate however, that the extra $10 million in 'other' is school tax

arrears which we expect to collect.

There is another 'other' under 'other provincial sources',

which is increased from $11 million in the original Budget now to the revised

Budget of almost $20 million - about a little over $8 million extra - and most

of that is money that we are going to be paid directly from Churchill Falls,

CF(L)Co. Normally they pay through hydro, and hydro uses it to pay off its

bonds, but we are going to slow down the repayment of the bonds and let that

money flow directly into government coffers.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and I will table these

answers.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we do Motion No. 4 before

we get into the debate on the bill, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Act," carried. (Bill No. 63).

On motion, Bill No. 63 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Or tonight, maybe.

MR. SPEAKER: Tonight.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 28, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 28, the second reading, "An Act To

Revise The Law Respecting The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary", (Bill No. 56).

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I rise with both pride and with

confidence to move second reading of Bill No. 56, which is entitled, "An Act To

Revise The Law Respecting The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary".

I do so with pride, Mr. Speaker, because I suggest, and I

will lay out my case in the hour that is available to me under the rules of the

House - (technical malfunction)

Was it I Lord, I say to my friend, the Leader of the

Opposition. I do so with pride, Sir, because in my view this is a very good

Bill, one which deserves the support of the House. I get an impression from the

hon. lady and her colleagues opposite, that we may not get the support, sobeit.

Secondly, I do it with confidence because this is a good

Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I shall demonstrate that in the few remarks I am about to

make.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish.

MR. ROBERTS: The Bill, Mr. Speaker, sets out the means by

which the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - Mr. Speaker, let me just say a word

or two now. My hon. friends Opposite, are determined to be rude and ignorant.

Now I take this Bill as being important, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair to

afford me the protection to which I am entitled as a member, if the hon. member

for Burin - Placentia West -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well whoever said it - if it was not him, I

apologize to him, but whoever yells out rubbish that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it may very well be their view

this Bill is rubbish, in which case when the time comes let them stand and say

so, but I would ask a degree of courtesy and decency from hon. gentlemen

opposite. This is an important Bill. It addresses an important issue and I would

ask that they hear what I have to say, whether I change their minds or not is

not for me to say and with all respect I do not particularly worry because I

will deal with it on the merits and I expect them to do the same and they can

come to whatever conclusion they feel best. I say to my friend for St. John's

East Extern, that I make the same request of him.

I am prepared to answer questions now or at Committee, quite

prepared, indeed anxious, but I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members on

both sides allow speakers on both sides to be heard in the normal parliamentary

fashion and that does not include, whoever it may be, yelling out rubbish - that

is just childish. I mean that does not advance the House, it does not dignify

the House, it simply demeans all of us. It demeans the House, it demeans the

members and it demeans the process by which we are here, and of course, if one

side starts it the other side can do it and nobody wins. Now that is not to say

that if they could, for once in their lives get off an intelligent heckle, it

might not be a good thing. I would be happy to deal with that. I would be happy

to deal with that, if hon. gentleman opposite or even the hon. lady opposite can

rise to that level, and in turn I have been known to try one or two, sometimes

it is a success sometimes not, I am first to acknowledge.

MR. TOBIN: By the way, John Carter (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman. Mr.

John Carter was one of the more intelligent members of this House, and indeed so

outshone the Tory party in general that it was like the sun at midday against

the moon in an eclipse, to compare John Carter to the hon. gentleman and the

lady opposite now, is comparing a mountain to a veritable mole hill. The hon.

gentleman for St. John's East Extern, I said this before, should not come to a

battle of wits half-armed as he does.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get on with the Bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Bill would review and

revise and replace the legislation which governs the organization and the

operation of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the only police force

maintained by the government of this Province. There are only, Mr. Speaker, two

police forces in this Province today.One is the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

which exists under a statute now found as part of the revised statutes of

Newfoundland, 1990; the other of which is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

which performs in part under a contract with the Ministry of the Province and in

part performs duties as a federal police force.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I've been observing, and I think it's time to comment again,

and the Chair has done this on several occasion, since there are a small number

of people in the House maybe I should wait. There are far too many conversations

going on. I find it difficult to listen and I'm trying to listen. I don't know

if hon. members speaking or if hon. members who are listening are finding it as

difficult to listen as I am.

Hon. members must realise that even though we allow people to

talk to each other that when it gets to the extent that people can't be heard

then we can't tolerate it. I ask hon. members please to particularly reserve

their conversations for outside, behind the Chair, or particularly outside.

There were at least five meetings going on at the time that I arose to ask for

order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm grateful for

Your Honour's protection because I need all the help I can get, I've been told

on occasion.

Now as I was saying, there are two police forces in this

Province. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police.

MR. TOBIN: Three! Davis Inlet.

MR. ROBERTS: Davis Inlet is not a police force, I say to

my friend for Burin - Placentia West. The two young Jacobish brothers are not

peace officers, which is the precise term. There are a number of so-called town

police forces around the Province who are essentially municipal by-law

enforcement officers. For example, the town of Gander, I believe, the so-called

town police force has the ability to issue tickets under the Highway Traffic

Act. Indeed, as do some of the enforcement officers here in the City of St.

John's. I recently had the pleasure of paying a ticket. I went to a meeting at

Gower Street Church on a Tuesday evening, came back out and found my car was a

little more than when I left it. It had a ticket on it. Cost me twenty bucks,

and I have a cancelled cheque to prove it.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two police forces in that sense.

There are some other forces authorised to be peace officers under the Criminal

Code. The Harbour police, some of the wildlife officers have certain peace

officer powers. As a general rule there are only two police forces in this

Province.

