May 19, 1992                          SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE - JUSTICE


Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Danny Dumaresque, M.H.A., (Eagle River) substitutes for Mr. William Ramsay, M.H.A. (LaPoile).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The meeting of the Social Services Estimates Committee, to deal with the estimates of the Department of Justice and I would like to introduce the members of the committee.

I am Walter Noel, the Chairman of this committee and to my left, Ms. Lynn Verge, the Member for Humber East; Mr. Jack Harris, the Member for St. John's East; Mr. John Efford, the Member for Port de Grave; Mr. Danny Dumaresque, the Member for Eagle River and Mr. Jim Walsh, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

The way we are in the custom of operating is to have a presentation to a maximum of fifteen minutes at the outset from the Minister, and a response to a maximum of fifteen minutes by the lead speaker for the Opposition, and then have segments of ten minutes including questions and answers and we would just keep going on a ten minute rotation until we end the questioning.

If there are any questions, we can deal with them now. Mr. Walsh?

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harris and I are supposed to be at another meeting at 10:00 o'clock and Lynn as well. I don't think we will all be out of here by 10:00 o'clock, but as a courtesy to either Lynn or Jack, whoever intends to go to that 10:00 o'clock meeting, maybe we could waylay the rotation just a little bit so if they want to get some of those questions in and be gone by 10:00, I for one would be willing to relinquish some of the questions that I would have to enable him to make that other meeting if necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Does anybody plan to leave by ten?

MR. HARRIS: Well I am not at all prepared for what is actually happening at this constitution committee meeting this morning, so I think I will just play it by ear, I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue operating as normal and if anybody comes up with a problem, they could indicate it and we could try and deal with it to their convenience.

I forgot to mention that Elizabeth Murphy is the clerk for this committee. Does that solve all of our problems? Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me first introduce the officials who are accompanying me here at my request. On my immediate left is Lynn Spracklin, Q.C. who is the deputy minister of the department and also of course, the Deputy Attorney General of the Province. On my far right, Fraser Drover, who is Director of Finance and General Operations in the department. On my far right is John Cummings, the assistant deputy minister and he is the Chief Civil Lawyer and next to him is Mr. Drover, and on my immediate right, Ed. Kent, who is an assistant deputy minister and is responsible for the administration of the - how to put it, the non-legal ends of the department, the penitentiary services, the correction services, the police services and so forth.

I do not have a formal presentation prepared and so, perhaps I should just say two things. Number one, it is a pleasure to be here. I hope in due course perhaps to be here in a different capacity and secondly, I think what I would say is, in the interest of time, perhaps the best way to proceed would be to invite your colleagues, perhaps Ms. Verge speaks first, whoever goes first to say whatever is to be said or to raise whatever questions he or she may wish, then I will try to respond to them.

I can make a fifteen minute speech if you want on the Department of Justice, but I do not think that would be terribly helpful. I think it would perhaps move things forward more expeditiously if I were simply to try to respond to points that came up and to deal with questions. In the estimates, they are set out in the usual form and contain a fair amount of information but I suspect there are probably many questions to be answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Ms. Verge, if you wish to commence.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

First I have to object to this committee proceeding with an examination of the Justice estimates in the absence of the acting minister or some other elected minister. Now the acting minister was here a few minutes ago but is not here at the moment, and is not sitting with the unelected official.

MR. ROBERTS: There is no acting minister. I hesitate to interrupt, but let's be clear. There is no acting Minister of Justice. I am the only Minister of Justice the Province has, for better or for worse.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Just let me finish the sentence, please. Mr. Baker -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I had the floor, and I would like to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

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

MS. VERGE: This is a committee of the House of Assembly. In the House of Assembly only elected members may sit. Only elected members who are ministers may answer questions on behalf of the government. This is an extension of the Legislature, and there should be an elected minister speaking for the government.

Now I have no objection to Mr. Roberts, who is an unelected official the same as the deputy minister or the ADM's or the directors, participating to answer technical questions or to supply details, but there should be an elected minister who can speak for the government heading the delegation of the Department of Justice here.

We have argued about this in the full House of Assembly, and when we got here this morning, when I saw Mr. Baker, the acting Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader and the President of Treasury Board, I thought that the government was going to be handling this committee properly. Apparently Mr. Baker has withdrawn before the proceedings got under way.

If Mr. Baker would come back then we can get on with an examination of the Justice estimates and Mr. Roberts can perhaps assist Mr. Baker in answering the questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I am prepared to get on to it unless you want to make a motion to the contrary.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I would move that we, as the Social Services Estimates Committee examining the estimates of the Department of Justice, suspend our proceedings until the acting minister returns and speaks for the government in answering our questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a seconder for that motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: The vice-chairman of the Committee this morning is making a presentation of her own interpretation of what she feels as a vice-chairperson, or a political comment that she wants to make that the Minister of Justice is not acting and should be an acting minister on behalf of the government. There is no such thing today as an acting Minister of Justice. The present Minister of Justice is sitting in his chair on the committee, which is quite legal and precedence has been set in the past. He is also, as a minister, a member of the government and can speak quite clearly for the government. So it is an interpretation that she is deciding to take on herself. It has been discussed in the House of Assembly. The proceedings can go ahead this morning and there is absolutely no reason why the minister cannot answer all the questions put to him and his associates to deal with any matter in the estimates or in dealing with the Department of Justice. I see no reason why we cannot continue. It is only a political tactic on the part of the vice-chairman to delay the proceedings and to try to score and make some political points.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the situation, whether the minister is elected or unelected, is totally secondary. Edward Roberts, Q.C., is Minister of the Crown for the Department of Justice. There is only one minister.

