July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1232 MW - l The House met at 3:00 P .M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR, SPEAKER: Order! HON. F. D. MOORES (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to make a statement on behalf of government. Hr. Speaker, upon assuming office one of the more contentious issues facing my government and one of the major concerns of the public generally was the question of the negotiation of leases for certain liquor stores around the province. Who benefited from the exorbitant rents? Why was there such secrecy when the people's money was involved?

In order to clarify the situation 1 I felt it important that a commission of enquiry be established and this was done. tn a few moments I will be tabling the commission's report in this House. However, before doing so, I wish to express a personal word and to review very briefly the main items of that report. Today, Mr. Speaker, is a sad one in our province's history.

The findings of the report, even thour,h rumoured for sometime, are still not easily acceptahle, when one considers the implications, There have been moments during the past twenty-four hours when I personally have wondered if I even would have had commissioned the report at all knowing what I know now. However, irrespective of the consequences, the answer must be yes. We must have honesty in our society and that applies even more so to the leaders of our society.

In the case of the persons who will be named today, while many people, includin~ myself, feel genuinely sorry, once can only say they have reaped whnt they have sown, The Royal Commission received its commission on February 29, 1972. The commission had found that seven premises rented as liquor stores by the Newfoundland Liouor Commission frorr the Bankers Trust Company ·1195

July 5, 1972 Tape no. 1232 Page 2 were in fact mmed by a company incorporated under the laws of Newfound.land, known as Investment Developers, Limited. The comm:i.ssion has found that the issued shares of Investment Developers, Lim:i.ted were owned equally by Mr. Arthur Lundrigan of Corner Brook; Mr. Oliver L. Vardy of St. John's and by the honourable J. R. Smallwood. The commission has found that ~fr. Smallwood was the third shareholder in Investment Developers, Limited, that he knew he was the third shareholder in that company and that he knew of its dealings with the Newfoundland Liquor Commission.

The commission finds that a fair annual rent for the seven Investment Developers, Limited,buildings, located at Deer Lake, Clarenville, Baie Verte, Grand Bank, St. Lawrence, Marystow-n. and Placentia~ would be $37,Slij;

whereas the actual rent being paid by the Newfoundland Liquor Commission is $73,192 or nearly double the rental that should have been paid. The commission finds that over $700,000 would he unnecessarily spent by the Newfoundland Liquor Commission over the course of the twenty year leases, if they were permitted to continue. The commission also finds that buildings are poorly desi~ned, so that maintenance costs will be greater than usual. The method of valuing the buildings~ Mr. Speaker, was unbelievable, First, an inflated value would be put forward to the Royal Trust.

Then the Royal Trust Company would advise what amount could be advanced for mortgage purposes. These amountsl Mr. Speaker, always exceeded the actual cost of the buHdi.np:,. Then the comprmy would value the property to match the amount received for the mortgage. In other words, the amount of the mortgage was the amount of the evaluation of the building. In the course of the investigation of the connnission, the commission discovered that 3,000 issued shares of Investment Developers, 4196

July 5, 1972 Tape no. 1232 Page 3 Limited. owned by the honourable J. R. Smallwood, \.Jr. Arthur Lundrigan and Mr. Oliver L. Vardy, had been transferred to nominees of the Bank of Montreal, who were employees of the hank. since the shares had been taken as security for loans. These lonns began in April, 1963. They were made iointly to the honourable J. R. Smallwood, ~fr. Arthur Lundrigan an<l ~fr. Vardy. Monies were advanced jointly to these three persons for the purchnse of shares in Brlnco, Limited, beginning in April, 19fiJ hut occurring mostly in June, 1965.

These three persons borrowPd, according to evidence. between Sl.5 million and $1.fi million from the Bank of }..fontreal. The commission states thnt the circumstances of this loan. for the purchase of the Rrinco. Limited, shares and the subsequent forgiving of some hundreds of thousands of dollars, owed for interest on the loan, are matters merely for comment in their report since they are related only peripherally to their enquiry.

It is important to remember that the forgiving of the interest was done by the hanker of the province who was also the banker for Brinco and the sum forgiven was a sum owed hy the then premier of the province and by a director of the bank itself, Mr. Lundrigan. However, it is important to point out that after the purchase of Brinco shares, Hr. Smallwood and the government of the day arranged several mineral concessions with BRINEX as well as ne~otiated the terms of the Churchill Falls Development. This~ of course, included the sales agreement which was signed between Quebec Hydro and Churchill Falls.

At the time when Quebec llydro received thirty-four per cent of the company's equity and Newfoundland eight per cent, Mr. Smallwood and his friends were large shareholders in Brinco. Further, it is very obvious that the circumstances of the loan of more than $1.5 million, given by the bankers of the province to three persons, including the premier of the province, to purchase shares of Brinco, a company engaged in negotiations with the province 4197

July 5, 1972 Tape no. 1232 Page 4 for concessions and for the development of the power on the Upper Churchill, and the later forgiving of hundreds of thousands of dollars of interest by the bankt on the said loans, certainly requires further investigation and explanation. Why would the Bank of Montreal forgive the interest on this loan? One would have thought that at least two of the three persons involved were well able to make the payment. They have requested that the Bank of Montreal provide a thorough explanation.

As bankers for this province, as bankers for Brinco and as bankers for Lundrigans, Limited and considering that Mr. Smallwood was Premier at the time, when the whole scheme was taking place, Mr. Lundrigan was and is (I understand that since he may have resigned) a director of the bank, I have asked the Bank of Montreal to advise us of their position and the reasons why. I repeatt from the facts now revealed by the commission, it is obvious that from 1963 onwards the then premier of the prnvince, MT.

Samllwood, was involved, as a third party, in a loan of some $1.5 million to purchase share of Brinco, a company with whom the goverment were negotiating in connection with the Upper Churchill. That from 1963 onwards, many important decisions and concessions were given to Brinco in connection with the development of that project.

That the then premier of the province was then in a position of complete conflict of interest, in connection with these negotiations, where his interest as a major shareholder of Brinco could conflict with the interest of the people of this province, in getting the best deal for the province on the development of the Upper Churchill, is obvious. The commission finds that the most scandalous lease of the lot is a lease of the Newfoundland Liquor Commission premises at Mount Pearl, from Mr. Arthur Noseworthy and his family, through the ownership of Gordonna, Limited.

With respect to Mount Pearl, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission decided to rent the front of the building as a store, with a lease eventually signed at $12,950 a year 4198

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1232 Page 5 for 2,590 square feet or at the rate of SS.00 per square foot. This le~se began June 1, 1966 and was to run for twenty years, with the tenant paying for all interior repa:ixs, the heating and all the landlord's taxes. At this time the remainder of the premises, the area of the former bowling alley,,was rented by the Board of Liquor Control on a month to month basis. at $500 a month.

The commission finds that this space was never needed by the Board of Liquor Control but that despite this, subsequently the Board of Linuor Control entered into a new lenF.~ for eighteen years and five months, with Gordonna, Limited, on the bovling alley space, at a rate of $4.00 per square foot, with the tenant undertaking to maintain the premises. The comznission finrfr t1-wt the rental each year for the Gordonna, Limited buildinf! nt !,-taunt Penrl. ovmed by Mr. Noseworthy and his family, was $40,950 and that of thi~ ~28,000 was paid for the warehouse apace that has been little used.

The commission finds that over one-half million dollars would be wasted if this lease were permitted to run for twenty years. In short, for a builrUng costing some $107,000 some years ago, Mr. Noseworthy stands to collect nearly $800,000 with no cost to himself. In addition the commission finds that in reference to the Mount Pearl lease, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission were being charged for a lar~er square-foot area than actually existed. There was an overpayment to Gordonna, Limited.yearly, of $2,328 for this reason alone.

The commission finds that with respect to the leasing of space for the self-service store from Lundrigans,Limited, Philip Place, St, John's, the Newfoundland Liquor Commission paid about $10,000 for certain work done by Bata, Limited,which should have been paid for by Lundrigans)Lirnited and that this amount now be recovered from Lundriru.ms, Limited. Once again the commission has found that there is a yearly overpayment of rental to Lundrigans, Limited, of $2,442,since the measurement taken by the commission show that the rent is being paid for 4199

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1232 Page 6 more square footage Of space than exists in the premises. Mr. Speaker, the government have decided to act promptly both with regard to the recommendations of the report and also in certain respects as we have interpreted from the report. Some people may say that we are being harsh in the approach we have taken t6 this but, Mr. Speaker, never again must people in power,in public trust,feel that they can abuse the rights of the people of this province. For that reason:

(1) The government have instructed independent special counsel to advise the government on what in civil and criminal actions might be taken against the various parties involved and the activities described in the report. Civil actions may be taken for recession of unfair contracts and for damages. Equally, if the government are advised by special counsel that criminal action is justified, then such action will be taken. The government also intend, if 4200

July 5,1972, Tape 1233, Page 1 ~- apb necessary,to introduce legislation to cancel the outrageous leases in question. These include the seven Investment Developer buildinrs and the Noseworthy Premises at ;'fount Pearl. (2): The government agrees with recomnendation (2) of the commission in that the Newfoundland Liquor Cm:r .. 'Tiission should be reorganized.

It will not proceed with this reorganization until the report is received of the present consultants who are reviewing the activities of the Newfoundlnnd Liauor Commission at this time, The report should be available by the end of Au8ust. (3): The government is now reviewing the position with respect to any employees of the Newfoundland Linuor Commission or ;my other persons in povernment service mentioned in the report that will be tahled today. ( 4) : The P.overn~cnt agrees with recommendation three of the coml'lission, that the li.cencinr; and inspection functions of the Newfoundlnnd Liquor Commission shoulrl he separated from its other functions by settin~ up a separate liccncinp; board to grant licences for the sale of alcoholic liquors and to inspect licenced premises.

Appropriate legislation to this effect will be introduced in the next session of the House of Assembly. (5): In connection with recormnendation four, the government agrees that Newfoundland Liquor Commission should not enter into long-term leases without an Order-in-Council.

The government acted several months ago to make it a re(:uirement that Treasury Board approval be a condition precedent to the enterinp: :i.nto of any leases by the rovernment or agencies of the government, (6): With respect to recommendation five of the Royal Commission, concerning the appointment of a building manager to the staff of the Newfoundland I..i(Juor Commiss:i.on, the f;OVernment wJ.11 wa:i.t for the report of the present consultants before proceeding with this recommendation which is agreed to. (7): The goverrm1ent accepts recommendation (6) of the Royal Corr.mission 'report, that the public tender systcn should be used 4201

June 29, 1972, Tape 1233, Pa~e 2 -- apb by the Newfoundland Liquor Commission on purchasing equipments and materials and the making of substantial repairs and alterations and in many instances for its leasing of premises. (8): The Department of Justice has been instructed to proceed with the necessary legal action to (

a) recover approximately Sl0,000 from Lundrigan's Limited for work done at Philip Place at the expense of the Newfoundland Liquor Commission which Lundrigan's Limited had undertaken to do. (

b) Recovery from Lundrigan's Limited of amounts paid by the Department of Public Works for rents of the space at Philip Place which accordin~ to the measurements are not there, and which amounts to $2,41•2 a year. (

c) Recovery from Gordonna,Limited,the owners of the Noseworthy premises at Mount Pearl, of $2,328 a year for store and warehouse space based on measurements that this amount is for space that does not exist. (9): The government have requested the Bank of Montreal to prqvide the government with all the facts concerning the loans to the hon. J.R.Smallwood, Mr. Arthur Lundrip:an and Mr. Oliver Vardy for the purposes of purchasing Brinco shares from 1963 to date, the forgiveness of interest on same and all matters relevant to those transactions.

There is obviously conflict of interest existinµ in that situation both with respect to the bankers of the province and the government, and between the then premier of the province and Brinco Limited. (10): . The government have given instructions to the Newfoundland Liquor Commission and to the Department of Public Works that they are not to pay any further rents or to make any further payments whatsoever in connection with the leases from Investment Developers,Limited to Newfoundland Liquor Commission, with reference to the seven stores located at Deer Lake, Clarenville, Baie Verte, Grand Bank-, St.