The Royal Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Somebody said University. They are

authorised to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: They're not peace officers at the

University, Mr. Speaker. They are authorised to give police tickets.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Maybe they want to be. So do the two young

men in Davis Inlet. But they aren't at present. There are any number of people

authorised to give parking tickets, as we'll all find out. One of the joys of

being Minister of Justice is I get to do important things. I get to sign change

of name applications and I get to sign authorizations that empower people to

issue parking tickets at hospitals, in the University, and what have you. It's a

very important and busy job I have up there. Keeps me busy.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: Are you aware there are members in the House

who were former police officers?

MR. ROBERTS: I know my friend, the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, is a former police officer. Who's the second? The

gentleman from St. John's East Extern?

MR. TOBIN: They were in cahoots together.

MR. ROBERTS: I see. I know that the gentleman from

Placentia has been a success. What happened to the other gentleman, is what I

would ask.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Ed, Ed! The Member for Placentia got kicked

out first!

MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me carry on. I don't

know why whenever I stand I draw this.... somebody said to me the other day:

Roberts, you can't even announce the Orders of the Day without getting in

trouble. I don't understand it. It's been like this for twenty years. I just

don't understand it. Back in the University of Toronto model parliament, where

Stephen Lewis and Gerry Kaplin were playing games for the NDP, these great,

sainted names from the past who were classmates of mine. Bob Rae was just a

young beginner at that stage.

Anyway. Mr. Speaker, the Bill sets out a sound progressive

and responsible scheme - in addition to organizing the Constabulary, which I'll

deal with in a minute - to provide a public complaints procedure that will be

fair to all concerned and that will be effective. It's fair to both sides of the

complaint process - those who complain and those who are complained against. It

is effective in that it will provide a means whereby a concern that a police

officer has acted improperly in the course of his or her duties can be

investigated and adjudicated by an independent knowledgeable and powerful

commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Parts 1, 2, and 4 - there are four parts in

this act, in fact there are five, Parts, 1, 2, and 4 are essentially an

reenactment of the present Constabulary Act. There is little of anything that is

new. There are some revised wordings but I cannot offhand recollect any specific

section or any principle that is new. I am not holding that out as the ultimate

word. There may be some in here. I have a concordance so if any member would

like to know which

section refers back to the previous act, or so forth, I would

be happy to try to deal with that at the appropriate time.

Part 5 as Your Honour

has no doubt noticed is called Miscellaneous and Regulations. It is the punt

being towed by the schooner. The

part I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, because

it is the new part, is

Part 3, the one headed Public Complaints. This is new.

This if adopted will put into place a procedure -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. Did my hon. friend for Kilbride

say something?

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will treat that with the

contempt the hon. gentleman generally deserves.

Part 3 brings in an entirely new procedure and an entirely

new principle to the law of this Province. It is one which we in the government

think is long overdue and we think it is a right and proper principle. It will

bring into place a means by which a member of the public may initiate a

procedure that will hold a police office to account for his or her conduct. It

is that simple, it is that straightforward, and it is that clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Does the hon. Member for Menihek have a

question?

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the provisions of the

part in

detail let me make two or three general comments. I welcome any comments from

any hon. members, and I anticipate and suspect I will get them. I look forward

with particular interest to the contribution of the lady from Humber East who

speaks for justice on the other side and has a lot of experience in this

portfolio. We will see what she has to say about it. I read with great interest

the comments of my friend, and no doubt again colleague Peter Boswell, in

Saturday's Telegram. I do not agree with everything he said but I think it

should be said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Unlike the hon. gentleman for Kilbride Mr.

Boswell did his own research and had read the Bill. I am not sure he understood

it but he certainly read it. I also want to state very clearly and for the

record that I am told by my friend for Harbour Grace who chairs, I think it is

called the Social Legislation Review Committee - I may have the name wrong, that

there has been no request made of him by any group who wished to be heard with

respect to this Bill, or individual. I will say clearly that I have heard from

no group or no individual who wishes to have this Bill dealt with by anything

other than the normal process. Let me also go on to say, lest there be any

doubt, that I have made no changes in the procedure. I have no right to issue

instructions to the Chairs of these committees. I have not, but even if I had,

they would reject them out of hand. I want that to be on the record in the

House.

Let me say also in response to my friend for St. John's East

that he has once again misread the rules of the House. Standing Order 84 which

he referred to earlier today on the Point of Order does not refer to the Review

Committees, it refers only to the Standing Committees of the House.

All I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that whatever procedure may

be in place - and I have asked that I be given some information on it, will be

available, but it is not for me to initiate or not. These committees are masters

of their own fate. I will say, though, the government's legislative program, the

progress of the House, is not determined by committees. Committees are part of

the House. They function as part of the House, but they are not the House. The

House itself is master of its rules.

I heard my hon. friend from Humber East say earlier today,

and this is a quotation, that: Only in the last year or so has the social

committee ground to a halt.

I have no knowledge of that. I have only been in the House on

this trip around for three, four, five, six, or seven months - whatever it has

been. I will say to the hon. lady simply, if it ground to a halt a year ago I

would assume that she, as vice-chair of it, would have done something to address

the issue. I am told by my friend, the Chair, that she has not. Res ipsa

loquitor - the matter speaks for itself. She now comes in, and I have no doubt

we will hear her in due course, whine and complain that this has not gone to a

committee. All I say is that she has done nothing about it.

MR. TOBIN: Rubbish.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West is once again rising from his normal place to compare himself to

rubbish. Let him go back into the hole in which he normally lives.