As in any government, if the opposition wishes to ask a question of a minister directly - of a department directly through the Premier they certainly can.

The committee process in Newfoundland is a new one. To date this committee is master of its own destiny; but when we bring into question whether or not an individual is a minister and can act on behalf of the Crown, or can come before a public committee, I refer to Bill 11 as probably the best example of the fact that Mr. Roberts is the minister. Bill 11 is "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act" in the Province duly read into the House of Assembly, duly noted, and it is presented on behalf of the hon. Edward Roberts Q.C. Minister of Justice.

If we are generating bills under Mr. Roberts as the Minister of Justice surly he is responsible for the department and as such should have every right to be here to defend his estimates. I am not sure if there are any other bills that have been presented under his heading as Minister of Justice but Bill 11 is obviously presented here in this Legislature by any minister in his absence, which is normal, but it is presented by the hon. Edward Roberts Q.C. Minister of Justice, and if we are going to pass bills under his signature surely he can defend the estimates of his department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

Is the committee ready for the question?

MS. VERGE: I have another submission to make, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that Mr. Harris seconded the motion. I asked if the committee was ready for the question and I do not know if that constitutes actually calling it. I would be prepared to hear the submission by Mr. Harris.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be brief.

MR. HARRIS: I think I will be as brief or as lengthy as I need. Mr. Chairman, thank you, for allowing me to speak on this motion. I was not at the swearing in ceremony but I gather Mr. Roberts was sworn in as Minister of the Crown and therefore has the right to act as Minister of Justice although Ms Verge makes some good points about the necessity or desirability of having the Minister of Justice in the House. I am sure Mr. Roberts himself would like to be in the House to deal with this. This is a committee of the House and he is a witness for the committee as are all the others. I think committees always hear from witnesses, whether they are elected or not, so I guess we can hear from Mr. Roberts as well as we could from any other witnesses. Although I seconded the motion to get it on the floor I do not believe we can suspend proceedings until we have someone who is in the House to defend the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. I will call a vote on the motion now. Those in favour of Ms. Verge's motion.

MS. VERGE: I have another submission to make.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we need to hear any further submissions, would be my ruling.

MS. VERGE: With respect the Speaker in the full House is much more tolerant and democratic and listens to all arguments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I am calling the vote. That is why he is Speaker and I am not.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I understand the mover of a motion has the right to speak on it to close debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would you like to move that she be allowed to speak again?

MR. HARRIS: I do not think it needs a motion. It is a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I am going to rule that she is not. I am calling the question.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chairman, this is an awfully autocratic operation. With respect committees traditionally operate more informally than the full House but in the full House the Speaker always listens to the full presentation of the mover of a motion and usually patiently listens to the submissions of all members who wish to speak, especially on a procedural point as important as this. Now, we had discussion about this in the House, if you recall. The Speaker took a whole week to do research and in the end did not make a ruling. He did not make a ruling on the substance of the motion. He simply said that committees are in charge of their own procedures so he, the Speaker, left it up to our committee to decide how we should proceed and whether we should require elected ministers to speak for their respective departments in answering questions about their estimates. That is what we are here discussing this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. While I am in the hands of the committee, does the committee want to indicate the question as being called?

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

MS. VERGE: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Contrary?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is defeated. Ms. Verge, would you like to begin questioning.

MS. VERGE: Well, as I explained earlier since this committee is an extension of the House of Assembly it is a committee of the House of Assembly. The Minister of Justice, who doesn't have a seat in the House of Assembly, cannot participate in House of Assembly debates, can't answer questions raised during Question Period. When we in the Opposition ask questions in Question Period either the acting minister, the Government House Leader or the Premier answers.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: The one thing I am used to is being in the critical position of being on the Opposition from 1985 to 1989, and I loved to have the opportunity to ask questions of any minister or any person in the House of Assembly. I don't understand the point that the vice-chairman is making because she has the opportunity now to question the minister and his assistants and associates of the Department of Justice. So in trying to make the point that he is not elected, he is quite intelligent enough to realize that he is not elected. So are all of us, and we don't need to hear it. There is only one press member listening, and that press member certainly understands that the Minister of Justice does not yet have a seat. So the opportunity to ask questions that she is very serious about, the estimates and the budget for the Department of Justice, why not proceed to the questions? If she wants to keep on making that point, then we will keep on doing what we have to do. I haven't been in the critical position for the last four years, and I would love to sit here until 2:00 or 3:00 this afternoon doing this. Nothing would give me any greater pleasure.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that is a relevant point of order because -

MS. VERGE: I would like to speak to the point of order, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute please. Can I have order for a minute? In my view Ms. Verge is in the process now of her fifteen minute opportunity to open the questioning of the department. So what she wishes to talk about in that context is up to her. I would rule that it is not a point of order and I would ask Ms. Verge to continue.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to welcome the Member for Port de Grave to this committee meeting. We have had five or six meetings so far this spring examining the estimates of social departments and we have missed the Member for Port de Grave. It is good that -

MR. DUMARESQUE: A point of order.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is certainly unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, to be taking note of a member's absence or presence in a committee. The hon. member should know better. You don't make reference to a member's participation in the committee any more than you would in the legislature. I think that the hon. member should state the case she has before the Department of Justice, proceed with it and be relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dumaresque. I would ask the member not to refer to the committee members presence or absence in the committee proceedings.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, I will certainly abide by that ruling. I was just working my way up to complimenting the Member for Port de Grave because I am sure the unelected Minister of Justice very much appreciates the Member for Port de Grave, who is perhaps the most spirited of all the government members, being here to come to his defence this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a special occasion.