Lawrence, Mnrystown and Placentia, nor rents to be paid to Gordonna,Limited with reference to the liquor store and warehouse premises at Mount Pearl, to Lundrigan 1 s,Limited with reference to the liquor store located in Prince Philip Building on Elizabeth Avenue, St. John's, nor to Mrs. Adelaide 4202

July 5, 1972, Tape 1233, Pa~e 3 -- apb Vardy with reference to the liquor store locnted at Stephenville. (!I): All business presently being conducted with government that was not subject to public tender cf companies controlled by Mr. Arthur Lundrigan, lir. O.L.Varcly or }fr. Arthur Noseworthy or controlled by any combination of them has been cancelled. That, nr.

Speaker, means all business that is presently being done with the government and not just as they apply to the liquor leases. ( 12) : The government are taking the necessary steps to review all leases entered :i.nto by govern,11ent or any other agencies of the ~overnment in the past five years, to ensure that the government or the government agency concerned is paying the proper rental due under the terms of the leases and to ensure that the government is only beit1f,: charged for the actual space. rented.

In other words, steps arc be:i.ng taken to measure exact space rented under all such leases and to review any leases where there appears to be exhorbitant rentals or onerous conditions imposed upon the govern~ent or government n~ency as a tenant. ~1r. Speaker, there will be mnny other issues that will come out of this report. This is what we have been able to deal with in twenty-four hours. The issues raised in the report of the O'Dea Royal Commission are so serious that they must be given extremely careful consideration.

The government is determined to take whatever legal action is recommended by the legal advisers of the government both with respect to criminal or civil matters. Issues we could act on immediately we have done. In other matters listed, we will act on as quickly as possible. ~r. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, and I mean this very sincerely, today is a sad one for many of us. No one likes to see people who have contributed greatly to our society and to our way of life exposed in an affair such as this. However, in another way it must be considered, Hr. Speaker, a good day for our province and its people.

It hopefully is a day when justice and honesty have replaced greed and corruption, a day that we can build on with lessons learnt for a better tomorrow. 42113

July 5, 1972, Tape 1233, Page ¥ ~- apb Thank you, Sir. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Royal Commission report enquiring into the leasing of premises for the use of the Newfoundland Liquor Commission and the opening statement I made today. There will be copies for the opposition. for the press and for the government members. HON. E.M. ROBERTS (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, if I may make a very brief comment on the statement just made by the Premier. All members of the House listened with as much shock I think as I did and as much concern.

All I will say now is,as I have said earlier in this House,speaking for those of us on this side, the govern.~ent did the right thing, Sir, to appoint this commission. I have had no opportunity to look in detail into the various actions the Premier has outlined to implement the recommendations of the commission. Judging from what he has said in his statement a moment or so ago, they seem to be doing the right thing in acting to follow out the recommendations of the commission. The Premier has said that in a way it is a sad day for this province,and that is true.

The particular sadness is that a man who was Premier of this province for so many years and did so much for this province has heen found by this connnission and on the evidence they set forth in their report,(! have no doubt they have evidence) to have been involved in events which,without putting any other connotation on them right now, are improper and should not have been entered into by any man in public life. What a man does or what a man does not do in public life,he must answer for.

I was glad the Premier ended his statement by saying as he did, that it is - I think his words were: 11 It is a good day for the province.'' I would go further than that. I am anything but unproud, I am quite proud to be a member of the House or a citizen in a province where if there is something improper that has been done, it is looked into and set straight. This goes far beyond politics. I have differences 4204

July 5, 1972, Tape 1233, Page :5' -- apb of political opinion with gentlemen opposite. That is fine. All of my colleagues {we have discussed this often} have differences, but conduct that is improper,as the royal commission have apparently so found here, is far beyond and far different from any political differences. It cannot be tolerated and it should not be tolerated. I am glad the governe:mnt are taking steps to have it appear or to have it that it is not tolerated.

I have not seen in detail all of the information of the commissi.on, but it is ouite obvious that no members of the cabinet were involved or they would have - or the Premier I think would have mentioned it. No members of any of the cabinet. There were twenty­ six men in the last House of Assembly, Fr. Speaker, of the forty-two who were elected,! am sorry! forty-four men who were elected, twenty­ six of them served in the cabinet at one time or another,in the period between 1966 and when the cabinet left office in January 1972. I gather that no other minister was involved in any way.

No other person in elective office was involved in any way. I think that is significant. The matters of conflict of interest obviously will have to be dealt with. Agai.n 1 I assume from what the Premier has said that no other person knew, because if they did know tb:m any person who knew from 1963 on and was involved in the cabinet, any decisions that were ta.ken~""rould be equally culpable,whatever culpability there !'lay be. That would include,of course~ gentlemen on both sides of the House as well as gentle.men who are no longer in politics. Sir, it is a sad day for the men involved. I feel sorry for Mr.

Smallwood~ 4205

July 5, 1972 Tape 1234 PK - 1 T think it is a tragedy for him that a man who has served this province as he has is now condemned, I assune he is,by a royal commission. It is a sad thing to see that happen, Sir. So be it! let it be a lesson to all of us~ You know~ what we do we must answer for. I am sorry for him but I a.~ proud for the province~ If we are to have the sort of government, the sort of society we want in Newfotmdland, Sir, we must be on our guard constantly. I think that this sort of thing may not be pleasant but it is necessary~ we, as men, should deal with it and we will deal with it.

I will read the report with interest and then perhaps at some point there will be an opportunity for a detailed discussion. I assume and I hope and I believe the government will not make this a partisan matter, If they do,it will lose much of its value. It should be above partisan politics. It is a matter that affects in the truest form the body politic of this province. Let me end,as I finish the ~overnment did the right thing to appoint this commission. They have done the right thing to make the report public. The people in Newfoundland?in due course~will judge on what follows from here. Thank you! MOTIONS HON.

J. C. CROSBIE: (MINISTER- DF FINANCE): Hr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave of the House to introduce a bill, "'An Act To Amend The Crown Corporations Local Taxation Act, 1960. 11 0llESTIONS HON. T ._ G.:.!:~-:_L:t,_ (~INISTER ~F PUBLIC _W_.9RKSJ_~ Mr. Speaker, in answer to Question No. 86, appearing on the Order Paper of June 8, 1972, asked by the honourable member for Fogo, the apswer is: no such persons have been employed since January 18, 1972. I wish to table this answer. Thank you. 4206

July 5, 1972 Tape 12311 PK - 2 MR. CROSBIE:- Question No. 138,asked by the Leader of the Opposition, June 29, Order Paper. !' t•:hat was the cost of the reception tendered on the occasion of the premiere showing of the feature movie 'The Rowdyman 1 ? The answer· $860.80. ~l!~ MEMBER· A very rowdy occasion. MR.__f!!-_0_~_!!:_ 1 was not there~ so I cannot vouche for it. I also table the answer to Question No. 121, on the Order Paper of June 27 ~ asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBE'R.TS: Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the honourable Minister of HitzhFays has had a chance to find out about Fox Cove in Placentia West District? HON. DR. T. C. FARRELL: {;-fJNISTER OF HIGHWAYS): ~r. Speaker~ in reply to the honourah 1 e Leader of the Opposition, no, not at this time. MR. WOODWARD: Hr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the honourable Minister of Highways - in view of the ·fact that six people have died in traffic accidents in the past six days on the Trans-Canada Highway, I understand in areas where there are no traffic lines, I would like to ask the honourable minister what progress has been made as far as painting the white lines on the Trans Canada - what progl!ess has lieen nade to date?

And if the minister has had a report in the cause of those accidents and if he will tell this honourable House, if this is a human error on the part of the drivers or if there is a need for some traffic or driving education programme in the province? DR. FARRELL: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the honourable member for Labrador North on question (1) the yellow lines are being painted first and they should be finished within the coming week. It has been difficult, due to the late spring and the present weather,to get this work done as fast as possible.

I think I made an answer to a question the other day as to the fact that we are doing approximately an average of thirty-one miles a day. This should be finished in approximately one 4207

July 5, 1972 Tape 1234 PK - 3 DR~ FARRELL'. more week and then the white lines will be started as soon as possible. The second part of the question concerning the accidents, I have had no report so far on thaL I think the third part of the question was - AN HON. MEMBER: About the driving education programme. DR. FARRELL: Yes. there is an education programme in line in the Department of Highways for the coming year as far as this is very necessary and essential to driving in the different areas of the province, on gravel roads, winter conditions, summer conditions. This is under preparation at the present time.

MR. F. B. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to Minister of Economic Development. I was goi:ng to ask the Parlimentary Assistant to the Pr~mier * I was speaking to him earlier about it_. Have the cabinet reached any decision regarding the supply of electricity to small communities such as Big Brook and Bard Harbour? Yes, I understand this was to come up before the cabinet sometime this week. MR. CROSBIE: Well we have had a cabinet meeting but it was concerned with this other matter, so it has not come up. It will come up in the next week or so. MR. E. H. WINSOR: Hr.

Speaker, may I direct a question to the honourable Minister of Economic Development - has he any late information as to the 11 Vancouver Forest 11 as to how she is making out,discharging wood? MR. CR~ I cannot give the honourable gentleman any information at the moment because we have been at meetings all morning. If I hear anything,! will let him know later today. NR. WINSOR: It is rumoured that she cannot discharge it. ?-1R. CROSBIE: She cannot start. She cannot discharge, ~o. ORDERS OF THE DAY On motion, a bill 11

An Act Further To Amend The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1962, ii read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave. 4208

July :1 1972 Tape 123/~ PK-4 On motion, a hill, 11An Act further to Arriend the St John's Housing Corporation Act!!. read a first time. ordered read a second time presently. hy leave. On rnotion a hill, "An Act Further to Amend the Newfoun<lland and J.ahrador Corporation Limitecl Act, 1951". read a first time. ordered read a second time presently. hy leave. \'otion, Second Pearling: of a hill, "An Act Further to AMend the Companies Act: HON. T .A. H!CK/'IAN (MINISTER OF JUSTICE): ~r. Speaker, this a very simple and ro,1tine amendment.

Section (71) of the Compnnies Act makes provision for application to the the court for the late filing of mortgages or changes but makes no references to the late filing of notices of mortRages nor changes: which is also required under the provi5ions of the Newfoundland Companies Act. This hill will rectify that ohvious error. I move second readinr., On motion hill read a second time, ordered referred to a committee of the whole House presently. hy leave. 4209

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1235 NM - 1 Motion sec.and reading of a Bill, "An Act To Provide For The Retiring Registrar Of The Supreme Court." HR. HICK.¾!AN: }fr, Speaker, the purpose and intention of this Act is set forth very clearly 1 The Registrar of the Supreme Court is appointed At pleasure) There is no provision for a pension 1 When the fonrer Registrar of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland was retired because of ill health a similiar bill was passed by this honourable House. This bill does not indicate the imminent retirement of ~fr. R.C.B.

Mercer, Q.C., the Registrar of the Supreme Court, but provides that when he goes to pension or seeks retirement and is retired he will be provided a pension of $10,000 per year and this pension or a percentage of this pension is made available to his widow in the event he predeceases her, I move second reading. MR. ROHE (WM.): Mr. Speaker, one or two question I would like to ask the honourah1e minister on this particular hill. Has this gap in the pension scheme now been rectified by legislation or is it intended to do so. Maybe the minister can answer that.

It seem..-s to me incredible that a high officer of the court yet an officer of the government, in a larger sense of the word,in this province, should not be included in some kind of a pension scheme, Mr. Speaker and he has the humbling experience really of having to petition this House,in the person of the minister, to allow himself to have a little di[!nity after retirementJby a financial, alnmst ex gratia award. To ree that smacks of indignity and it is something that should be rectified and remedied as soon as possible.

Another question I would like to ask the honourable minister, Sir. is what ratio this proposed pension of $10 ,0-00 bears to the Registrar's salary, keeping in mind the years of service that he has pnt in. 1n other words, Sir, does his pension, benring in mind the salary he has been receiving and the years-· he has put in, is this pension on the same par as the pension that another civil servant would 4210

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1235 NM - 2 receive in similar circumstances as of right. In other words, is this pension as good as he would have received had he been say a deputy minister of Justice for the equivalent amount of time that he has served and if he were to have received the same pension. If not, I would sugRest -maybe it is,I do not know. If not,I would suggest that the pension be revised upwards. I would like to see that gentleman~ Mr. Mercer, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, get an equivalent amount or an amount that he would have been entitled to had he been part of a pension scheme over the years.