I have asked already that hon. gentlemen, if they are not

prepared to follow the decent thing, at least follow the rules. It does not take

any brains to shout 'rubbish' or to shout some other equally inane comment. All

it does is demean the hon. gentleman opposite. All it does is destroy the whole

proceedings of the House of Assembly. That may be what they want to do. They are

not succeeding in convincing the public. All they have accomplished by being

here a month-and-a-half is to convince anybody who has followed the House that

the hon. gentlemen opposite have not been there long enough to know what they

are doing. Not only are they going to get another term, but they deserve another

term in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West should kindly restrain his soul in patience. I do not care to

whom he was speaking. There is only one person to whom one may speak in this

House, I say to my friend, and that is the Speaker. Unless the hon. gentleman is

recognized, and some of us know him for what he truly is - a lovable,

huggy-duggy doll of a man - really a teddy bear, a great big pussycat, that is

all he really is, but he has to come in here and try to pretend he is a

hairy-chested macho tough guy, but he is really a great big pussycat, a teddy

bear. That is all he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, my hon. friend from St. John's East does

not get very much, but I say that is the hon. gentleman's problem. I can only

sympathize with him. There may be those who could give him professional help,

but I cannot.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that the Bill before the House

now is the product of a great deal of study and work. By my count this is about

the thirty-eighth draft of this Bill, but I acknowledge readily that the Bill is

capable of improvement and as always we are prepared to deal with those who want

to suggest improvements. We are prepared to take advice, and if we are persuaded

of the desirability of change, we shall propose the change at the appropriate

time.

We welcome suggestions, constructive or otherwise. They do

not have to be constructive. We will welcome any suggestions. Even my friend

from Burin - Placentia West could make a suggestion and I would welcome it. That

is how open-minded I am.

In all likelihood, I would anticipate we will move some

amendments at the committee stage. I had a discussion this morning which I think

led me to suggest we should have an amendment to the reporting process by the

Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, part three - the one I am speaking about in

detail, the new part - is headed 'Public Complaints'. The principle, the

purpose, of the

part is summed up in the first

section found in it, which is

Section 18(1). "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints Commission consisting of a

Commissioner."

It is a public complaints commission dealing only with the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Now let me first of all say why it deals only

with the RNC.

The RNC is the only police force in this Province - and I

told Your Honour we only have two - over which this House and the Ministry which

answers to this House - and which holds office because it has the confidence of

this House - over which the Ministry has any operational control. The Minister

of Justice has no operational control over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The Chief Superintendent, who is the senior RCMP officer in this Province,

answers to the RCMP chain of command. There is operational liaison day by day.

The RCMP perform provincial police functions, and indeed we

pay 70 per cent of the cost, approximately $70,000, for each officer. We pay 70

per cent of $100,000, $70,000 in respect of each of the - I think there are 458

Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers in Newfoundland and Labrador today who

are performing provincial functions. There are more than that who are doing

other work. Customs and Excise, whatever other functions the RCMP -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Whatever there are. But subject to

correction, I think there are 458 'p.y.'s,' they call them, person years, for

which we pay. We don't have operational control over them. They do the work that

we request but they answer to their own authorities. My liaison is to the Chief

Superintendent or to the Commissioner, the people in Ottawa.

So we restricted this to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

because it's the only force this Province's legislation governs. The RCMP has

its own public complaints procedure as outlined in this little pamphlet. If any

hon. members would like to see a copy I'd be happy to have some sent down here

and have them passed around. It describes every member of the RCMP as under a

public complaints procedure, which indeed is quite similar to the one that is

outlined in this Bill. Obviously there are some differences but basically

they're much the same.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this is a complaints commission only.

I want to be very clear. Because there has been some criticism. This is not a

commission to run the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. The Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary will continue to operate as it has for the 120 years of its proud

history. It will answer to the Chief of Police who will answer to the civil

authorities - the Minister of Justice and to the Cabinet, and in turn the

Minister of Justice and the Cabinet answer to the House of Assembly. It will not

answer to an anonymous, unelected, unrepresentative, unresponsive commission. It

will continue to answer to the proper and appropriate chain of authority.

Indeed, members may already have noted that we've, in what I

think is a very significant move, not only put in here a requirement that the

Chief of Police shall carry out duties assigned to him by the minister - which

was in the previous Act, found in

Section 6(2) of the present Act. "The chief

shall report to the minister and shall obey the minister's orders and

directions." A proper principle in my view. But there's a new thing. The orders

must be in writing. If I as minister am not prepared to reduce an order to

writing then it's not a proper order and does not have to be followed by the

Chief of Police. The advantage of that? It means that responsibility clearly

lies where it should, with he or she who issues the order.

So this is a complaints commission. It doesn't run the police

force. This recommendation is entirely consistent with the tenets of responsible

government, as I've said. We are the Ministry, we answer to the House of

Assembly, we answer to the people of this Province.

Secondly, it is entirely consistent - and I want to stress

this - with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Hughes in his report. There's a

great deal of misunderstanding, a great deal of misinformation. But if one looks

at pages 462 through 464 of the report - and this is the recommendations

section. It's

Chapter 11. It's the first volume of Judge Hughes' report.

Chapter

11, headed: "Furthering the Administration of Justice." Page 462 going through

to 464 with respect to Recommendation 25.

I'll read just a part of it. It's not terribly long, let me

read it all. "Witnesses before the Commission on several occasions expressed the

need for a process by which an independent body could review public complaints,

particularly complaints against the police.

The office of Ombudsman - or Parliamentary Commissioner as

officially described - was not constituted to deal with complaints, but in

practice fulfilled public need in that quarter". The ombudsman is no longer

here, whether we like it or not, that is the decision of the government and in

due course of the House. "It is now abolished, the office of the ombudsman and

there have been ministerial statements indicating that the matter of providing

for public complaints against the police was under advisement", so they were. My

predecessor, the gentleman from Humber West made those statements and I do not

know if my friend from Bonavista South did but certainly we are on record

clearly as saying we are going to make provision and here it is.