MS. VERGE: Yes, this is a special occasion and the best of the government backbenchers were required here this morning to mount a good defence of the unelected Minister of Justice.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) she well knows what I did as an Opposition member and my capabilities.

MS. VERGE: And that is why it is so noteworthy that the member is here this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just this once.

MS. VERGE: As I was saying, Chairperson, we do not have an elected representative of the government here this morning. The committee system, as I think it was the Member for Mount Scio just noted, is relatively new. It has been in place about thirteen years. Prior to that the estimates were examined by the full House, and we still have examination of the estimates of certain branches of the government, Executive Council for example, taking place in the full House. We have a fair amount of time for general budget debate in the full House, and throughout that process, of course, it is only elected ministers who may answer for the government.

Here this morning, as I noted, the acting Minister of Justice, Mr. Baker, was present at the outset and -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - I thought that was an indication that the government had taken into account the representations that I had made and other members of the official opposition had made in the full House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is misleading the committee and the people of the Province by indicating there is an acting Minister of Justice. There is no acting Minister of Justice, and you are not allowed obviously to directly mislead the committee or the people of the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: To that point of order, Chairperson, all I can say is that when I have asked Justice questions in the House of Assembly I, on occasion, have prefaced my questions by pointing out that there is not an elected minister. On two or three occasions the Premier was absent, so I said to the Speaker that I would expect the acting Minister of Justice to answer, and the Government House Leader, Mr. Baker, rose and answered the question.

Apparently Mr. Baker is the acting Minister of Justice, at least for Question Period in the House of Assembly he is functioning in that role and answering to that description.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order, I think I can help with that explanation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Humber East, with her background in government proceedings, knows full well that if the Premier is not in the House, or the Minister of Justice, that somebody must speak on behalf of government. The natural person to answer and speak on behalf of government for any department, if there is a minister absent at that time, would be the Deputy Premier, or the President of Treasury Board, in his capacity as speaking on behalf of government. Would the member prefer nobody answer the questions? He was not appointed acting Minister of Justice, but in Question Period he has the authority to speak on behalf of government. She directed a question to government and he responded in answer to the question. If he had not answered the question, then the shoe would have been on the other foot. So you cannot assume that he is acting minister. He has to be appointed acting minister by the Premier of the Province. That was not done, but he was answering questions on behalf of government.

Again, it clearly shows that she is not interested in the budget or the estimates or the operations of the Department of Justice. I guess her experience there for a number of years shows the mismanagement she experienced. She knows now it has been put in proper order and it is going to improve in the future, and that is the reason why she is trying to just score political points.

It is time to get on. We have some questions we would like to ask the minister and his officials. If she is not ready after thirty minutes - I mean that is a fifteen minute opening and discussions have gone on thirty minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. There is a difference of opinion. I would ask Ms. Verge to resume. She has five minutes left in this segment.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

It is quite obvious there is no point of order. It is just a case of the defencemen trying to take as much of my time as they can spirit away.

I was making a point about the inappropriateness of a government department coming before the estimates committee without an elected minister. Bearing in mind the fact that this is a committee of the full House of Assembly, at which elected ministers only may speak for the government, bearing in mind that the full House of Assembly -

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, again they are made on assumptions. There is nothing that one can point out to me anywhere, in Beauchesne, or Roberts, or any other rules of order that says that only elected ministers can come before committees. There is nothing in existence anywhere that someone can point to unless they just want to throw the words out hoping that the media will pick up on those words. That is just a fallacy and not a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. We have already dealt with that point of order. We had a motion and the motion was defeated.

MR. WALSH: Then we will have to deal with it again, again, and again. The hon. Member for Humber East continues to misrepresent the situation. Yes, there will be a point of order again, again, and again. You just cannot make statements for the sake of making statements and let them pass. It is not going to happen, not while I am on the committee. It has not in the past and I am not going to let it happen in the future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then, I rule there is no point of order and ask Ms. Verge to continue.

MS. VERGE: Of course there is no point of order, Chairperson. Again it is a case of the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island trying to take my time.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: I am not trying to do anything, Mr. Chairman, other than deal with truth, fact and reality. I am not interested in never, never land. I am not interested in people who dream in technicolour - just fact and truth. I am not trying to take anybody's time but I will continue to deal with the situation if it continues to arise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. That is a point of clarification I believe rather than a point of order. I ask Ms. Verge to continue.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

There is no precedent that can be cited for this because it is unprecedented to have an unelected Cabinet minister let alone Minister of Justice for months on end. It has been six months since the Premier announced his intention to bring an unelected member into his Cabinet, to look beyond his back benches and go outside the House of Assembly altogether to get a Minister of Justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: We have to keep pointing out that the hon. Member for Humber East is either intentionally misleading this Committee of the House, or she is just playing political games, or really does not understand. Unless my multiplication and my little bit of mathematics and knowledge is incorrect I am not aware that the present Minister of Justice has been appointed for six months. I think it would be much closer to three months and there is no law on the books or no written words on the books that say the hon. member must be elected within three months, thirty days or sixty days. We are talking about thirty minutes gone by this morning with not one question. I believe the press are well aware and no doubt have listened to the hon. Member for Humber East. I myself have heard some of the press members ask: when is she going to get into questioning the operation of the Department of Justice, the Budget of the Department of Justice and the number of people who need some questions answered? They are well aware of how to spell nonelected minister, acting minister, or whatever and the hon. member knows that full well and there are no political points being scored here this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Efford. There is no point of order just a point of clarification.