Of course, the question that goes along with that is that Mr. Mercer apparently has not been required and will not be required to make any contributions in respect of this ex gratia award. Perhaps the minister can find out that? If he has not, then of aourse my original statement about an equivalent amount to be recei~ed,as he would have received under The Pensions Act,may not be applicable. ~aybe these are a couple of mattetswhich the mi~ister can deal with.

Also, Sir, while I am on my feet, I would like to commend to the honourable minister ~rin~ing all people who provide a public service and are paid from the public purse, to bring all people in the province under the pensions schemes which now exist. I think there is an anomalous situation with regard to the Supreme Court, I do not know about the sheriff , is the sheriff under a pension scheme? I doubt it, I do not know. I do not think he is, Sir. I think that is wrong.

The Supreme Court or the County Court or Magistrates Court for that matter, or the personnel of those courts should not be outside the ambit of the eivil service rights and privileges. They should be brought within it, And,of course 1 this would in no way affect their independence of action nor anything else. It is just a matter of looking after them financially in the same way that the public servants of the province, the civil servants of the p~ovince,are looked after financially under the various pensions acts~ Finally, Sir, before I sit down, perhaps this is really not the 4211

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1235 NM - 3 proper place to debate this particular point but I would like to make some comment on the whole idea of public servants receiving fees as partial payment of the services which they render. To me the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Sheriff of the Supreme Court and any other person 'Who is acting in a similar capacity should not collect fees in respect of services which they render - for example estates or the issuance of writs or what not in the case of the s~eriff. These gentlemen should be paid a salary which is in keeping with the status or position they hold.

The Re~istrar of the Supreme Court is obviously a high public servant and should b~ paid a good salary which would be in keeping with the position which he holds. I do not agree with the idea of collecting fees, such fees to be retained by any of these gentlemen. If fees are to be collected, if people who are having estates administered or writs issued or share of sales conducted, if fees are paid in respect of these particular activities, then they should be paid into the consolidated revenue fund.

A sheriff or a registrar or any similar person should not have to rely at all on the vagaries of such fees being collected or not being collected, sizes of estates in certain cases, the number of sheriff sales which might take place1for example, the number of writs which may be issued or served upon defendants. These things should not, I think, in this day and age, play any role in the salaries which such public servants receive.

They should know before hand what their salaries are, They should not be in a position where they might, I am not saying they have done this but they should not be in a position where they might render a better service because a better fee might be realized from a particular action. They should not be put in that position.

They should be in a position where they are financially secure, the amounts of their salaries are known before hand,as is the case with any other civil servant or public servant,and they should perform duties in an equitable fashion without any constraints, without any fear or any favour bei~g 4212

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1235 W>l - 4 shown because there raight be a larger fee involved or any prejudice being shown because there might be a small fee invohrr,r;. I think the time has come to get rid of this, I think pernicious type of way of rewarding or paying our public services. Certainly the salaries in these cases should be commensurate with the duties performed and I think anv fees collected should go into the consolidated revenue fund.

I would like the minister to answer a few of those questions which I pose to him o.nd perhaps he might have a comment on the question of fees being collected by these various public servants. MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable minister speaks he closes the debate. 4213

.July 5, 1972. Tape 1236 Page 1. HR.HICK.MAN: ~r. :-.;1eaker, 1 will try and answer the questions raised bv the honourable member for White Bay South. They are very valid fJuestions in relation to this Bill. (

l) the pension provided in this Act for the Registrar of the Supreme eourt is,as far as w'e can ascertain,in line with the pension provided other public servants hearing in mind that it is not contributory. It would be higher if it were a contributory pension. The registrar, :Mr. Mercer,who has done a very excellent job in that capadty~has indicated that this pension is satisfactory to him, T helicve. 1 agree that we should amend our pensions act to bring the offices of the Registrar of the Supreme Court within this scheme, so that it can he contributory.

As the honourable member for White Bay South is aware, there is some difficulties in attracting people to these uf'f<tces. Last year this House passed

an Act to provide for a deputy registrar or an assistant registrar of the Supreme Court. To date both administrations have been unsuccessful in finding nnyone to assume this job. The salary is $13,000 or $14,000 I think. But then the registrar went further and said he was prepared to share the fees,if someone could be made available. so it still n~"'-" 1,c n matter for ne1rntiation. Uu;_ mogistrates do come within the pension scher.ie of the public serv.ice, The Fupreme Court and county district court judges we.re paid by Ottawa. They come under the scheme set forth in the Judges Act.

The last point raised by the honourable member for White Bay South is one that may be open to some debate. I am not happy with fees being collected by people in official positions. But an argument will be advanced from time to time that re.spectfully states that this is really not a public service. Beneficiaries to an estate can apply to have someone else appointed who is entitled,under our rules of court, to charge the fee bu·t they decide that the registrar) 4214

July 5, 1972. Tape 1236 Page 2. beca·:se of his competence~would be more desir ble.. Whether or not the public chest should pay for that fee and pay for that service, I am not so certilin. But I do hope that Hr. Mercer will be able to continue in office for some time to come. I am sure it is a public fact that he has been suffering from ill-health but at the same time he is still at work or w:i 11 be returning to tmrk verv shortly. But in the event that !,e decides to avail of the pension provided in this Act ,1 suspect it is still go::tnr, to be a matter of negotiation to fill the post so vacated.

On motion Bill read a second time,ordered referred to a Committee of the whole House presently,, by leave. ~fotion, sPcond re.ndinp: of a Bill, Highway Traffic /let, lfl62. An J\c t To /I mend T1te MR.HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, ordinnr!ly

an Act To Amend the Highway T .. "ffic Act would be moved by the m:i.nister of Highways. but this narticular Bill to Amend the Highway Traffic Act deals exclusively with the administration of Justice. We have an unusual situation in the urovince right now. If a motorist is convicted of impaired driving and the sentencing magistrate suspends his licenfie for six months,it automatically follows that the registrar of motor vehicles must and will gi.ve a similar suspension.

But if the conviction - hav!ng come under the criminal code of r:anada,it is then Dpcn to such motorists to make anplication,through the office of the National Parole Board in St. John's.to have !iis license restored. He have a good branch of the National Parole Office in this province and they work with a great deal of dispatch and efficiency. They examine. the the transcript of the evidence. Th~obtain what is called a community report on the individual. They take into account whether or not a license is needed in order for him to m~kea living.

If the National Parol~ Board then- generally it is not too often you get below three months off 4215

July 5, 1972. Tape 1236 Page 3., vnur suspension but then, regardless of the t.ime the National rarole Hotird decides to lift the suspension, the registrar of motor vehicles will likewise follow suit. We have run into two or three cases recently where the presiding magistrate has realjzed that the motorist needed his driver's licence in order to make a livelihood, He did not suspend at all. 11lis meant that the vrovisions of the National Parole Act did not come into play.

Then under the nrovisions of the Highway Traffic Act the rep,j_strar was obliged to susnend his driver's licence,and he had no authority to r-e.turn it until half the time of suspension had been served, This obviously is in conflict. But the significant th1.ng,'1r, Speaker, while this emergence ln this Act is being passed today amt hopefully assented to today ,is that there has been an awendmcnt passed to the Criminal Code of Canada which will come inL .. force on July !J), 1972. This will enable the magistrate to impose certain restrictions,if he so desires.

In other words.he may sentence a convicted motorist to loss of licence for restricted por;,oses. He may say. "if you are a ::rw:-k driver you can have your lic.ence, a limited licence, a restricted 1 icence in order to pursue your livelihood for the workday only•' But he rnny say:''You wilJ have to give up your Sunday driving. 1 i The other provision in this Bill ts- an amendment with respect to Judgment Recovery.

There is a provision whereby Judgr:-ent Recover/ can make an arrangement with a person on whose behalf a Judg·--ent H:ecoverv has made a payment out of what we used to call the Unsatisfied Judgment Fund. But the person must at the same time deposit the $200 deductible with the registrar of the Supreme Court. Quite recently we had a case where the total amount payable under the judgment was $350 and arrangement was made with Judgment Recovery with respect to $150 being the amount they paid.

The motorist was in rather indigent circumstances but at the same time he needed his driver I s licence y,,t the licence could not be restored unless $200 was deposited with the registrar,which 4216

July 5, 1972. Tape 1236 Page 4. was a commitment he could not meet. This act now also confers upon the registrar the right to enter into similar arrangements for the installment repayment of the deductible and again it will enable the motorist to get back on the highway ,havinr; m_ade the arrangements that are satisfactory to Judgment Recovery and to the registrar,who in that position really is the protector of the innocent motorist. I move second reading. On motion Bill read a second t:ime ordered referred to ;, Committee of the h11nle liouse,rresently, hv leave.

J<fotion. second readinp: of a Bill~ ''An /let lo incorporate 'J'he Newfounrllnnd And Lnhra<lor Amateur Sports Federation.· r~R .HICKMAN: "r. Spea.lr.er. in moving second rending of this bill ,,•'"'!,.ch is brought 4217

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1237 NM - l before the House at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Sports Federation, I do not wish to trespass upon the time of the House. It is really not a government bill in the true sf.>nse of the word. But the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Sports Federation was founded June 12, 1971 and it is a federation of the sports governing bodies in this province. Each amateur sport has a provincial sports governing body which has Jurisdiction over that sport and each provincial sports governing body is affiliated with the national sp,Orts governing body.

I am told that there are thirty-five governing bodies in this province and there are thirty who are active at this time with the high achool athletic federation and it is :mtici"pated, which is a <leliahtful development. that The Wheel Chair Sports Association uill become a member as well. I am told, Mr. Speaker, and as I say, I will not go into the detail but it makes a very pleasant story that amateur sports in thi,; rrovince - ""'functioning very well through the federation and the locals.

I think it is significant that the federation received an annual grant of $25,000 a year from the Government of Canada and they plan a sports museum. They already sponsored clinics and seminars and they anticipate a formation of :>.n official ref,,istry of sports records· Basically, Mr. Speaker, the role of the fedenation is to bring together the various sports governing bodies in this province, with a view to forming solidarity as to alternate aims and objects,so that amateur sport can do together what they have not been able to do in the past by themselves, I have pleasure in moving second reading of this Bill.

MR. ROWE (WM.): Mr. Speaker~ ordtnarily I would not even rise to comment on a hill which is of such~ noncontroversial nature as this but I have been speaking to Mr. Jeff Steele. who has been extremely active in organizing. participating, reporting on and administering various aspects of sports and 4218

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1237 NM - 2 athletics in this province over a fair number of years. He was very anxious that this bill receive the unanimous support of every member of the House of Assembly. As the honourable minister states, it is not a government bill as such, it is really a private biJl brought forward to he sanctioned by this House of Assembly. The hill itself, the net itself,when it becomes

an act really does no more than this body could have done if they had proceeded under The Companies Act and merely got themselves incorporated as a non-profit organization.But the body concerned wanted to have the sanction of statute.to make it

an act and to give it as much publicity as p0ssible. Tt is fot that reason that I rise today in order to express the complete and unanimous support of this side of the House co this bj 11 and I am sure that the members on the other side of the House give it their whol~-hearted support as well. 1 think that it is a red letter day really in the organization of sports and athletics in this province,to see the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Sports Federation set up and enshrine~ in the statute law of this province. On motion a Bill, 11

An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland And Labrador A.•nateur Sports Federation," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committeee of the Whole House now by leave. Motion second reading of a Bill, 11

An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland Family Guidance Association. 11 MR. ROWE (WM.): Some weeks ago I believe I was making a few random and rambling remarks on this bill when Your Honour called it 6:00 o'clock. There is not too much that I wish to say about it, Sir. I mentioned at the time that this is a step in the right direction,though how far we are going along in the right direction I really do not know. It is a step in the ri2ht direction. It now puts into statute law ~ome of the recommendations of the Gushue Royal Commission, a verv rood royal commission.I might say. Anyone who is interested in family law 4219

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1237 NM - 3 or matrimonial problerr~ in this province would be well advised to study that report in detail. But how far we have gone along the line in this particular field of family guidance, I do not know, Sir. I should hope that the time will not be far away when we have practitioners in the province who can devote a lot of time to trying to council wives and husbands who have some reconcilable difference and families who have problems of a matrimonial or merely a family nature that some professional help and assistance will be available to them.