Judge Hughes continued: "The position of this commission is

that such a provision should be made, although with some reservations about a

guarantee of independence of all political control. There is no principle of

democracy, as expressed in our parliamentary system, to justify complete removal

from government of responsibility for the supervision of a body to which

government is itself responsible as from time to time elected by the people of

the province. Over the years there has been a tendency for parliaments and

legislatures to shed responsibility for various matters by creating boards and

commissions to discharge duties previously undertaken by parliamentary

committees. This has culminated in a state of mind" - and I council the critics

of the fact that this commission answers through a minister or answers to the

House but is created by the ministry under a legislation if this legislation be

adopted. Here is what Judge Hughes said: "This has culminated in a state of mind

which suggests that anything political is somehow reprehensible, even though

politics", I say to my friend from St. John's South, "even though politics must,

upon reflection, be recognized as a guarantee of freedom, sought and fought for

over many generations". Now, that is what Judge Hughes had to say. He went on -

MS. VERGE: Read on.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? I shall gladly read on. "It

would be open to a solicitor general" but we have no such a gentleman and we are

not going to, we are reducing the size of the Cabinet. "It would be open to a

solicitor general" - I am sorry?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We will deal with that at the appropriate

time. This is not the appropriate time, I say to the lady.

"It would be open to a solicitor general to create a police

commission with a public complaints bureau as an emanation or as a separate

body". It would be open he says, "It may be too late to suggest that an

all-party committee of the House of Assembly could discharge the same function

for less money and be in closer touch with complainants".

MS. VERGE: Is it too late?

MR. ROBERTS: To suggest an all party committee? Mr.

Speaker, given the conduct of the opposition, yes. "If a police commission is

decided upon it should, in my respectful view", said Judge Hughes, "consist of

no more than three commissioners one of whom might be a provincial court judge,

seconded for the position of chairman, and should be empowered to hear appeals

from a decision of the chief of police in matters of discipline within the

Constabulary, to make recommendations to government as to pay and allowances for

this force and, if deemed preferable to other solutions, to entertain and

dispose of complaints about the police from members of the public. This solution

would limit the responsibilities of the solicitor general with respect to such a

commission to reporting in the House of Assembly upon its transactions and

making provisions for its continued existence. After consideration of the

various alternatives, and bearing in mind the situation of the R.C.M.P. Public

Complaints Commission at Ottawa, it is recommended:

Recommendation 25:

That a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Complaints Commission

be established, reporting to the Solicitor General of Newfoundland and including

for administrative purposes within his or her Department, consisting of not more

than three commissioners, one of whom should be a Judge of the Provincial Court

seconded for the purpose to act as chairman and chief executive officer".

That is the end of the discussion on that point as the hon.

lady rightly will confirm. So, Mr. Speaker, we have, I said, put forward a

scheme which is entirely consistent with that. We are not prepared to have a

solicitor general, fifteen ministers is enough, the other crowd were up to

twenty-three, that would have made it twenty-four, the Premier has many times

said we are determined to run this Province with a smaller Cabinet. Therefore

all we would do if we had a solicitor general is have some individual - all we

would have with a solicitor general - is have some minister with an extra

portfolio. There is no purpose to be gained by that, the last thing in the world

this Province needs is another department of government. We could do, in my

judgement with fewer than we have now. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go on to point

out to the House that the powers of this commission do not extend to internal

discipline within the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, we considered that and we

rejected it. We considered it and we rejected it.

In our view, Mr. Speaker, it would have involved excessive

and unacceptable rewriting of the collective agreement with the police

brotherhood. We are not prepared to do this. I saw at one stage a draft, one of

the -

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

point of order.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the

attention of the minister that there are sisters in the constabulary nowadays.

The PC administration of Premier Peckford many years ago opened the doors of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to women. We have not done a very good job of

recruiting and appointing women but nevertheless there are women in the

constabulary in 1992 and the current name of the Constabulary Association is the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association. Many years ago it was known as the

brotherhood and perhaps that was the name by which it went when the hon.

Minister was last in the Assembly but we did make considerable progress in his

absence in the 1980s and early 1990s.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. lady for her

helpfulness. I would say the first part of her comment was the first intelligent

thing she said in this House since I have been back in it, and that is one thing

more intelligent than she said in the years I was here before when she was here.

If I have inadvertently got the name wrong, then I, of course, acknowledge that.

Only the hon. lady claims to be perfect, not that she quite makes it.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The point of what I was saying is we were

not prepared to come to the House and ask it to rewrite the collective agreement

with the union association representing the police, the men and women of the

force. I saw a draft at one stage, one of a number of drafts that would have

done that, but it was rejected. The ministry's position today is clearly laid

out in this Bill. Complaints by the police against the police: internal

disciplinary matters will be dealt with as heretofore. There is quite an

extensive procedure in place I am told that will continue. This Bill deals only

with complaints against the police by a member of the public and that is in

Section 22. Now, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the way in which it will work.

Section 22 of the Bill says that a person other than a police

officer may file a complaint concerning the conduct of a police officer in

writing at a constabulary office or with the commissioner. That is the basic

starting point for everything, a member of the public. The complaint will be

investigated in the first instance by the chief or his designate. Now, why this

model? It has drawn some criticism. It is fair criticism so let me try to

respond to it. Obviously, a complaint has to be investigated by somebody. There

were three possible choices, Mr. Speaker. The first is by another police force

such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We could do that if we wished. We

could ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be the investigating body.

Another would be to create yet another police force, an investigating body, the

office of the commissioner. We could hire a number of former police officers,

RCMP, RNC, or somebody else, create an entirely new police force or we could

adopt this model. We have chosen this one. It is the one used by the RCMP and it

worked well with them. In the first instance the chief will designate - there is

an internal review section, if I have the name correctly - will designate

individuals, an officer and men and women, two constables to make the

investigation.