Ms. Verge, please continue.

MS. VERGE: What I said, and I am sure the Member for Port de Grave knows what I said and knows the truth of it, it was over six months ago when the Premier announced his plan or his intention of going outside his caucus and choosing an unelected individual to be the Minister of Justice, it has been three months since Mr. Roberts took up the position of Minister of Justice.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I know that Mr. Efford is here for the first time and if he were here before he would know that you don't interrupt the committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are already on a point of order. I think we should deal with that one first.

MR. HARRIS: I know that the government member is being sensitive about Mr. Roberts because they sent in the three sauciest backbenchers they could find this morning to run interference for the minister, but these constant interruptions of the speaker, a stop has to be put to it, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Just because someone says 'point of order'... there should be some sort of rule that if you say it four or five times -like the boy who cried wolf - there should be some rule that you only get two or three points of order, and after that when you are constantly being slapped down by saying it is not a point of order, then someone should be told to shut up and keep quiet and let someone speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps there should be but I don't think there is,

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I brought it up before and you ruled that it was a legitimate point of order, that you cannot as a member of the House, make a reference to the presence or absence of another member in committee. Hon. members here do not, at any time, make reference to the hon. members who may be in court, maybe outside doing other things, we make no reference to that, Mr. Chairman, so, I don't see why somebody should come in here and make reference to the absence or the presence of another member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Dumaresque. The point is well taken and I ask members to abide by the practise of the House. Ms. Verge's segment is now concluded. I don't know if there were any questions in what she had to say. Would the minister like to respond?

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't hear any questions, Mr. Chairman, so I can't respond. I think perhaps it would be appropriate if I were to put on the record, for the benefit for the honourable lady, who obviously doesn't understand the Constitutional proprieties or, for that matter, the Constitutional practise, that she kept referring to me as the Acting Minister of Justice. She is completely wrong -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman -

MS. VERGE: There may be a misunderstanding but I never referred to Mr. Roberts as the acting minister. Mr. Roberts is the unelected minister; it is my understanding that Mr. Baker is the acting minister, at least he answers to that description in the whole House.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. It is not a point of order, it is a point of clarification.

Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no acting Minister of Justice in this Province. There is a Minister of Justice. As the hon. gentleman for St. John's East pointed out, I have been duly sworn of the Executive Council and, as the hon. Member for Humber East has pointed out a number of times, I do not hold a seat in the House of Assembly. I will simply say that nobody regrets that more than I, and the first time a seat becomes available, I shall do the proper thing by seeking the nomination. We shall see what happens then.

In the House of Assembly, since I cannot speak because I am not a member, and that is a stunning insight into the obvious that the honourable lady has given us on a number of occasions, one of my colleagues speaks for me.

Now there are occasions when there will be an acting minister and I would remind the hon. member if she casts her mind back to the halcyon days when she was a member of the Cabinet, if a minister is away from the Province, the practise is to designate an acting minister. In fact, my colleague and friend from Port de Grave, will confirm there are alternate ministers designated by Order in Council and that is the appropriate way to do it. The business of government carries on.

From time to time I have been away from the Province a very great deal of late and, in fact, I have to leave today. I want to thank the Committee for accommodating itself to my schedule, which is not a personal schedule, but this constitutional process is taking me away from the Province for a very great deal of the last three months.

The only other point I would make is, I want to say to my friend from St. John's East, it is very kind of him to say that the government have asked the gentlemen from Port de Grave, Eagle River and Mount Scio - Bell Island to come and run interference for me. Nobody, I think, would ever say that I need anyone to run interference for me. My friend from Torngat, who served in the House with me on the same side - because, of course, before he was taken up on the mountain and shown the green and pleasant valleys down below, he sat in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; he briefly crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land and is now back in the land of the Opposition.

I am grateful to see members of the Committee here and I look forward to getting some questions, because I have four of the senior officials of the department here. We are anxious to try to respond to any questions that any member wishes to raise and we will do our best to answer them.

I do want to say to my friend for St. John's East, I hope I don't need somebody to run interference for me. If ever I get back in the House - and I hope to. After nineteen years here I felt a little at home in this place, Mr. Chairman. I don't need lectures from the hon. the Member for Humber East about the House of Assembly. I was here before she was out of grade school. With any luck, I'll be here long after she's gone. That remains to be seen. I look forward to getting some questions and trying to answer them, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Is there anybody anxious to ask Mr. Roberts questions? Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a few comments to the Minister of Justice and possibly after I make those comments there may be questions or just some comments that he can respond to.