Along that line, Sir, I might add that I have received, I received on June la letter from Dr. Mark Scheonberg, the Professional Director of the St. John's Community Counsellinr, Centre~in which he stated that he would like to thank me and all the opposition for the support which we lent to the legislation geared to the licencing of counselling psychologists in the province. "That it is a small step in the right direction," says Dr. Scheonberg, 11is certainly a correct appraisal,but such licencing must assuredly be the first move." I agree whole-heartedly with him.

Then he goes on to say, Sir, to give some ideas as to what the St. John's Community Counselling Centre has been doing in this particual:ar field, Pierhaps the minister hns had some talks with gentlemen like Dr. Scheonberg and others who are acting in the same capacity. Dr. Scheonberg has noticed that in the four or five months the St. John's Community Counsellinr, Centre has been in operation, they have had fifty-seven visits to their offices,looking for counselling services, people looking for counselling services, plus a great _number of phone calls in which questions were asked. The St.

John's Counsellinrcentre, for whom I have no axe to grind except that it is a non~profit body trying to do a job of work in St. John's here 1 this body is being granted some money from a foundation 4220

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1237 NM - 4 on the Mainland, the Counsellinr. Foundation of Canada, and of course is finding it very difficult to carry on its operations. At that time, this was long before the estimates were put through the House, I mentioned to Dr. Scheonberg that I would be delighted to convey to the Minister of Justice a suggestion that perhaps this counselling centre or a similar centre might receive from the government say a grant of $10,000 a year~which could be used by that centre for counsellinrservices provided by them in respect of actions under The Divorce Act only.

Other services rerhans should not be using public money. But the problem we have in this province, of course,is that under The Divorce Act, a solicitor, a lawyer is constrained or obli~ed to make sure that his client has received whatever councilling he can or whatever counselling is available in the province.

Something along those lines, I have not looked at the po~itive duty on the lawyer for a couple of years, In any event there is in a positive injunction on t~e part of persons seekinR divorces and this sort of thing in the courts of law, to try to reconcile their differences, to get counselllnf! services and hopefully their problems will not end up in divorce at all but in some reconcilement or some other more pleasant and happy arrangement. I thought that it might be a good idea if the government of the province made a small grant of $10,000 for example. to such a body as the St. John's Community Counsellinr.

Centre and which Centre could be encouraged to branch out to other parts of the province for the sole purpose of allowing that Centre to counsel people who are taking action under The Divorce Act. This would be a further step in the Tight direction~ a very significant step I would think. I do not know what the honourable minister intends to do with regard to this, maybe nothing at the moment, but I would commend to him a suggestion that his department or 4221

July 5, 1972 Tape 1238 PK - 1 YR. Rff\'.TE W~N, The Department of Social Services and Rehabilitation do take some active steps to bring either organizations of counsellors into the province, to set up in the province, to try a.:nd provide counselling service or to encourage individual sociologist, marriage counsellors or other consultants to set up practice in the province so that a very badly needed counselling service can be provide to the people of the province.

Sir, this bill? this act, as it soon will be will have some real practical meaning rather than beinr, merely an enabling act, so as to speak, to allot; people to become licenced as counsellors. We can see some real positive steps taken in the direction of really setting up some counselling service in the province particularly in respect of the Divorce Act and action taken under it. ~ill~ _?JEA~R; If the honourable minister speaks now he will close the debate. f!R, 1!I Cl(}<.AN : Mr. Speaker. the question just raised by the honourable member for White Bay South concerning the St.

John I s Community Counselling Centre,that organization is doing a good job. There is no question about it. Dut this act envisages something greater and something more embracing. I too have received a letter of commendation from Professor Scheonberg of Memorial supporting this bill and I might say from the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers and from various religious organizations including the Extension Department of }femorial and other citizens.

I think it is significant and I would like to take one or two minutes to reiterate and make this position clear to the House that not only is this act but I consider this act the main thrust, the most important act of several acts recommended by the Gushue FamilY Guidance Report on Family Law. Dr. Raymond Gushue and his researcher assistant, Mr. David Day ,have done a first-class job.

I think it is of particular interest to this bill that we should know that intensive interviews and correspondence conducted by a study of some 500 persons :,receded the introduction of this bill to the House of Assembly including judges, 4222

July 5, 1972 Tape 1238 PK - 2 HR. HICiOfAN: members of the clergy, lawyers, social workers and mernhers of the medical profession in ten countries and all the members of the j udidary in Newfoundland. the religious leaders and representatives of the legal and medical professionF,and the Department of Social Work at Memorial University researched their discussion drafts hefore the final proposals were submitted to the Attorney General.

The objects we have already indicated are set forth particularly in Section (13) of the Act. h'ith respect to funding the act, we have received a great deal of encouragement from the federal government. As late as June of this year,a representat:i.ve.

I must confess I cannot recall his name. was in this province from the appropriate department of government and he indicates that federal funds should become available for the implementation of this •1ct because the Government of Canada are now ' beginning to realize that when parliament passed a new Divorce .Act and laid a !';rent deal of CIT'phasis on marriage r.-·unsellors that they neglected to provide any funds so that the service which is contemplated under that a~t can be provided.

I would hope that when the act. is passed I should also add that it is not too often in this province that we are a first insofar as legislative reform is concerned but we are with respect to this n!:'t_. r::o other province has

an act even similar to it. The Government of Canada and I believe the Vanier Institute, I recollect what flr. Gushue told me, looked with a great deal of favour upon this a ct and I think they,like ~e,are determined to make it uork. In all, I think there were something like 235 recommendations in the Gushue Family Law Study,in the fourteen reports that have been tabled from time to time in this House. About 120 of these have now been incorporated in various legislation hrought before the House during the past three years. I think it is noteworthy and indicative 4223

July .5, 1972 Tape 1238 PK - 3 HR. HI CK.HAN of the excellence of the Gushue Report and the excellence of the work of Mr. David Day that one of the major law-publishing companies in Canada has expressed an interest in obtaining Canada­ wide right to the booktwhich now has been put into book form and with the proper headings and the proper indexing, If this happens. because there have been an interest from law schools in particular for this type of work, I think it will be a very worthwhile endeavour of the Gushue Committee.

But I would prefer not to name the publishing company at this time because I understand competition between the various publishing companies is very keen. But one of the well known law publishing companies in Canada is negotiating for the rights. I move second reading of the bill. On motion, A bill, 11

An Act To Incorporate The Newfoundland Family Guidance Association," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. Motion, a bill, "

An Act Respecting Petty Trepass To Property," 1 P now read a second time. ?-,ffi. HICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this Act follows the Petty Trepass Act of Ontario. which has been in force in that province for a number of yearsand,from the reports we h~ve been able to get from the Department of the Attorney General in Ontario,is working very well indeed. The Annual Conference of The Maritime Association of The Ghiefs of Police recommended to the Atlantic provinces that similar legislation he enacted. This legislation, Mr.

Speaker, I think it can truly be said, has become necessary because of a change in the method of living in Newfoundland 1 particularly during the past ten years, and a change that has been more prominent and more apparent in the rest of North America during the last twenty years or so. The police, the law enforcement agency in this province and the various ministers ot justice have received complaints from the owners of shopping malls that are springing up 4224

July 5, 1972 Tape "-238 PK - 4 MR. HICKMAN: throughout the province, in St. John's, Marystown, Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Falls, Labrador City and obviously in other places as time goes on,and in Carbonear.

We are in a rather peculiar position.•As the law now stands without this act these malls are not public property, The Avalon Mall - and there is a judicial decision of the Ontario High Court to that effect- is not a public place, consequently the police do not have the responsibility nor the right to patrol up and down the Avalon Mall or Zeller' s Mall or the Marys town Hall or the Corner Brook ~all as they would along the streets of these communities. They can only go after an offence h~s been committed and quite often it is too late. The owners of the mall,at this time,have no real redress.

This act provides that where there is obvious misbehaviour and ' where a notice has been given to the person,that the owners of the mall 4225

July 5, 1972, Tape 1239, Page 1 -- aph 1ray then,in effect act as a peace officer for the purpose of apprehendinp:: and bringing the offender to justice. Indeed, from reading the decisions. the old sign that we see so often throu)?hout Newfoundland Tresoassers will be prosecuted 1 ' has been a figment of the imagination, if prosecution means criminal prosecution. This act,I am told by the police in particular and by those who use the law, is necessary if we are going to maintain law and order in these areas and at the same time protect persons and property.

You Bay say that the employing of so-call';d security guards will do the work, but experience has shown that they have little more than psychological control of the normal segment. Again, as a security officer, they will not have the rip.:ht to really do anytl1inp about it until this act becomes law. I therefore move second reading. o1R. W.N.ROWE: Hr. Speaker, I must say I am genuinely surprised at the honourahle minister for brin~ing this particular legislation into the House. He has a good re<:ord of bringing progressive legislation in.

The last bill for example,which we just heard second reading in respect of, was a good piece of legislation. TI-is particular biL\ the Petty Trespasser's Act - Petty Treapassed Act to me is a bill which is offensive to general principles.It isnot helped and that offensiveness is not gotten around by the fact that the Province of Ontario has

an act similar to th:ts or that the police, the Chiefs of Police,at an annual conference in 19691 recommended that this act be enacted. Ontario is not lily-white in the field of civil liberties, by a long shot. We all recall some years ago when a minister of justice in that Province, under the Progressive Conservative Government, was forced to resign from his office (Mr. Cass I think it was) because he brought in an .act_ AN HON. ;!EMBER: He became speaker. !'R. ROHE: ---- --- He became speaker later, that is right. Haybe it will work in reverse, Mr. Speaker, maybe you will become Minister of Justice tomorrow or the next day. But they brought in

an act in that province, "An Act 4226

July 5, 1972, Tape 1239, PAge 2 -- apb To Amend The Police Act." which raised such a furor in the province that becnuse of its restrictive thinking (it was like sorrethinR out of South Africa) the trinister of iustice was forced hy the public clamour (not only from Ontario. but right across Canada) to resirn his position as minister of justice. When the honourable minister brinp:s in

an act or a hill, anrl says that this bill will enact

an act sinilar to the Petty Trespass Act of Ontario, I would submit, Sir, that that alone is not sufficient nrizument for this llouse of Assembly to pass a similar act. Ontnrio 1 as I say, is not lily-white with regard to civil liberties .,or public liberties noranv other kind of liberties, That p.overn~ent has on occasion attempted to brinr in legislation,{no doubt on the recommendation of the various police chiefs) wh:ich has been found to be completely unpalatable as fnr as civil libertarians are concerned.

Sir, to further support this bill by saying that it is recommended by the chiefsof police at an annual conference, to me is not a recommendation for brinr.ing in such a bill but an additionnl reason why such a bill should be scrutinized very, very carefully. This House. Sir, and I would submit the ~ove.rnment,does not exist to act on the whit:1 of chiefs of police.