Now, as I have said the RCMP investigate themselves and that

works. That is relatively standard, I am told, throughout Canada. The suggestion

we make here is more or less usual, there are other models. In a Province that

has a number of police forces they sometimes have a police commission but

usually they use police forces to investigate. We cannot ignore cost

considerations, Mr. Speaker. We get hammered by the Opposition every day, that

we are not spending enough on this or that. If we were to create another police

force it would cost more money. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that in

respect of discipline imposed by the chief we have provided, or this legislation

has provided, an automatic right of appeal to the independent commissioner.

Let me say as well, Mr. Speaker, this Bill will allow the

chief, should he or she wish, to call in another police force to help with the

investigation, but that does not solve the problem. People say: oh it is the

police investigating themselves. Let me tell you that in itself does not meet

the need. You will remember, Your Honour, that there was an unfortunate incident

at the Brittany Inns, here in St. John's a year or two ago, when a man died in

some kind of incident. I am going to pick very neutral terms.

There was some suggestion that the police had acted

improperly. There was no question the police were summoned to the scene and

responded to the call and there was some suggestion they had acted improperly.

Eventually, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary requested officers of the

Ontario Provincial Police to come and investigate that. They did, they made

their investigation, they made their report, there was still a cry of cover-up

at the end of the day. Those who say that the police are investigating

themselves are not only demeaning every police officer, assuming everyone of

them is corrupt, crooked and incompetent and will not do a job properly, and I

reject that on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence to the contrary, but

also, Mr. Speaker, what they are really saying is that unless you agree with

what we are saying, it is not a fair investigation and a fair result, so we are

suggesting the system here.

But, Mr. Speaker, one will note that the commissioner must be

told of every complaint. An individual can file a complaint either with the

constabulary, with the office of the chief or deputy chief, or with the

commissioner's office which will not be in the constabulary building; it will be

some government building. My friend for Bonavista South will find a suitable

place and that is where he or she and a small staff will be. But the

commissioner must be told of every complaint, so if a citizen goes directly to

the police, a copy of that complaint goes over to the commissioner and what that

means is that there are no secret complaints. Every complaint goes in the

system, the commissioner knows about it and obviously, has the ability as well

as the authority to follow-up on it.

Mr. Speaker, the chief makes, I will speak 'his' because the

present chief is a male, is a man, another one may be a female, that remains to

be seen but the present chief is the present chief. The chief makes his

investigation and he has the power in section (25), to impose discipline, to

dismiss the complaint as being unfounded or, with the agreement of all parties,

to settle the matter. If all parties agree, that is obviously the end of it. If

on the other hand, he imposes discipline, which is unacceptable to the police

officer or to the complainant, or if he dismisses the complaint and the

complainant finds that unacceptable, either may appeal to the commissioner, as a

right, no leave, no nothing, as a right and further, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that

the complainant and the police officer are aware of the situation, there is an

obligation on the chief, it is in 25(2): to inform in writing of the outcome,

the dismissal or the discipline and the reasons for that discipline or

dismissal. That is the same obligation that is imposed on judges; to file a

decision, they can do it orally but usually it is in writing and to give

reasons, so a complainant will know, and the officer will know what has been

done and why. They will then be able to exercise their decision in an informed

manner.

There is no hidden or back door proceeding. This will be an

open public accountability process. As I said, either the complainant or the

police officer may appeal. If an appeal is lodged the commissioner shall

investigate.

Section 2(1) and he may try to settle it by agreement. Obviously,

if both sides agree, that is a fair resolution. What could be an example? The

chief might impose a discipline of ten days for an offence. That is a power the

chief has, the complainant may say that is not enough and may appeal. Maybe they

will agree on twelve days or the police officer may say that is too much, may

appeal and they might agree on seven days, but if all hands agree, that settles

the problem, life goes on, we get on with it.

If the commissioner is not able to settle it, he makes an

investigation or he may investigate and then try to settle. No cost to the

complainant or to the officer. No need to retain a lawyer. Those who raise this

criticism, it's unfounded. At this stage. I'll deal with it later. No cost to

anybody. The commissioner, through an investigator, makes the investigation,

comes to his or her own decision, and then goes ahead and makes a resolution of

it.

There are ample powers in

Section 27 to the commissioner.

They are more than comparable to those given to the ombudsman in the

parliamentary commissioner act. More than comparable. They are all that could be

allowed by law, given the (Inaudible) decision, enter with search warrants,

enter - police officers without search warrant, properly so. But others, they

need search warrants. I don't want some investigator coming to my house or to

anybody else's house demanding papers or access without a search warrant. That's

a basic civil liberty protection.

The commissioner if he cannot settle, Mr. Speaker, either

confirms the chief's decision and dismisses the appeal or refers the matter to

an adjudicator. In other words the commissioner is an investigator, he's a

gateway through which the process goes.

MS. VERGE: Or doesn't go.

MR. ROBERTS: Or doesn't go, yes. Either way. There are

two choices: dismisses or goes forward. If the commissioner dismisses there is

an automatic appeal to the court.

Section 39, I say to my hon. friend for Humber

East, needs refinement. I'm not sure I like the way it reads now. But there will

be an automatic right of appeal to a court. So a court can review the matter

then.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for St. John's East,

we're going to change the bit that says fact or fact and law. It says could be a

right of an appeal. The draft is not adequate and the first - there are other

changes too, but that's one. There will be a right of appeal. There is also of

course the administrative law right, certiorari and judicial review, but we

don't need to spell those out. The courts will provide those anyway. There is an

automatic right of appeal.

Section 39 will be changed in due course.