During my past seven years as a sitting member of the House of Assembly, in the two or three years I was Opposition critic for the Department of Social Services, the one thing that I made a practise of was doing a lot of research anytime that I had something brought to my attention, or as a critic, that I should present to the then ministers of Social Services. Then, going on from that, during my short term as Minister of Social Services, my two years, I took a great deal of interest in doing the same thing and making myself fully aware and knowledgeable about the problems that face two sectors of the Department of Social Services. One is the young offenders, in the area of the remand centre and the boys' home in Torbay and in Whitbourne; the other is the area of child abuse. Let's deal with the young offenders first.

I would have liked to be a little bit longer in that position because I had some good things in mind for it. I am sure the minister and his officials are quite familiar with the needs of the young offenders. I think of one thing that is happening in the system, the incarceration or the confinement, although it is not a jail or a penitentiary, it is an incarceration. The proper rehabilitation for those young people - I saw instances of young boys, thirteen and fourteen years old, where I think if you looked back through the family history and the family background of those boys, there were many reasons why they ended up on the streets.

I remember one young boy in particular, and this is the reason why I wanted to point this out this morning, because I heard his name mentioned in the news three days ago, which confirms my concerns and my fears for what happens to young people. When I was Minister of Social Services, he, as a young boy, was brought before the courts. He was sixteen, if I can remember his age correctly. He wasn't convicted but he was on probation. He went to his parents after being held out of court. They did not hold him in court. They were separated, very prominent people here in the city. He went to his father's place of work, and sat in his father's car. When the father got off work he would not take him, he drove him out of his car. The boy went to his mother and she drove him away. He is now in adult penitentiary.

What happens is, despite the good intentions of the Department of Social Services and all the people working there, the programs and the numbers of people are still not in place to pay specific attention to the needs of those young people, for looking at their backgrounds and the reasons why these young boys or girls end up in trouble. I wonder if there will be some point in time when the Department of Social Services and the government or the Department of Justice combined, as a whole, can take a greater interest and put a more stable plan in place to deal with not just their care while they are in that particular institution, but to deal with, to go back through their backgrounds.

This is where we need professional counselling, to show them, I think, more love and tender care and try to replace what they have lost in their young lives. Personally, I got involved with a number of them, and I know that was what was lacking there. Once you showed them some interest - but they don't have much opportunity. I know it is a concern of everybody in the Department of Social Services. I know the staff that I worked with were an excellent staff, but still there seems not to be enough done, and it is the same with child abuse.

Goodness knows, there has been enough publicity and talk and everything else with that but I would like to see, and I am sure it is going to happen, not just the fact that it is talked about, but proper care has to be put in place for the mothers and the children who are victims of sexual abuse and child abuse. In fact, it was only last night, at 9:30, I finished with a case in my own district, where the local pastor called me; we spent all day yesterday at it and had to get the RCMP and a social worker to move in last night and take a woman and her two kids from a very, very serious situation.

It is continuous. It is not just isolated to one sector of the Province, it is continuous all over the Province, and I think, more and more, today and in the future, that because of the number of incidents - it is not that there are any more today than in the past, it is just that there is more awareness and people are talking more openly and confiding in neighbours or the local clergy, or whatever, in the area, but nevertheless, it is a real fact and a part of life and we can no longer hide it under a cloud or hide it in the closet. We have to face up to it.

It is not enough, as the social worker said to me last night, to be aware of the situation. What happens now? I know the caseloads of the social workers, child welfare workers and family counselling are overburdened. It is really, really overburdened. I think the human tragedy of it all is that those children will carry a scar for the rest of their lives, and unless some major plans are put in place, not only those individuals, but society as a whole is going to pay an even greater price in the future.

While we are all politicians, and although my hon. friend from St. John's East might call me saucy, there is a role where one takes things seriously, and this is a very serious role. I take my position seriously, not only as the MHA for my district but for the Province, as a whole, and I think, facing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the future, those are two of the greatest obstacles, that we as a society, will have to overcome, otherwise we are going to have a devastating situation in the generation which follows and the scars - I do not know if they can ever be removed, but at least, some improvements can be made.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister would like to comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would first of all, agree with and underline the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. The problems he describes are among the most troublesome that face society today. In some senses the Department of Justice deals with them, but in other senses we don't. It is not a matter of evading responsibilities to tell my friend what he already said, that of course, the responsibility for young offender's matters rests in this Province, and I gather, in most but not all provinces, with the Social Services Department. My colleague, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, addresses that. But that said, let me make two or three general comments which I think would respond to the general comments made by my friend from Port de Grave.

The problems of what to do, how to treat offenders, whether they are young or old, you know, whether they are under the arbitrary line that has been drawn in legislation as being a young offender -and we have to draw a line somewhere; as you know, Mr, Chairman, it is a federal statute, The Young Offenders Act, under the criminal law of power and the Constitution and they have drawn a line and said: boys and girls, the young men and young women below that line are to be treated as young offenders, those above it are to be treated as adult offenders.

But the problems of how to deal with these people are - you know, I would not say they are insoluble, but I will say nobody has found a satisfactory solution. Obviously, more money is needed, more counselling is needed. We perhaps need to know a great deal more about why young men and young women, or older men and older women, do these things. We have a number of values to try to balance. We have the value in making sure that every person in this society has the opportunity to develop her or his ability to the utmost and to live as full and as meaningful and as rewarding a life as possible.

We also have another value in society, and that is that we all have the right to live in comity - not in happiness, but to live in society with each other, that I have the right to the assurance that my house will not be broken into or that I won't have a rock thrown at me as I walk down the street - and I don't mean political rocks, I mean real rocks.