The very reason we have elected officials, electerl politicians tn this province or in every democracy, is that there shall be civil head~ of state, people who with a broader wisdom perhaos than a chief of police mip.ht be ordinarily called upon to exercise, people who are responsible to the people. Elected politicians,responsible to the. poeple~can exercise their wisdom as to whether

an act a bill or a piece of ler-islation is pood or bad. The recommendation by the chiefs of police might have one merit to it and one only. That is, that the police work in the province can be exercised in a more efficient or a quicker fashion. I would submit, Sir, that that is not the ~reatest interest of politicians who are representinr; the people of this province. Their concern is not with efficiency of police detection, quickness of police detection, but to make sure Je do not 4227

July 5, 1972, Tape 1239, Page 3 -- apb have laws in fact that may be restrictive to the indtvidual but which rnn.kes the policeman's ,1ob a little easier. Surely the politician's job is to make certain, sure and certain that the best interest of the people themselves is looked after ~nd not the best interest of any particular aspect of that society to the detriment of the great body of the people. Now, Sir, what does this bill do? The principle I think is enunciated in clause

(21) section {21} of the proposed act. That clause says· ''Subject to subsection (

f) of this

section and to sections (4) and (5), every person who unlawfully enters or in any other way trespasses upon another person's land that is enclosed or that is a µarden or lawn or with respect to which he has notice by word of mouth, in writing or by posters or si~n boards so placed to be visible from every point to the land,not to trespass, and whether or not any damage has been occasioned thereby.is guilty of an offence and liable. on s~mmary conviction,to a fine of not less than ten dollars and not er.ceedin~ one hundred dollars and in default of payment~ to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months." It is a pretty severe penalty, Hr.

Speaker.The act itself may be petty and the trespass may be petty, but the penalty which can be suffered by somebody under the Act is certainly not petty in any way'.

Subsection (2) goes on to say: ''Where an offence under this subsection is committed by means of a motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle,not being the owner thereof, is liable to a penalty provided by that subsection.' It also goes on to say: "The ow'tler of the motor vehicle is also liable to a penalty"provided by that subsection which I have just read, "unless at the time the offence was committed the motor vehicle was in possession of a person other than the owner without the ov.-'TI.er 1 s consent.,, It is a pretty large extension of the law of this land in my estimation, Sir.

It seems to me that there is no real reason for this Petty Trespasser's Act to be brought in,unleSs it is to 4228

July 5, 1972. Tape 1239> Pnge 4 -- apb facilitate the work of the police which in my estimation is not the larr,er issue which should be considered by this House at all. We have other sections, other laus in this province and under the Governr:ient of Canada which in my estination adequately protect private property and public property wherever it may be situated. Under the Criminal Codc,for example, it is under

section (liO) of the Criminal Code, it states: "Everybody who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling house and anybody lawfully assistinf! him or acting under his authoritv is justified in usinp: as much force as is necessary to prevent any pt.,rson from forcihly breakinr; into or forcibly entering the dwellinp- house without authority.' That is a d ... ,elling house.

Then section (41) says: ,:Anyone who i.s in peaceable possession of' a dwellin~ house or real property, any kind of real property (that would include a shopping mall, it would include public buildinr,s, it would include parks, it would include everythinr,) nnd anyone actinp. for him is justified in usinf force to prevent any p~rson from trespassing in the dwellinB house or real property or to renove a trespasser therefrom,if he uses no more force than is necessary.' Sir, the Crininal Code goes on and on and gives other recedies to people who 4229

•July 5, 1972 Tape no. 1240 Pagel - MRW Mr. Rowe (W.N.). suffer from trespassers. It goes on to say, in subsection (42) 11 Everyone is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling house or real property by day to day possession of it, etc. 11 It goes on to say: "No assaults be unreasonable assaults or are permitted and so on. 11 The Criminal Code which has been built up over a great number of years, Sir, in my estimation adequately protect owners of property in this province or anywhere else in Canada.

I think that there should be a presumption against,by politicians, by the so-called leaders of society , the creation of new crimes or offences unless there is "'some really overriding reason why there should be a new crime or offence created. Unless the circumstances, Sir, have changed so drastically that a new crime is seen to be necessary, i.e., in fields of corporations, security, securities in the development of businesses and this sort of thing, where there are clear dangers to society because of changing circumstances;unless certain laws are brought in.

In those cases certainly the government of the province or the nation should bring in laws to remedy it, In a case which in my estimo.tion is already adequately protected by the law,why should we see a new law brought into effect? It is not only shopping centres, Sir. I believe in the Memorial University Amendment,which is before the House presently, there is a reference to the Petty Trespassers 1 Act as well. It goes much broader than these shopping centres.

I think the honourable minister is correct when he says that by and large the reason for this new law or the felt need for this new law is because of the shopping centres, the malls which have grown up in the past few years. But, Sir, I do not consider that to be adeouate reasoning at all for this new law, 1 do not think the shopping centres in this province or elsewhere ought to have the extra protection which this bill would give them against the freedom of the indiVidual citizen. 1 do not think any case has been made out for it. 1 do not think it is necessary at all.

These shopping centres, Sir, spend millions and millions of dollars trying to attract people to their premises. In the same breath, they 4230

July 5, 1972 Tape no. 1240 Page 2 - _MRW Mr. Rowe (W.N.): cajole the police and cajole the minister of justice in this province and in the Province of Ontario to bring in legislation which will allow them to have their cake and eat it too. They spend millions of dollars trying to persuade and conjole people to come to their shopping centres and then they want to see this added protection passed which could have a very severe affect against the freedom and liberties of the children. Sir, the way that this bill is now worded, there are SQ~e very grave risks involved, i.e •• I think there is a reasonable

interpretation under this bill where a child walking along a street happens to trespass inadvertently or otherwise on a lawn owned by somebody,that owner or a servant acting under that owner, a goon acting for that owner~can take that child and hustle that child of as a police officer would be permitted to do,hustle ,the child of to appear before a justice and to have the matter looked into (It could be an adult, not a chii'

d) on the spot by a justice of one of our courts. Now why is that kind of a severe action suddenly deemed to be necessary,Mr. Speaker? I do not think it is necessary at all. We have adequate protection, lf somebody were tP go on your lmn1, if somebody wel:'e to r,o near your premises, come on your premises, at the wprnent under the Criminal Code. you are permitted with impunity to ask thnt person to get off your property.

If the person do not get off your propcrty,you are enabled yourself or with people using your authority to remove that person,if you use no more force than is necessary or, Si1, you can call upon a policeman to assist you in that particular work. Suddenly, we see an extension to the lnw whereby th..e owner of property or one of his servants or an authority acting for him can hustle a trespasser off to court right away without anything intervening, w~thout any writ having been sworn out, without any complaint having been laid.

I see also risks, Sir, with respect to lawful picketing by labour unions in the province, I see a difficulty where if a union is lawfully 4231

July 5, 1972 Tape no. 1240 Page 3 Mr. Rowe (W.N.) picketing and happens to inadvertently go on the property of an owner of a plant and they do not remove themselves quickly enough when the owner of that plant asks them orally to do so,by word of mouth, as is permitted under this act, I can see an owner or some goons acting for the owner hustling off the picketer , dovn to court in order to answer for his so-called crime which is being created by this bill.

I see difficulties with regard to loiters who might be in university, who might be in various malls, harmless loiters who the owner suddenly decides should not be on the premises. If they do not get off quickly enough.when the owner says/You should get off my property because you are trespassing:they are hustled off without any further benefits. They are hustled off to court, I mean these are things which can happen under this legislation which is proposed to this House. I do not see, Sir, any need of it.

I just do not see· any reason why this bill is necessary in this province today, Now, Si~, the bill itself on principle is offensive per se but certain parts of the bill appear to me to be even more offensive than the principle of having this law or act brought in in the first place. I think there is a difficulty with regard to the term 11 notice 11 in this act~ "Anyone who trespasses on someone's land and who has been given notice by word of mouth. 11 Now what· does that mean?

Does that mean as I have ment: 1 earlier that a child or somebody,if they happen to walk on my lawn and I say to them, "get off my lawn, you are trespassing." Is that sufficient notice for me then,if they do not get off immediately,for me to get my friends or my servants or people acting under my authority to grab that person by the scruff of the neck and hustle him off to court1 I mean,what is meant by notice? Is it a _reasonable notice? Is it a notice that you have trespassed on my land,by word of mouth? 11 I am telling you now that you have trespassed on rtr'f land.

If you trespass there anymore I will deal with you severely'; I mean, is that the type of notice involved? 4232

July 5, 1972 Mr. Rowe (W,

N) Tape no. 1240 Page 4 I mean,l see difficulties with regard to an

interpretation of the word 11 notice." Under clause (3) of the act, Sir, I see some difficulties as well, especially I believe clause (3) (c), subject to section (4) and (5): !!Every person who is a peace Officer " That is okay. "The owner of land involved •.. 11 That is okay. "The servant of or any person authorized by such owner may apprehend without warrant any person found committing an offence under section (2) •• , 11 that is going on someone's land, inadvertently or not.

"Forthwith taken before the nearest 1ustice to be dealt with according to law." Now, Sir, first of all we have the situation where a hired ~oon in the case of a mall ,for example ,can be used to hustle somebody off to court.

But, Sir, even more unsavoury and more unpalatable in my estimation is the fact that such a ~oon or such a person authorized by an owner of land may apprehend without warrant any person. \Now the clear distrinction which has grown up over four or five hundreds years of the development of criminal law is that if a serious offence is committed, usually termed as indictable, if a serious offence is being committed or a peace officer or a ctizen for that matter has reasonable cause to believe that a serious and indictable offence is committed,about to be committed, has been committed, the person so suspected.on reasonable grounds,of cormnitting that serious offence may be arrested and brought to court or brought before a law enforcing agency or before a judge without any warrant having been used by any court.

The reason for that, Sir, is because the offences are serious and there may be a need to apprehend the committer of such a serious offence as soon as possible or a reasonably suspected committer of such an offencee The other distinction which has grown up in the criminal law 4233

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1241 NM - 1 is that in the case of frivcilous offences, offences which are not too serious,

summary conviction offences, misdemeamors I think they would be calleP in the United StatEs, in such cases nobody can arrest a person for commibting such an offence without having received a warrant to arrest from a judge of a court. The reason for that distinction, Sir, is that otherwise police officers ~or citizens,for that matter,would be able to harrass people in this province without merit, without warrant, without any ' justification for it, or harass people in England or in Canada or in the Uhited States,for that matter.where we have this system of criminal law. If a

summary conviction offence, a misdemeanor is committed, the person who arrests the person for committing that goes to court and gets a warrant, has to persuade a judge, a highly responsible official of the court, that such an offence has been committed or it i.s suspect that such an offence has been committed, and the judge then issues a warrant.

The reason for that, as I have stated, Sir, is clear, otherwise, there is a ~rave danger that the police or other people in society could harass private citizens and deprive them, not by sending them to jail but by arresting them over and over again, deprive them of their liberties in such a fashion. That is why that clear distinction has grown up.

Yet we see here, Sir, in this particular hill, this offensive petty trespassers Act, we see that the owner of land or a police officer or the servant er p_oon, the privately hired flervant of the owner 1 may apprehend without warrant, withou~ any need to go before a judge and persuade the judge of the reasonableness of his· case, may apprehend without warrant such a person and hustle him off to the nearest judge to be dealt with according to law. !!'hat to me, Sir, is a departure from the traditions, the salutary traditions of criminal law which have grown up in the conmion law world over the last five hundred years, I for one,as a lawyer and 4234

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1241 NM - 2 as a citizen, would not like to see such a departure from criminal law and the traditions which have grown up, without better reasons than have been put forward by the honourable minister. than whid were put forward by the Ontario Legislature,for that matter. I do not think there :is any need for such harsh and strin~ent laws to be applied, to be brought into this province and he npp lied.

Now, Sir, perhaµsthe bill would be okay without that particulnr clause, I do not know, I think the hill is offensive on ~eneral principles but maybe if that clause were removed, which 1 just mentioned, the htll would not be too bad. I think, Sir, that there are one or two other thingu in the till which are offensive as well.

Clause (22), for example, which I have already read, states - '1were an offence under subs~ction (l)(that " is to trespassj is committed by means cf a motor vehicle, the driver of the rr.otor vehicle, not being the owner thereof, is liable to the penalty provided by that subsection." In other words, a person who is drivinr. another person's vehicle can trespass by use of the motor vehicle and con be hustled off to court.

But the next part, Sir, is the really offensive pare. 11 The owner of the motor vehicle is also liable to the penalty provided by that subsection, unless at the time the offence vas committed, the motor vehicle was in the possession of a person other than the owner, wJ thout the owner's consent." What that means, Sir, is that if somebody steals my car and trespasses on somebody else's property with that car, I can be prosecuted or otherwise harassed or persecuted,for that matter, under this particular act.