Now before I go on with what happens if it goes forward to an

adjudicator, and I confess I'm going to run out of time very shortly, so I may

have to try to foreshorten this, the commissioner in my submission, Mr. Speaker,

is both a powerful and an independent person. He or she will hold office -

Section 18(3)(a) - "for 5 years during good behaviour." In other words, he or

she can be removed only for cause. Obviously appointed by the Cabinet. Who else

can appoint somebody?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: House of Assembly? That's equivalent to the

Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it's equivalent to the Cabinet.

It is equivalent to the Cabinet if the Ministry brings in a recommendation and

the gentleman opposite - the hon. lady is quite right. It's not equivalent to

the Cabinet in that sense. She's quite right. I misspoke. But in the sense that

the government of the day obviously have command of the House, control of the

House - perhaps we should make it subject to approval by the House. I'm not

terribly hung up one way or the other on that. I'm already going to suggest - I

can't amend my own Bill - that we change the reporting function to make it

comparable to the Auditor General. Maybe we should.

Anyway, at the end of the day the appointment will have to

have the support of the Ministry or it will not go forward. Maybe the hon. lady

and gentlemen opposite have a point. Given some of their appointments over the

years maybe they should come to the House. This crowd opposite can hardly talk

of the quality of public appointments. I'm not going to get into names, but they

speak for themselves. Some of the appointments they dragged into public life

were... anyway. We'll think about that.

The commissioner answers only to the courts in the

performance of her or his duties. There's a right of appeal for anyone aggrieved

by the commissioner's decision, particularly against the dismissal of the

complaint. That's

Section 36. I say to my friend, I said

Section 39 earlier. I

should have said,

Section 36. We're going to change 39 as well. Thirty-six I

think needs some further work done on it. But there is a right of appeal. We

will make clear that it is a full right of appeal.

I've already said we're prepared to consider changing the

reporting mechanism. It's now to the minister and to the House. That's the way

the Auditor General used to report. I think we've changed that in the new

Auditor General's Act. So perhaps the commissioner should make his or her annual

report to the House and have a right to make a special report as the Auditor

General does. Again, I'm not wound up on that one way or the other. If people

can suggest constructive changes we would be more than prepared to put them

forward. We have to change

section 36 for a couple of reasons. One of them is

that it is possible that a police officer could be sentenced to discipline under

this

section without ever having been heard. Now, that may sound strange but the

procedure is such, and that has to be changed. There will be a right of appeal

to a judge of the Trial Division who will be able to deal with the matter de

novo, and in the unlikely event that everything else went wrong, the judge would

be able to deal with it.

Now, to come back to the commission. As the hon. lady quite

rightly said, he or she can make one of two responses to an appeal, assuming

there is no settlement; if there is a settlement, fine, but if there is no

settlement, one of two responses: Dismissed, in which case, anyone affected -

Section 36 says the complainant or the police officer may make an appeal, so

either side could make an appeal to the court, or the commissioner may refer the

matter to an adjudicator. There will be six adjudicators who will hold office

for a term of three years on good behaviour. That is modeled on the Human Rights

Commission practice. I am not sure which administration brought it in but it

seems to be working very well. I hear this at home, I might add, as well as

elsewhere. There is a panel of adjudicators and the commissioners will simply

refer it to one, I assume, more or less in rotation. There may be conflicts,

there may be scheduling problems but the commissioner will refer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the Human Rights Commission has a very

competent Chair I am the first to acknowledge. My wife might not agree with the

hon. gentleman, but I would say it has a very competent Chair. The commissioner

makes a reference. It is not a minister, not the Cabinet - 28 (1).

Now, an important point, Mr. Speaker, and one which those who

criticize the bill, including Mr. Boswell, appear to have overlooked.

Section 30

Sub (1) makes it clear that the commissioner has carriage of the matter before

an adjudicator. Now, what that means, if I get out of the legal jargon, is the

commissioner has the burden of hiring the lawyer, instructing the lawyer and

taking the matter forward. The commissioner, if you wish, becomes the

prosecutor, or the plaintiff, or the complainant, or call it what you want; the

commissioner has carriage of the matter, the same way as in a criminal matter.

And this is not a criminal matter, because in a criminal matter the Crown has

carriage of the matter. The complainant comes to the police, an investigation is

made, the police officer lays the charges, Crown prosecutors take over and have

carriage of the matter. Now, that I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is important and it is

part of an answer to those who say this system is too expensive. It is put in

there quite deliberately, the commissioner will have the carriage of the matter,

as does the Human Rights Commission.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that both the

complainant and the police officer have the right to be present and to be heard.

Again it is in

Section 30, very important, no behind doors deals, no secret

dispositions. The complainant has the right to be present and to be heard and so

does the police officer whose conduct is at issue. The hearings are public,

Section 32. The adjudicator has the power to close for cause comparable to that

given the courts, comparable to that given the Law Society in that bill, but the

hearings are public. I was asked in a meeting earlier today whether there would

be a public announcement of the hearings. I cannot answer that because that

would be up to the commissioner but I am quite sure it will become public that

hearings are to be held, or a hearing is to be held.

The House will note that the civil standard, the balance of

probability standard is the one that will determine whether the complaint is

sustained or not - to be precise, whether the decision be confirmed or whether

it be changed in some way. This is not a criminal proceeding, it is a civil

proceeding. 'The adjudicator shall report his or her order at the end of the

day,'

section 33 (4), 'to all parties and in writing with reasons' - again, the

same safeguard, in writing and with reasons, so the complainant will know

exactly what has been done and the police office will know exactly what has been

done.