It is a matter of trying to balance these things off. In other words, if people do things that are against the law then they must be punished. Now, how they are to be punished is a question to which there is no universally accepted answer. Equally, Mr. Chairman, we must try to find out why people do things wrong and what can be done about them.

I would make a particular reference to what the gentleman from Port de Grave says about child abuse. That is a matter that has got a great deal of attention in this Province in the last few years, for reasons which are well known to every member of the Committee. The problem is incredibly troublesome. I suspect that there is far more child abuse going on than even we now know about and the statistics, as I am sure you and your colleagues are aware, Sir, show a very great increase in the number of abuse cases reported, and in the number of assault or sexual assault cases being reported. Why do people do these things? Are they social? Are they personal? Are they psychiatric? Nobody really knows.

I guess, all that I can say is that we, in the Department of Justice - and I think I speak for every member of the ministry and every official in any department who is concerned with these issues - are becoming very much more aware of them. There has been a terrific revolution in society in the last ten or twelve years on these matters.

We are increasing the resources that we devote to them, but I am the first to acknowledge that we are not devoting nearly enough resources to them even though we are devoting what we can. Government these days is a matter of balancing, of deciding where scarce resources can best be applied.

I would think what the hon. gentleman from Port de Grave says and does is of great importance, as with every member of the Committee, because the real answer to this is with individuals. If we believe that we are all - I don't want to get theological - that we are all God's creatures with a will and a mind of our own, which is the basic tenet, surely, of our society, then we should each be responsible for our individual acts. Now, there are those who have diminished capacity and handicaps - those are different stories, but surely, the real answer lies with society.

The way to end child abuse is for men and women to realize they cannot do these things to children. They know they are wrong, and the way to help to end it is to have them reported and exposed. As I said in a different context the other day, the really sobering message of the report of Judge Hughes into the situation at Mount Cashel and elsewhere is that scores, if not hundreds, of people knew what was going on in Mount Cashel. Scores, if not hundreds, had some inkling of what was going on and nobody did anything about it, or if they did, they didn't do enough. I am not trying to condemn them, I am simply saying that the answer to the problem, in my judgement, lies with a revolution between the ears, to use a phrase that a former Premier used in a different context, but one that I would apply here.

I think the hon. member's point, the gentleman from Port de Grave's point, is well taken and I can only say that we in the department are very much aware of it and very much determined to try to continue to make progress. I think that we have made a lot of progress, but we have a long way to go yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Roberts.

Is there another Committee member? Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Mr. Roberts, just a couple of administrative sort of matters first. On the day the Budget was brought down, somebody went over to Brigus and tacked up a notice on the door and shut the doors and people were told unceremoniously that the court was being shut down. Since then, I gather, the operation of the facilities have been moved to St. John's, and the court is open for hearings on days that trials have been set, but the court is effectively closed. Two questions arise out of that, number one: Why is it that all the people of the area, all of the Conception Bay North area, Port de Grave district and the surrounding districts that have been served by the Brigus court for many years - why are they to be deprived of ready access to court services?

Secondly, how can this be done without bringing about any changes in the legislation establishing the courts in the Judicature Act. People still have the right to file their documents at the Brigus court, but the Brigus court is not open. Can you tell us about that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the second question first because it is one to which I give a very precise answer. The Judicature Act, Section 22 from memory, of the 1986 Act, this number of judicial centres, including Brigus, and then gives Cabinet or the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to add or to take away from that list. I don't know whether that has, in fact, been done, and I apologize for that, but I have been away from the Province so much. I literally haven't seen all the Cabinet minutes, but I know that there will be a proclamation. Perhaps my deputy would know. Has the proclamation been issued?

MS. SPRACKLIN: No, Sir. I believe the legislation is on route now. There is a Cabinet paper that has been prepared.

MR. ROBERTS: There will be a proclamation. We don't need to amend the Act. It may be amended for the sake of tidiness but 22, Sub Section 1 gives us the power.

MS. SPRACKLIN: That is correct and I think that has been done. That part has been completed but with strict amendment to the legislation. That is going to be done for the sake of tidiness and that is in the works.

MR. ROBERTS: So the answer to that question, I say to the hon. gentleman from St. John's East, is that the statute of the 1986 Act allows the government to do what we have done.

Now, let me come to the other half of the question. I don't know what was said at Brigus on the day of the Budget but I do know what the government did. I can tell you why we did it and perhaps, if you wish, we could discuss it. Brigus was changed from being a judicial centre to a circuit point, and the effect of that is there is no longer a judge assigned to Brigus. Mr. Justice Bartlett had been there for many years, and Mr. Justice O'Regan had recently been assigned there. His assignments, of course, were made by the Chief Justice of the Trial Division, Chief Justice Hickman.

It is not a very old circuit point. In fact there was no district court in Bonavista, Trinity, Conception until about 1971 or 1972 when Mr. Justice Noel, as he then became, was appointed a Judge of the District Court. The court was then constituted in two parts. He subsequently moved to St. John's and, in due course, Judge Bartlett was appointed to be a Judge of the District Court and then became a Judge of the Supreme Court when the two divisions were merged under the administration, I believe, of my hon. friend from Humber East in the 1986 Act. So the history of Brigus as a judicial centre for the Supreme Court goes back only twenty years. Now, that is a long time, but it is not forever.