But if 1 on the other hand, I were to lend my car to the honourable Minister of :Justice and he has my car with my 4235

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1241 NM - 3 knowledge and he trespasses on somebody's property, then the owner of that property, regardless and irrespective of the fact that l had no knowledge whatsoever of the trespnss that took place, the owner of the property trespassed upon can come against me as the owner of that vehicle and I can be liable to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, as a result of a so called quasi-criminal action by somehody who has a loan of my car with my consent~ To me, Sir, that is a completely offensive and unpallatable law to have 1 to be bringing into this Lep,islature at this particul~r time.

I do not think~ Sir, there is much more I can say on the particular bill. I think I hnve said enough to show that we have to -watch very carefully whh.t we are doing when we start bringing in this kind of thing. The fact that Ontario has this act does not impress me and does not impress my colleagues. I ~m sme it does not impress the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure it does not impress the member for St. John's South. Ontario has never shown itself to be, the Ontario Government has never shown itself to be the great bulwark of civil liberties in 'their province.

We have seen that they have brought in this Police Act, which was a South African type Act,and that a minister of justice had to resign as a result of it. We have seen some pretty strange activities going on by the Government of Ontario,with the police department in that province, where demonstrators have been set upon in a vecy harsh and ruthless fashion. I do not think that we need to be proud, to say in this House that this hill would enact

an act similar to the Petty Trespass Act of Ontario, and certainly, Sir, we do not need to say that this has been recommended by the chiefs of pa.lice gathered together in a conference because, Sir, although I have the greatest respect for the police doing their job, we are the people who make laws in this province, we are the people who have to look after the best interests of the citizens of this province~ If a group of police chiefs recommend to me that a 4236

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1241 NM - 4 certain act be passed, Sir, that to me is sometimes or often good reason why such

an act should not be brought in because the police will undoubtedly be trying to do their job a bit better, better., seen through their eyes, and that might not necessarily serve the best interests of the people of this province.

We on this side of the House, Sir, will vote against this bill because we think it is offensive in general principle, we think it is offensive and we think that particularly the parts which 1 have already read, the part about no warrant being necessary, the part about the owner of a vehicle being held liable under this act even though he does not know that the driver to whom he lent the car has committed the trespass, that kind of thing is offensive.

The whole idea of privately hired goons able to hustle people off, say a covered mall like the Avalon Mall,for exarnple 1 whcn the Avalnr:, Mall spends millions of dollars to r,et people to go in there and suddenly 1 at the discretion of some hired servant or person authorized by the owners of that mall, someone is able to be hustled off without warrant, down before a judge for trespass, presumably because the person did not step quickly enough when such a servant cf the owner said to him, nget off our land, you are trespassing on it~" or 11 get off our property, you are trespassing on it. 11 The whole thing, Sir, is offensive and I do hope that the Minister of Justice, when he has heard one or two other argtlf'lents in respect of our position that he will see fit to withdraw this bill because it is an offensive bill.

It is unpallatable and I think it is a pernicious type of thing. It is sort of the thin edge of the wedge we are seeing, crimes, new crimes being created when there is absolutely no need for these crimes to be created at all~ 1'!R. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have heard my honourable and learned friend on this matter and I feel that there i-0 some comment necessary on this proposed piece of legislation. 4237

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1241 NM - 5 Now he has said that it does not matter what the Association of Police Chiefs said and it does not matter what was done in Ontario, and I have to agree with him. The fact that the police chiefs might recommend it, does not to me mean that it necessarily ought to be passed and what another province does is not always of great significance in my mind insofar as what this province ought to do. But I think that we ought, nonetheless, to be aware that the police chdefs felt it was necessary and it does not hurt us to be aware of what another province does.

But I a~ree with his point that we ought not to ••. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. WELLS: Yes, yes I agree. I think we ought to be aware of them but that does not mean that we have to fall head over heels backwards to do something because they say it ought to be done.

But I think we have to be aware of a situation that is developin~ or any situatfon that is developing in this province,and I think it is the duty 6f this House to be aware and if the House feels or the government,in bringing forth legislation, that steps ought to be taken, then the steps ought to be taken based on the collective judgement of the House - what it thinks ought to be done. Now I think we all know, as the minister said, the pattern of life in some respects is changinga These malls have come into existence.

I think it is fair to say that in recent time there is less regard paid by a certain segment of society to private property. There is a great deal of vandalism going on and the law, the criminal law :this in the narrower sense,! suppose,is the criminal law) although it is not the criminal code, has to take cognizance of these th_ings and there are times when the Legislature 1 acting within its jurisdiction, has to do something about them& For instance,! think it is well known that there is a problem at some of these shopping malls. People are wandering about.

It is a case of freedom,to walk about and do something, being converted into licence. Take the case of the post office. I am told in certain 4238

July 5, 1972 Tape No~ 1241 NH - 6 post offices in St. John's, and this I use by way of illustration only, that the outer part of the post office (what do you call it?) the lobby~if you like, has been left open at night or it has been the custom for it to be left open at night so that people wanting mail out of boxes could come in and get it, but the post offices have had to take action themselves and close these lobbies, to the inconvenience of the ordinary citizen,because bands 4239

July 5, FJ72 Tape 1242 PK - l 'iR, HELLS: of roaminf? people 1-: ,ve decided to set up housekeeping, almost,in these post offices, in the lobhies,when the permanent staff have gone~ Damage has been done. I have heard that fires have been f!Ct and generally a situation has prevailed in these lobbies when ordinary citizens would be almost frightened to go in and get their mail. Likewise, the use of motor vehicles in public parks - we read of an incident, a couple of Fee ks ago, when an unfortunate young man was killed in driving his motor car up amt down and all around the public park in the City of St. John's.

So my honourable and learned friend is quite right when he says we have to be careful ahout limiting the liberty of the individual but,at the same time, we cannot allow the individual who confuses liberty with licence to go right ahead and push himself upon all sorts of public and private places without hinderance or let Phatsoever and do as he sees fit.

Now the Criminal Cod~,it is true.talks about and gives a right to an individual to repel force by force as long as the force used in repelling a person or putting him off property is adequate. liut surely no citizen or no group of people ror company operating somethinp; like a mall or a post office or a public park wants to be involved in the business of forcefully pushing people off the property and 1 think it is quite right that a piece of legislation like this be enacted ,which would make it an of fence in these circumstances. when you are warned off the property, an offence to trespass.

Ehere I do agree with the honourable member and I think there is n poiPt in what he says - it is in Section (3) Subsection (1) where it says that the peace officer, the owner of the land involved or a servant or agent may apprehend without warra!lt. I! I think a peace officer. an owner or a servant of an owner should be ahle to take some action. I do not think my honourable and learned friend was altogether fair when he refers to the servant of an owner who might be 4240

July 5, 1972 Tape 12t,2 PK - 2 the person employed as a security guard at Avalon "'1all or some other rral 1. T do not think he is being altogether fai.r ;.,hen he refer:; to hin as a "i:,non. I think the nervant of the 01.-mer. on behalf of the ownr:r,ought to take >Jome tiction and he ahle to tak.e action, But I think he is right when he refers and is a hit fearful about this ''may apprehend without warrants." =-~~'.'.i W lie could he a goon. Yes. He could he a goon, he is not likely to be.

It ~,orrie.s me a little hit ffiyself this business of apprehendinr without warrant and perhaps the hill would be the better for substituting somcth-ing to the affect that he may he charged by summons. So this is the only thtng that t would have to say about the bill, T think it: is necessary in principle. I think it ought ta he tried. T think there is need for somethinr, to be done about people who seem to have no unrlerstanding or no con,:eption that any people have a rigl1t to private property and this includes businesses, particnlarly something like shopping rralls.

T think that and perhaps in committee star,e we Qay have some rliscussion on this. T think that Section (3) perhaps should have a little more thou~ht or a little more consideration given to it. There are arguments there, I would certainly concede that. But 2.part from that,in priw iple 1 think, ~r.

Speaker, that this hill ou~ht to he passed and I think there is a need for it~ If it is found that the way, that when the power is granted, jf it is found that the power is heinp, abused, I vould like to see next year, for inst:ance 1 or whenever it is found, if it is found that the power in i.t is heinr, abused, that this matter be brou~ht to the attention of thi.s Pouse and I for one nould have no hesitation in listening to what was said and in dealing with it. But at the moment I think there is sufficient cause for some action along these lines and I would agree with the bill in principle, 4241

J,dy '"i, JO]? Pf - 1 :11?. RO!!E,, U._r;~· P,r,fnre the hnnourah1e mer-h•!r ret:iins his seat wrmld he 1 ;irP to mnJ.tf~ ;i (:omment on <::ect:lnn (7h) - "!'. Ahout the driver nf motor vehicles;' ?!P. nmrr:, __ \.~--!~· Yes, the nwner of ;J notor vehicle. "1' . T wouJ rl maYe one r:imall rnrnment on that,. 1 do not agree with tlw hommr,1hlt~ memher on th:it.

T feel that people, and I have cone ar·nnrn this in the practice of Cr:Irn1nal Law, I feel that people are very hl1the1y enah1P,t./to walV nut from unrler~lendinr: their motor cars to people vho h:i.ve no sense of respnnsihilit:r at a11 nnd can say,''well look, it has nnthlnr: to do with me." Jn fact a great m,1ny of them say lt when they get into difficulties on this point;''oh. the car was stolen." There nre ,1.lJ sorts of d1.fficulties there and I feel that some responsihility, a r:onsider,1hle der,rec of respons:fh11tty should be placed on the owner of motor vehicles nr the owners of motor vehicles.that they do not just c,1su,1.lly JPnd them tn other people. who are goin2 around with them creating mischief.

Sn I must riay J do not i'.lg-ree with the honourable memher on that and 1 feel that that particular clause Q..tght to stay as is. Ts there any other member who wishes to speak on the other side, because Twill he a second and last speaker on this side, Pr. Speaker. Does the member for Placentia East want to say a word or so. as an honour ah le and learned member of the House? The honourable gentleman from Tinnavista South is concerned with civil liberties matters. AN HON. NEMBER: Inaudible. Oh, no, that is another story. Well, ''r.

Speaker, let me say a word or two along the same lines as my honourable nnd learned friend. our House Leader. the gentleman from White Bay South. I am going to vote against the principle of this hill and Twill vote against it in committee and indeed I intend to vote npa:inst it in third reading. I think that thi.s bill, The Petty Trepass Act, is offensive. I think that it is wrong in principle, Even if it were right in principle,1 submit.on what the minister has said in 4242

July 5, 1972 Tape 1242 PK - 4 YR. ROBERTS: introducing the bill. he has made no case at all for it. Now, Sir, I listened with particular interest to the remarks of my learned friend, the memher for St. John's South. I agreed with some of what he had to say and vith respect, I disagree with some of the points that he made. Now, Sir, first of all let me he quite clear that nobody on this side of the House condones vandalism in any form. The Law of Newfoundland, the Law of Canada ,mys that if a man has private property he has certain rights to have that property protected.

Indeed, as my learned friend said, under certain conditions he may even protect the property himself. He cannot put out man-traps. He cannot shoot. He cannot harm but he is entitled to use reasonable force, reasonable of course heinr: something that depends upon the circumstances. Rut. f-!r. Speaker. to say that we are against this bill in no way condones vandalism. I have not heard the Hinister of Justice say .... now perhaps he may say in concluding that the normal criminal and police measures are not adequate. Before this bill will he justified, Mr.

Speaker. the minister would have, I submit, to make a case to the effect that we had in St. John's or elsewhere in this rrovince where we have shoppiniz malls a situation where first of all the normal police authority. the authority they now have under the Criminal Code and under Coi'!mon Law,really the two sources of authority for our police, the authority they now have, Sir, is not adequate to enable them to protect in a reasonable way the rights of private property. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, I submit that the minister once he made that case - he has not made it 1 In my view, he has not made it yet, Sir, maybe he can, maybe he cannot, hut he has not made it - the minister would then have to say that we need a bill, t-ce need a law in Newfoundland under which a person can be arrested for stepping on a lawn. That is what this bill will allow. With all respect, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of this act, if the House, tn my view, is so tm:wise as to accept it. a person can step on my lawn down at Hogan's Pond where there are a few precious sods that are struggling there to try and 4243

July 5, 1 q72 Tape 1242 PK - 5 '-lR. ROBERTS· get a root and to grow up I a person can step on that and if he has been warned, whatever the procedure is under this act, I can arrest him. this act gives me the power . .{\N Hfffl~ }tE!-fBER: Without warrant. :rR~ ROBERTS· Without warrant. something that normally is used for a most serious offence. If my honourahle friend a~rec with me, the gentleman from St. John's South,and he knows much more about the Criminal Law than I ever will. he is quite expert in it.