Section thirty-three (7), again drawing some criticism but it

is worth thinking about now, this section. 'An adjudicator has the power to

order costs.' That is a power every judge in a civil proceeding has but we have

limited it here. 'Following a hearing under this part, where an adjudicator

concludes,' - where an adjudicator concludes - 'that the actions of a

complainant in making a complaint were unfounded, the adjudicator may order' -

so it has to be unfounded, and even if it is unfounded the adjudicator 'may' -

not shall - 'may order that the complainant pay the reasonable costs incurred by

the commission in conducting an investigation, a hearing, or both.'

I suggest that is a reasonable power to give to an

adjudicator. Whether it will ever be used is another issue. I hope it will not

be. I would hope one would not have unfounded complaints going forward to

hearings, but it is a safeguard to the adjudicator and my friend from Harbour

Main is quite - it is a safeguard. It is not a burden, it is a safeguard. Of

course, those are tax costs under The Judicature Act, a term that lawyers are

familiar with. A taxing officer of the court sets them. They are not the full

costs.

The order of the adjudicator is enforceable as a judgement of

the Trial Division.

We come to

Section 39. There is to be an annual report, it

now says, to the minister who will table it in the House. I am prepared, Mr.

Speaker, at second reading, to ask one of my colleagues to move that we amend

that so that the report comes directly to Your Honour, as does the Auditor

General's Report, and with a special report power as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much longer I have.

MR. SPEAKER: Approximately eight minutes, I believe.

MR. ROBERTS: Eight minutes - well, let me try to bring

this to a conclusion, because I have gone through

Part 4 in ten minutes, I

think.

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

MS. VERGE: We, the official Opposition, would be glad to

give the minister however much time he needs to complete his remarks. He has ten

minutes remaining in his hour but if, at the end of the hour, the minister would

like more time, we will give leave for a reasonable amount of additional time.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank the hon. lady and I shall make use

of that if I need to, but I will try to be brief. Let me say in return that we

will extend to her, of course, the same courtesy, and are only too happy to do

it.

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

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government

House Leader not rely on the expectation of leave. I would not intend to grant

leave to the minister to continue beyond his allotted time. I understand that

the courtesy of the House is not being extended to me, and I would not be

willing to do it for the minister.

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

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) any member, and as with any of

us, he does what he thinks best and takes whatever consequences flow. That is

fine with me. I have no problem.

Now, I want to make a comment or two about the Hughes Report.

I have gone through

Part 4 in fair detail. If I have left something out it is

inadvertent, but I am quite prepared to deal with it either during Committee or

at some other time.

With respect to the Hughes Report, I want to make a couple of

points. There are those who say - and I know they say it in good faith, but I am

afraid I must advance the view that they are entirely wrong - that somehow an

Ombudsman would have solved all of these problems. All I want to say is that

there was an Ombudsman in place throughout the entire Hughes period. I forget

when Mr. Peddle was appointed Ombudsman - sometime after he was defeated in the

1972 federal election by Bill Rompkey, 1973 or 1974. He was in office throughout

the whole period.

My friend from Kilbride says, 'if he had the power'- I don't

argue with that but I will simply say that for seventeen years he and his

colleagues were the Ministry and made no amendment that I know of to the

Parliamentary Commissioner Act. In fact, they were the Ministry during the

entire Hughes Period. I am not blaming my hon. friend or anybody else. But what

I want to say - and I think perhaps my friend and I for once are singing from

the same hymn book, which means we both would be worrying about it. But the

Ombudsman is not an answer to the problems that the Hughes Commission addressed.

It is night and day. The Ombudsman was aimed at an entirely different thing. The

argument that if there had been an Ombudsman we would not need this bill is just

hogwash, with all respect.

There may or may not be need for an Ombudsman - we can debate

that at another time. We have, in fact, but this bill addresses a very different

situation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: An Ombudsman could do this job plus

whatever other jobs (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate today

whether we should have an Ombudsman or not. What I will say to my hon. friend is

that the Ombudsman, as the office was constituted, and including the seventeen

years that the lady and gentlemen opposite formed the Ministry, his powers were

(inaudible). That act was put through in the last years of the Smallwood

administration. It was essentially unchanged during the entire tenure of Mr.

Peckford, Mr. Moores and Mr. Rideout.

If the powers were not adequate, I cannot answer for that.

What I can say is that those who say that we would not need a Police Complaints

Commission if we still had the Ombudsman are just full of hogwash.

Secondly, and I have dealt with this, the need for a police

commission - that is not what Judge Hughes recommended. I have already read the

relevant portions of his report on pages 463-464.

Let me say a word now about what did happen with the events

that Judge Hughes examined and reported upon. There are really only a couple

sections of the report that one needs to refer to. If you look at page 129, a

sub-section headed succinctly but very effectively, 'No Charges'. What happened

was an investigation was stopped by the police authorities. No charges were laid

even though there were grounds to lay charges, and I want to make a statement

here that I have made before, but let me make it here as well, that there is no

police officer in this Province today, no peace officer - which is broader than

police officers - who needs permission from anybody before laying a charge as

long as she or he is prepared to take an information which is simply an

affidavit under oath, in a special form, that he or she has reasonable and

probable grounds, to believe that an offence has been committed. That is all

that is needed. Any peace officer may go and lay a charge under any applicable

statute at any time as long as he or she is prepared to take the information.

And I will go further, Mr. Speaker, if anybody ever instructs

a police officer not to lay an information when he or she is prepared to do so,

then the person making that instruction has committed a criminal offence and the

person to whom the instruction is given is under a duty to report that either to

his or her immediate superior or, to someone up the line. This bill does not

address that situation. This is a public complaints proceeding, although a

member of the public would be able to say: 'I reported a criminal complaint,

nothing happened,' and thus bring it into the system, but it would not address

the situation in Hughes, where it would appear, the Chief of Police or the late

John Norman - it would appear on the evidence or the findings of Judge Hughes -

gave an order that an investigation be stopped.