We closed it, and I am told, by the way, Mr. Chairman, so the record is complete, the Order in Council has been passed under 22.1. In fact, it was passed before the end of April, because the new regime came into effect on the first of May.

Let me tell you what we did and then why we did it. Mr. Justice O'Regan, who, of course, is neither paid by the Province nor answers to anybody except the Judicial Council of Canada - he is a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland - is now stationed in St. John's and is one of the judges sitting here. He will sit from time to time in Brigus as the need arises. So will other judges. In fact, I understand there will be trials, what? - possibly week a month, is the estimate we have been given?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Ultimately, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: We understand that as much a week a month will be given over to trials in Brigus. The courthouse there is still available. The week a month, or a fortnight a month or whatever, the week a month is the estimate we are given by the officials in the court. How much work is done in Brigus will depend on council and parties, whether they want to have trials in Brigus.

I believe the assistant deputy registrar there has exercised her bumping privileges and is now acting in the Court of Appeal. The lady, Mrs. Butler - my hon. friend may have dealt with her from time to time - is now the assistant deputy registrar on the Court of Appeal. The normal bumping process - these people have rights under collective agreements. I think we are two positions down as a result of the change. Is that right?

MS. SPRACKLIN: Three.

MR. ROBERTS: Three, the assistant deputy registrar, a crier and a secretary.

MS. SPRACKLIN: A court reporter.

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

MS. SPRACKLIN: All of them have filled vacancies, I think.

MR. ROBERTS: All of them are still at work because they filled vacancies elsewhere in the service, I believe, in the Justice department or in the court system.

Now, what will the effect of this be? It will mean three things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it will no longer be possible to file court papers in Brigus. It is no longer a registry in the way that Corner Brook is, or Grand Falls, Happy Valley, Grand Bank or Gander. It will be no longer possible to file probate applications there. The research that we have done shows that ninety-nine, maybe ninety-five, maybe ninety, but a very large part of the filings that were made were made by mail or by fax. The number of times a council or an individual party came into the court to file a document was quite insignificant, a very small number of times. Stuff was filed by mail or more and more by fax. My hon. friend will acknowledge that the rules of the Supreme Court have got to address the issue of faxes. They are used in real life but the courts don't yet deal with them.

So we do not see any change in that. All it will mean is a lawyer in, say, Harbour Grace or, for that matter, in St. John's, who wishes to file a paper, which would formerly be filed at Brigus, would now file it with the registry at St. John's, or elsewhere. Because, of course, each registry has jurisdiction over the entire Province.

The only other change, I suggest, and this may be a small measure of inconvenience, is that if one needs to see a judge to get an interlocutory order - I suppose the most common one would be an interlocutory injunction in a labour dispute. These are often issued at strange hours. There is a degree of inconvenience there. But all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that when we weighed up the cost, the best utilization of the resources - it is our decision, but we discussed it with the officials, we discussed it with those responsible for the administration of the courts. We decided that the inconvenience - and there may be some. Someone who needs an interlocutory order at 4:00 on Sunday morning, is going to have to get into the car and drive to St. John's, as opposed to driving to Brigus, where Mr. Justice Bartlett only lived for about six months of the year.

The rest of the year, I believe, he lived in St. John's and commuted. My friend from Port de Grave agrees. In fact, Judge Bartlett lived in a house that my grandfather built, and lived in it until his death. So there was no judge living in Brigus for a number of months each year. But Judge Bartlett, of course, did his duties properly and well. So there is that inconvenience, but we decided, on looking at it, that the inconvenience was less than the gain that we would make. I don't know if that answers my friend's questions. If not, I would be glad to try to respond further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris there is one minute left in this segment.

MR. HARRIS: The provincial court in Labrador City/ Wabush has also been downgraded and now has no permanent judge. Is the minister prepared to have another look at that? There was an objection at the time that all of Labrador West, particularly a border town with Quebec and for other reasons of jurisdiction; availability of a judge for matters particularly of a family nature and the offering of the availability of speedy process, particularly in the area of family matters and family violence and perhaps the granting of orders of - the term escapes me at the moment, putting someone on probation, a restraint order preventing someone from threatening the life of an individual.

MR. ROBERTS: A peace bond.

MR. HARRIS: A peace bond is the term I am looking for. These services are not available in Labrador West in the same manner they would be with a resident judge so I wonder if the minister or the officials could respond to that concern, particularly in Labrador City?

MR. ROBERTS: Let me respond if I may, Mr. Chairman. The member asked if we would have another look at the issue so let me say, yes. Let me go on to say that in my understanding the decision to no longer have a judge permanently stationed at Wabush/Labrador City was taken a year ago. I understand that the experience has shown that it was - a sufficiently wise move, would perhaps be the right phrase. This is not a perfect world. We have twenty-four provincial court judges and there are no vacancies. They sit at a number of circuit points and we largely leave it to the chief judge, Chief Judge Luther, as to where judges are stationed. In fact under the act we cannot station judges, only the chief judge may station them.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, he places them. This is judicial independence. I will undertake, Mr. Chairman, to have a word with the chief judge and see if we should re-assign. We are not going to increase the provincial court bench. I wish we could in some ways but it is just not in the cards given our resources so it will be a matter of re-assigning. If we put a judge in Western Labrador permanently then he or she would have to be taken from somewhere else in Labrador or here on the Island. We will have a look at that. I cannot go beyond that but I say to my hon. friend that the experience of the year has shown no insuperable difficulties. There are many places in the Province that do not have a resident judge. The problem in Western Labrador is you are a long way away with no access except by air. We will have a look at it. That is all I can tell him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to give the minister a chance to give us an update on another very important issue facing the Province and certainly facing the country and that is the Constitution. The minister, as he indicated earlier, has spent considerable time since taking over his portfolio following the constitutional debate. I know it is very critical to this Province that we get some headway in that area especially as it relates to a reformed senate. I know there are other areas that are very important, shared jurisdiction, shared management of the fishery and so forth, so I wonder if the minister would take a few minutes and give the committee an update on where the debate is right now, some of the timetables that may be in place and how, I guess, the whole debate may be going, particularly as it relates to some of the interests of the Province.