But my understanding of the Criminal 1.aw is that the only offences for which a man may be arrested, even hy a peace officer let alone a cltizen, a police officer, if he has reasonable cause to believe the man has committed or is about to commit a crime, a reasonable cause or if in fact he detects the culprit in the commission of an offence,or hot pursuit - the doctrine of hot pursuit.in my books,you know. is part of commission. It grows dtrectly out of the act of commission. Indeed it is one and the sa.-ne thing. If we were in court law we would say "causa causan".

It is the direct cause and exact relationship. 4244

Julv 5, 1972 Tnpe 1243 Page 1. ~fr. Speaker, under this bill ;my person in Newfo'Jndland - tlie hrmourable r;entleman fnJm St. Jnhn 1 s North runs a savoury ,..nrm un in '1ount Scio here. lie does well at it. l'nder this 1 as a gnrden or lawn would come under the wordinr of the act, he then could f'.O un to anv person , o whom he has given notice,by word of mouth.,1n writing,by posters or sign boards. any person to whom he has given \-•arninr; net to trespass, the. honournhle gentleman from St.

John I s North Ci".ld po up to him and clap him on the i:;houldcr and say, "1 arr,·[•t thee under the authority of Sec ti.on 3, subsection nf the act, }'etty Trespass Act, am gning to hold ;iou for the \>:eekend because I have to hring you before the nearest justice as soon m• it is nracticnllle." Now tbc word3 "as soon as it is practicable" nre not in there hut they must be ;,ut in to make sense. In the common law the judr;e ,.•ould obviously put thern in. Mr. Speaker, that is intolerahle. The minister hai:: made out no cause for this, no need for this legislation. This is drastir: legislatinn.

A minor mntter,we may say -- L,ut here we are i.n the clog days of a session that hns r.one on for a long while and v1ill be f_'oinp.; on again later. Normally,lei;islation would go through very quickly. Hr. "peaker, this legislation should not gD through. should not go through .at nll and if it is to go through,the government majoritv are to push it through. lt should not go through without examination.

Section 3 of this Set, Sir, is offensive, it is direct invasion of the rights of the subject. There is no cause for it. There i.s no v.•arrant for it. It shoulCT not go ahead. I am surprised at the Minister of Justice. I have always found him to have a tender regard for the liberties of the subject, foi civil liberties. I am surprised at him sponsoring this legislation. We sent word to him orivately that we were somewhat taken aback and that we hoped it would be withheld. Jnstead,he pushes ahead vith it. I hope now he will withdraw it and instead will ask that it be 4245

July 5. 1972. Tape 124 3 Page 2. al1oved to stand, we will not give it second readinp:, or if he wishes, we can defeat second reading. the majority,we do not,in this matter. But he has the support of But, Sir, it is wrong. Furthermore, Sir, another point; This act applies to far more than sh,-pping centres. There has been some chatter here in the House nhout the need to protect Avalon )fall. Well, I will come back to the need to protect Avalon Hall, !-1r. Speaker. The terms of this bill nriply to everything.

They anply to,any person's land that is enclosed or a piece of land that is a garden or lawn or a piece of land in respect of which has been noted. Any of those three. It is a lot of area.l"r, Speaker, that is a hig chunk of Newfoundland. It means that if Your Honour has a lavn 1n Your !lonour's home in Lewisporte and somebody wanders on that lm,rn~Your Honour can go out and arrest .1im and bring hiM hefore the nearest justi.ce under the Petty 'frespass Act, The guy can get un to three months in j ai 1.

If anybody thinks that could not hannen,let me renind vou,Sir, let me remind the House, we had :1 case in this province where a maf;istrate, I believe he has since retired from the magistracy, gave - it was a St. Alban' s case_ first of all. was it eighteen months in jail for some people who broke into a house? l1nder the - agreed under the Criminal Code t3ut an offenc.e,whtch would be considered reasonabl"! nordu1ltdrew a stiff sentence. We had a case in Bo::avista North a number of years ago,where some lads, some maneens went out on bonfire night and burned an old boat.

The Minister of Justice was minister of justice then.was he not? Well, that is why we took the correct action. We had a case where n r,roup of 1!!lneens went out,as young men will, Sir, I would not say that any member of the House hm, ever done that, I would not suggest that. Hind you 1 'Fould not be surnrised. The member for Twillingate obviously had a hand in destruction of property. But some young men, Sir, up in Bonavista North,went o,,~_ one night, Sovemher 5th, bonfire night, a night 4246

Julv 5, 1972. Tape. 1243 Page 3. that goes far hack in the annals of Parliament. In the British House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, to this day.before a session open;,;, x1r. Speaker has his Clerk search underneath the Chambers,underneath the !louse of Commons,lookinr for gunpowder. They have 'not found nnv vet hat they keep hoping, keep hoping. If we were to search here 1 it would he through the Cabinet Chamber, it would be interesting. But, "r. Speaker, those young men were charged with arson under the Cr krinal Code, They were convicted of arson. They were sentenced r thin:-;_ to three years in Jail.

An incredible sentence. It wa~ immedi;1.telv arine;1led. The Appeal Court took what I submit is a much mnre rational viet-' of it and I beli.eve they got 2. suspended sentence and a slap nn thto wrist for horning ;m o} d tran ski ff. ;'_'.:':_:WELJ::S_:~ I remember a cnse where a ch;m burnt an old boat f,elonging to hinself nnd got ei~hteen months. "R.RORI:RTS: The memher from St. Joi1n's South mnkes the ar~urnent ,dth ns much or mnre elorp1encc than I can, Rut the noint is,i.t is valid, Sir.

Lord only knows what happens when a poor I innocent fell ow bas hanpcned to wander on to the savour tarm ot the t1inister of Education. Lord only knows happens vhen he is h;1iled before a iustice. He may get three n,onths in jail. Incredible! The merefact that one says that normally it would not happen; there have been enough instances in thi;,; -province or elsewhere in Canada to indicate that, you know, this is a danger. So, '-!r. Speaker. we have legislation brourht before us, drastic le~islation. It does not look very dramatic. It is only five pages, Str~ and it is a fairly simple piece of legislation.

It has not a lot of clauses and subclauses and what have you, but it is drastic legislation, it could 2ffect every person in this province. We have been given no reason for it. We are told 1 by way of explanation, that the police chiefs have asked for it. Well, you know, that is good 4247

July 5, 1972, Tap·e 1243 Page 4. information to have but it is, nobody has said that is sufficient reason to justify it. We have been told the Province of Ontario has .similar legislation. So they hnve, hut that is not to indi.cate we should have this. Hany nrovinces have legislation which Jn my view should not be adopted in t!ewfoundlan<l. Further, ~fr. Speaker. the minister introducing the bill made no case fr,r it. lie talked ahout Avalon Mall. Ile talked ah out the Fraser Nall i.n Gander, Millhrook }.Jall in Corner Bronk. There ls one up in tfabush. There fa one in Labrador City. There mav be others.

There is talk of one in Grand Fnlls now. ;"'r. Speaker, this House does not exist to pass laws for the henefit of the ow'!lers of shopping plazas. That is not our concern. Our concern is for the welfare of the people of this province. Here we have the shopping centres. Fine plnces, designed to separate the citizen from his dollar in a pai-less and pleasant manner. Like the dentist~painless potter in"buttnns and bows, 11 the Jane Russell movie, the Bob Hope mr,vie. They try to extract the man's dollar from his pocket. l mav add ,from what I understand,they are nretty good at it.

They spend thousands of rlolJars, hundreds of thousands of do1lars enticing neople on to the shopping plazas. Everv way they can think of, they do. That is fi.ne. That is very Hne. Now all of a sudden,,apparentlv they are to have

an act r to have legislative nuthority;pc.rhaps if you do not provide enough dollars you c:an p..et clapped into jail, you can get arrested. This gives them more power, Hr. Speaker, than a police officer has under the Criminal Code, In the normal course of things a police officer, under the Criminal Code 1 could not arrest you merely for trespassing,unless there was violence. unless there were some other offence bein2 committed, break and entry or a personal assault or something of that 4248

July 5, 1972. Tane 12!;3 Page 5. order. Hell drunken clauses should be taken out of the Criminal Cude ~urely the minister will agree with that- for being drunk and disorderly possibly,but just being drunk. "sither it is a case that all offences,victimless offences, should b~ taken out of the lri dnal rode, strong case for that - but that is a jurisprudence oueet:if'l' which should be settled elsewhere. So, Yr. Speaker, I find this legislation <mite offensive. r<o case h,1s been made out for it, Sir.

Even if there were a case let us Assume the minister has made nut a case, there is no evidence that we neerl a hill. The Criminal rode has strict provisirms about trespass and about criminnl tresnass and all these th:ings,;r d disorderly conduct. The n0Hce do not need nennission to go onto µri.v: te propertv in that case. If T nm committing an offence on some hono11rahle gentleman's lawn so;ne evening.perhaps with a y0ung lndy, there .,re sections in the code, there have been cases in the code, lhere lrnve been cases in the code where vouni.c men do.

Rut all of n sudden, I m;,suhject to the normal penalties hut the owner 0f rhp~ propertYcRn come out and forthwith tap r.ie on the shoulder and cnrry me off to the nearest juHtice. That may be }fonday morning or Tue!idnv morning,if it is;, long weekend. No nrovisions for false arrest. There is a

section further dmm where the person has n fair and reasonable suoposition thnt he had a riRht to do the act complai.ned. C:od only knows what a court could do with that. When,Mr. Speaker,does one have a fair and reasonable supposition that he has a right to do something? Lawyers have made fortunes on cases like that. They have gone into the Supreme Court of Canada. Ir, the old days they went to the Privy Council. that takes care of it. You know~wiped out. If you have notice, The notice can be by word of mouth. Your Honour can run out on your lavn in Lewisporte, Sir, I assume vou have a lawn in Lewisporte, and say, "I give thee notice under

section 2, subsection (

c) of the Petty Tresnass Act, Bill

July 5, 1972. Tape 1243 Page 6. No. 28, 19 72.' t'nless the gentleman and ladies involved get off your lawn, Sir, you can forthwith arrest them~ Why? What reason have the r,overnment got for bringing in thi.s legislation? I am surpriRed, Sir, that the gentleman from Bonavista South has not said a word or two. He is active in the civil liberties movement" a very noble organiz.ntion. Thi.s is n clear offence afullnst civil liberties. The gentleman from onavistn. South is not listeninµ to me, but let me repeat it, lam su1::.nrised he has not - vell he is getting 4250

July 5, 1972, Tape 1244, Page 1 -- apb a lot of wisdom then. I am surprised he has not said a word or two on this. I am surprised that my learned friend from Placentia East 1 a luminary of the Bar of this province~ one of the pillars of the Bar, a learned gentleman who has just become a silk, a gentleman who has devoted a large part of his time to the noble aspect of defense of peonle charp;ed with criminal offenses, a gentleman who is very active in legal aid and insuring that people have their rights and that they do not lose them, I am talking about the gentleman from Placentia East.

All these kind words could be about no other learned gentleman. {Inaudible) No, Placentia East, the gentleman frorn Placentia East. I am surprised that he has not said a word on it, Maybe he will. The bill is offensive, Sir. I think the minister should withdraw it and take it ouside the ~farrows and sink it. If not, he should amend it by striking section (2), section (3), These are the operative sections, he should amend these. AN HON. Mf1"llFR: (Inaudible) PR. ROBERTS: I agree. That is my su~gestion. I am surprised at other honourable gentlemen. What reason have they, Mr.