I do not know of any way to stop that situation, except men

believing and women believing in the probity of the system - and I will say, I

knew John Norman well, I knew him very well - that John Norman, as Judge Hughes

found, was functioning in a system where the police believed that this was the

way things worked. Judge Hughes makes that specific finding, that the police

were accustomed to taking directions from the Department of Justice. Well, that

was the 1970s; I don't know what went on in the 1980s, but I tell you, in the

1990s they don't take directions from the Department of Justice. We don't offer

it and they don't take it. But I will say again, no police officer needs leave

of anybody to lay a charge under any relevant or applicable statute.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I do not know what - I mean, Judge Hughes

found in the 1970s that the police routinely came in and sought, not just on

sexual abuse at Mount Cashel, but 'routinely', I think, is his word.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: He could have laid the charge. Yes, he

certainly could have. I am reading now from Judge Hughes, page 129: 'Both Robert

Hillier and Ralph Pitcher,' Sergeants, I think in the RNC at the time,

investigating, 'testified that they felt charges could and should have been laid

and yet it is uncontested that fifteen years ago and even more recently' - now,

the judge did not put a time on it, he just said, 'even more recently, the

accepted practice was to submit reports to the Department of Justice in all but

routine proceedings for direction as to whether charges should be brought.'

Now, that is what was going on. I do not know how long it was

going on, I do not know when it ended. I know it is ended now. It may well have

ended before Judge Hughes made his Report, I mean, I am not putting any time on

it, I am simply saying it is ended now. The hon. lady can speak for her time as

Minister of Justice, she would know what went on, I would not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have only three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the hon. gentleman from St. John's East

has said he is not going to give me leave, which is fine, tit for tat. He is the

tit, I am the tat.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say one more thing about the

Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had the power to make a special report. The Ombudsman

made one special report, to my recollection, in the fifteen or sixteen years

that that office was filled.

AN HON. MEMBER: But that was after he was (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It was a case - no. The late, not the late

life, but the late minister, Jim Morgan, a gentleman who graced this House for

many years in a memorable style - the Ombudsman came in and made a statement, a

special report that Mr. Morgan had appointed somebody to an office,

notwithstanding the Public Service Commission recommendations. That report came

in, it lay on the Table of the House and stank for a couple days, the Ministry

of the day ignored it and went on. So much for the ombudsman's powers. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let me conclude by making one other point. I have here some statistics

on the numbers of citizens complaints against the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary for the last five complete years and for this year. I will table

copies of this if members want them. In 1987, there were a total of thirty

complaints, in 1988 a total of sixty-nine, in 1989 a total of sixty-eight, in

1990 a total of sixty-one, in 1991 eighty-six and in 1992 to date, here we are

into December, seventy-six. So it has been fairly consistent, those are the

numbers, this comes from a report prepared by Sergeant Brown of the Constabulary

but those are the numbers we are dealing with.

So, if the House thinks there are hundreds or thousands of

complaints they should take cognizance of this and some of these are serious and

some are not. There are far more internal complaints, but you know, some of

these complaints are very serious some are perhaps less serious. There was a

complaint recently, a man complained or a woman - a person complained that -

this is complaint 92 (12): Police officer raised voice while making arrest. You

can imagine a person going in and laying a complaint, the police officer who

arrested me raised his or her voice while making the arrest. Now there were

others: improper conduct, harassment, false arrest, unlawful detention. These

are all matters that have to be addressed: sexual assault, improper conduct,

assault, false arrest, but one person actually had the nerve to complain: A

police officer raised his voice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying I look forward to

the debate on the Bill. I do not know yet whether we are sitting this evening. I

will consult with my colleagues and see whether we will ask the House to sit

tonight. I noticed the enthusiasm on the Opposition side, maybe they would want

to. I read Dr. Boswell's - he is a friend of mine, he was, he is and I hope will

be for a long time, he and I differ on this. I would say to my hon. friend that

he may very well want to quote Dr. Boswell, I hope he does some research on his

own - well he shakes his head, res ipsa loquitor, again.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in closing that I - as I began,

that I commend this Bill to the House. I think it is a good step forward. I do

not put it out as perfection, I put it out as a reasonable responsible piece of

legislation that strikes a fair balance between the rights of a police officer

accused of improper conduct and the rights of a complainant, a citizen who feels

that he, she or it, because a company can make a complaint, he, she or it has

been subjected to improper conduct by a police officer. It is effective, it is

fair and will work well, in my judgment. We put it forward, we are willing to

look at amendments, we put it forward believing it to be a significant step

forward and on that basis, Mr. Speaker, it is with very great pride indeed that

I ask this House to give this Bill second reading and move it forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, as the minister said

when he began his speech on second reading about the Bill revising the law on

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, most of the Bill simply restates and

consolidates the present legislation governing the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary. The new provisions are in part three, the part purporting to

create a public police complaints commission, that

part is found on pages 12-24

of the Bill and comprises clauses 18-43. I am going to concentrate my remarks on

those new provisions. I will focus on the governments proposal to establish a

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Police Complaints Commission. I will first talk

about the process being followed by the government. I severely fault the

government and the minister for their process, number one for their delay in

bringing forward the legislation. We have had a two year hiatus in this

Province, we have had a two year gap from the time the government eliminated the

ombudsman office until the advancement of this proposal for a Constabulary

Complaints Commission.

The ombudsman was specifically empowered to deal with public

complaints about the Royal Newfoundland constabulary. That was provided through

an amendment to the Ombudsman's Act roughly ten to twelve years ago. The

ombudsman was set up under legislation passed at the very end of the Smallwood

era but it wasn't actually proclaimed in force and activated until the

mid-1970s, in th