Speaker, to bring in a Lill under which a person can be put in jail for the simple offense of trespassinr: on somebody else:s land,with or without damage? It says: 'Whether or not any damage has been occasioned thereby.' It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, incredible. It goes against the whole trend of jurisprudence in Canada. It may or not be ultra vires of the province. The mere statement that the purpose of the act is to legislate within matters within the legislative competenc·e of the province may not be enough. It may well be outside the provision of this House.

Even so, Sir, it goes against - for example; the new Bail Act in Ottawa that says that a person is to be released on his own recognizance in all except exceptional circumstances. Not so here, Sir. 4251

July 5. 1972, Tape 1244, Page 2 -- apb A peace officer, the owner of the land involved or the servant of or any person authorized by such owner can carry you off for the weekend. Not bad, Mr. Speaker. I think the legislation is offensive. I think it is bad in principle. There is no case for it, Even if there were a case, this is not the reeans to deal with this problem, 1 think the minister should be ashamed of himself for hringing it in here and he should withdraw it. I believe that and I do not say that in any partisan sense. I speak as n citizen, as one who has some concern with the liberties of the subject.

If we must crack people.let us. Mr. Speaker, but let us have a reason for it. It is not here, there is no reason given. Because Avalon Mall may have some people - it came into Ontario because of the Scarborough case, the shoppin~ centre out in Scarborough. Are we to copy that? Have we had these incidents in St. John's? Are the police not able to cope with them? If so, then maybe there is a case for action. MaybP then, but. Mr. Speaker, there is - even if there is that case, and no such case has been proven. It Any be there, but has not been proven, it has not been adduced in this House.

If there is, this is not the way to deal with it. Where are the protections of the subject? It does nothing anyway about trespass. Trespass in civil law is a relatively minor offense. There are criminal offenses growinr out of trespass, but normally to get action in damages from trespass one must sue, ~o through the process. One must prove damages. Not so here, Mr. Speaker, not so here. You get hauled off to jail. You can be put in jail for up to three months. It will happen.

There will be some magistrate somewhere,of the same class as the man who convicted and sentenced the fellow to ei~hteen nionths for burning his own boat. Incredible but true. Th~se things happen. Or the three young lads in Wesleyville 1 somewhere on the north side of Bonavista Bay_ AN HON. ?-f£!-fBER: No! No! No! 'MR. POBFRTS~ Hell somewhere up there. AN HON. }~!BER: It was Cannnnville, 4252

July 5, 1972, Tape 1244, Pa~e 3 -- apb UR. ROBERTS: I was right on the ville and wron,! on the start, wrong on the first of it. !'N l!Q_~ PE1fBE~ In White Bay. ?--~...:~.PJ!EFTS_:_ No, Sir, in White Bay they would have done more than burn the hoat. But, ~fr,. Speaker, there 1,,•as a magistrate who gave a man three years for that, and there was the case down in St. Alhan's or J\ny d'Espoir,wherever it 'Was,a yenr or so past. There was a lot of controversy about it at the time and eventually it was taken on appeal. I f!Uess to the Supreme Court, and they overturned the sentence and reduced it si~nificantly.

If we do not need such leiiislationtlet us not have :i.t on the books. Let us put it aside. l have said enough on this. I doubt that I have changed the minister's mind. I hope I have. I hope I have. I have not been as forceful as my collearue from White Bay South,who spent a lon~ time studyin~ this. Sir, this act is bad lep:islation. It affects the riµ;hts of the subject with no purpose and uith no justifiable end in view. It should be tdthdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, it should be amended substantially. You should not be able,in this province,to be clapped in jail for the simple act of trespnssinr.

This is what this does. Furthermore, I submit that we should not in Newfoundland have a situation where any person can arrest another person. The peace officer has the ri~ht to arres½under the Criminal Code,and so he should and so he must. tlnder certain conditions, very limited,a citizen may arrest,under the Criminal Code,although he does so at his peril. If I nm not mistaken, if I recall that correctly and the member for St. John's South could tell me if I am wrong, a citizen may arrest only if in fact he has actual justification.

The mere reasonable belief is not good enough, it will not defend him arainst a suit for false arrest. He must be rir,ht in fact and not just right in a reasonable belief. Sir, there is nothinp. here about that. This takes it far beyond the Criminal Code, far beyond anything: the Parliament of CanadR 4253

July 5, 1972, Tape 1244, PA?e l; -- aph has done,and now we have this le~islation here. I think, Mr. Speaker, the minister should withdraw it. If he w::1.shes to withdraw.we will consent to let hin without havinp- it put to a vote. I think he should withdraw it and if on contemplation it turns out there is a need for some such legislation, then perhaps at another time the House could have a different niece of legislation. If he does not withdraw it, we will oppose it, Sir, we will oppose it by any means within our power. We think it is wrong. We believe it is wrong.

Let the minister withdraw it, That ls what h~ should do. Let him withdraw it and come hack lnter. Thunk you, Sir. ~'R. HICK~AN: Fr. Speaker, firstly, I thank honourable members for their contrihution to this debate. It is the kind of debate that I think is good in this House. I do not propose to withdraw the hill. There are two very good points that are hidden in this bill,in my opinion, that are worthy of consideration, I would ask the House Leader if,when it reaches committee stage, if we will hold iit over for further contemplation.

I would not want anyone in the public to ~o away with the impression that this hill is a great invasion of the liberty of the subject. What this bill is designed to do is to try and protect the subject. We cannot stop progress,if you want to call it progress. We cannot stop change of living and methods of living in this province, anymore than you can anywhere else, Mr. Speaker. We do have a responsibility to ensure that people who gather in public places, be it in the shopping mall or nny other public place, have the ri~ht to go totally unmolested.

If they are i,:oinr, to be molested or if there is destruction of property and(the complaints that have been put to me by these nall owners and the shop keepers,more so than the owners, because the owners could not care less) if the shopkeepers and those who go in there indicate to r.1.e that the con?rer,ation and the people in there - nnd I can tell you of a case, Mr. Speaker, within the past few ueeks,where a person in this province v:'as convicted of disorderly 4254

July 5, 1972, Tape 1244, Page 5 -- apb conduct in the mall and then was ordered not to ~o back there. Within a matter of days that person was back. You can say: i'W'hy not bring another action?" By the time the police j'.!'et there, because they have no ri~ht,as I saidt right now to patrol malls or any of these other places~ Mil, 11.N.P.0v/.!'_• Why are they not given that right? Then they will have the rig:ht to go and patrol 01•r houses and every other place, Mr. Speaker.

But by the time they ~ot to these public places 1 they found that the person had left and it became just a total and open flaunting of the law. There are two things that I am not prepared,as minister, to ask th:is House to do, One is _ to send a person to jail for committing a trespass, certainly not the kind of trespass that is envisa~ed in this Lill. Secondly; one that 1 have to confess came to my attention today very forcibly, is the question of apprehension ~ithout warrant.

My recommendation to thecomm.ittee will be (and 1 i:ould sugv:est that this hill not ~o to conunittee today but rathe'.r later on in this session) that we amend section (3) by chan~in~ the word u~ithout*warrant and includinr. the word~upon~warrant. This will eliminate any possibility of some 4255

July 5, 1972 Tape :10. 1245 NM - 1 frivolous person coming out, I will not talk about a child walking on a lawn, that is over dramatizing something, but some person becoming overly difficult in trying to exercise rights under this right. Because if they have to go and get a warrant, this means that people in these public places are not going to do it unless they have prettv iust cause and unless they are being tormented. Now reference has been made to the Criminal Code and it is referred to in this rtct so I have the right to refer to it as well.

This act can only apply to situations where the Criminal Code does not prevail. It can only apply to places where The Bail Act does not prevail. The 1:-l"enk ancl entry sections of the Criminal Code will continue to affdrd the protection that the code envisages at this time and now contains. It is only under the conflict of law decisions and under the constitutional law we do not have the right to invade the criminal field. So if there i.s any intent of superseding the (:riminal Code, then this act could not stand. But, ~r.

Speaker, this House has a right to ensure the protection and the peaceful use of properties in this province. Indications to date are that with this type of usar,e of quasi-public property I there is no such thing as quasi-puhlic property, it is either private or public. lf I quote the decision of the Ontario Courts along this sense,they state precisely the same thing, that there is no such thing in our law as quasi-public premises. But that does not get away from the fact that you have large congregations of people using the public property today who are really without any protection.

But insofar as the two objections; Number one,of imprisonment,is concerned, I am not going to be a party to bringing a bill before this House to provide fo~ imprisonmen't. itself,from $10 to $200,is minimum, you cannot get below that going to enforce law and order at all. 4256 The fine if you are

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1245 NM - 2 Secondly. Mr. Speaker~ the warrant provisions,{which are the two offensive provisions in the bill) will be amended in committee~ The precarious liability of the owner of a motor vehicle is something that you provide, you find right now in the insurance acts and in The Highway Traffic Act, and I do not think that that offends any liberty of the subject. On motion n Bill, "An Act Respecting Petty Trespass To Property,,, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

Motion second readinr; of a Bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement ?-fade Between The Government And Allied Chemical Corporat'inn." HON, C. W. DOODY (Minister of Mines, Agriculture and ResourcesF Mr. Speaker, this bill would serve to authorize the negotiation between Allied Chemical and the Government with respect of mineral exploration rights on an area of the Burin Peninsula. Ttis company is a reputable company and intend spending a considerable amount of ~oney there during the next two years.

If they are successful in finding fluorspar there, they will be applying for a development lease,which is a right under the agreement. They are required to spend $75,000 each year for two years and the usual conditions that apply to such mineral agreements will be in effect with this agreement with Allied Chemicals. On motion a Bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Hade Between The Government And Allied Chemical Corporation,n read a second time, ordered referred to a Cormnittee of the Whole House presently, by leave. Motion second reading of a Bill, 11

An Act Further To Amend The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1962. 11 MR. HICKMA.~: Mr. Speaker, I thank honourable members for granting me leave to do this and I also thank the honourable Minister of Labour. I shall not keep the House because I have to be ill Gander by 6:15 P.M. 4257

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1245 NM - 3 This bill is to implement.and I could go on for a long, long time on this but it does implement the recommendation of the Royal Cqmmission Respecting R11.diation C:impensation and Safety of the T1uorspar niners in St. Lawrence. In moving second reading in this Bill, may I first commend the Chairman, the honourable the member for Placentia West,for the excellence of the work of him and his Commission, AN HON. MEMBER: West or Eafit? HR. HICKMAN: East. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, the main principle of this bill. is that any workmen who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who worked underground in the mines at St. Lawrence at any time during the period January 1,1951 to December 31, 1960, will be entitled 1 or the dependents of diseased miners, to Workmen's Compensation. So 1 Mr. Speaker, that there can be no doubt as to the

interpretation, so that the Workmen's Compensation Board will have to be generous in their

interpretation and in the retroactivity of this bill, there is provision that the Lietuenant-Governor in Council have the right to make regulations to make sure that the intentions and the recitals are carried out. There are one or two amendments which will be moved in committee but government is anxious thnt this hill be assented to this afternoon, with the leave of the House, because I do not believe these people should be deprived any longer of the Cebt society and in particular the Newfoundland society, the debt the society of Newfoundland owes to them. It is with pleasure I move second reading. MR.

NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this Lill. This is part of the unfinished business of the previous ~dministration. We had commissioned the honourable member for Placentia East to act on. a commission to look into the radiation problems tn the St. Lawrence Mine and,as a result, a number of recommendations made in the commission report were implemented but this is one that was not implemented and this will now take in all the widows and miners who could not be included under the Workmen's Compensation previously, 4258

July 5, 1972 Tape No. 1245 NM - 4 because of a technical difficulty in the Workmen's Compensation Act. I might point out, by the way of interest to the members of the House, Sir, that not only now will twenty-five or thirty widows or surri.vors. victims of the radiation in the St. Lawrence, not only will they qualify for workr:,en 's compensation. the workmen I s compenaation will be retroactive. AN HON. MEMBER: It goes back to the day of the report. I do not think MR. NEARY: It goes back to the day of the royal commission report, but not retroactive to the day that they were put of