MR. ROBERTS: I would be delighted to, Mr. Chairman, because I think the question that my hon. friend for Eagle River has raised is of coruscating importance and is just as important to the people of this Province as it is to the people who live in any other part of Canada.

Let me just talk about the process for a moment or two. The process is in the hands of what are called the constitutional affairs ministers. Now that's a generic term. There are actually some ministers in Canada who have a title of minister responsible for constitutional affairs. The responsibility in our Province falls with the Premier, who is also the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but he asked me to work on it on a day by day basis. I am doing so. The constitutional affairs ministers have been meeting on an extraordinarily rigorous schedule. We began in Ottawa in mid-March and since then we have met in Halifax, in Ottawa again, in Edmonton, in St. John, we were in Vancouver last week, we are in Montreal for the rest of this week, and we shall be in Toronto all of next week.

We are going through an extraordinarily wide range of possible amendments to the Constitution. I should add that the process has been broadened to include representatives of the four aboriginal groups, the Assembly of First Nations, and they have members in this Province. The Innu in Labrador and the Micmac Band at Conne River are both members of that. The Innuit Tapirisat of Canada. There are people from Nain, I would say to my friend for Torngat Mountains. Ches Anderson has been participating, making a contribution. The Native Council of Canada, which again has people in this Province. Glenwood, and they live out on the Little Bay Islands on the Northern Peninsula. In fact, they were formerly clients of mine in another life. They are participating. Then there is the Metis National Council of Canada. We have people in Labrador who call themselves Metis but they are not in the Metis National Council. Kirby Lethbridge, late of Paradise River, now of Happy Valley, is at these meetings.

So we are having this series of meetings and going through an incredible variety of possible amendments. The arrangement we have is that nothing is final until everything is final. What that means is we look at a given topic or a number of topics and we then talk about it, come to some tentative conclusions as far as we can, and leave it to stand for what will be a first ministers meeting. The first ministers' meeting has not been set but we anticipate it will take place in the latter part of June.

A number of these matters are of great concern to Newfoundland and Labrador. We are holding very firm on a Triple E Senate. In my judgement, there is a very reasonable chance we will carry the day. Four other provinces stand with us on this. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba stand with us in the Triple E group. We are deeply concerned about the distinct society provisions. We are deeply concerned about the aboriginal peoples, because there will be a third order of government in Canada if this revolution in the Constitution comes to pass. That will have an impact on this Province as well.

Let me say two other things. First of all, the amount of goodwill that has come through in these negotiations is striking and heartening. There are about 350 Canadians involved in the process, none of them representing the Quebec government, although we are going to be in Montreal tonight and the Quebec government are giving us a reception, all of the delegates and all of the participants, about 350 as I said. That is considered a bit of a step forward in this arcane world. The amount of goodwill and the determination to reshape the constitution and to bring it into the 1990's in a generous and sharing and caring Canada, that is very striking and very heartening.

Secondly, let me place on the record that Newfoundland and Labrador is making a very substantial effort, and I believe we are making a contribution. We have nine or ten officials, several of them in my department, the director of the constitutional law unit, Ken Tyler, and Gail Welsh, one of the senior solicitors in the constitutional law unit, are assigned to us you can sort of say full-time. We have not seen them for anything else. The deputy minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Fred Way; Mr. Ray Hawco, who is an assistant DM in Intergovernmental Affairs responsible for native policy, well-known to my friend from Torngat; Mr. Phonse Faour, well-known to many members of the committee, who is now a deputy clerk of the Cabinet, is working with us full-time. Who have I left out, now? Ms. Barbara Knight, an assistant deputy minister in Intergovernmental Affairs. We have been aided by two members of the House of Assembly; Your Reverence, The Chair, and the gentleman from Humber West have been with us on occasion, both of whom had a deep involvement in constitutional matters.

We are making a very large effort because we believe it is important. I think it will work. In my judgement at the end of the day there will be a deal that is acceptable to the people of Canada and to their governments. I can tell my hon. friend from Eagle River that there is a lot of work yet to be done, and the deal is far from done. It is going to take an act of goodwill on the part of every Canadian, but I believe that is there to be done.

MR. DUMARESQUE: In terms of the deadline, is it the last of May now that some deadline passes, and what is the relevance of the tabling of the referendum bill in Ottawa?

MR. ROBERTS: Well my hon. friend raises two questions. The referendum bill in Ottawa has no specific significance. We are told by Mr. Clarke, who is the lead minister for the government of Canada in these negotiations, an old friend of mine - we are fond of reminding people at the table that he and I were fellow newspaper editors thirty years ago, he at U. of A. and I at U. of T. - it is being tabled now because the Government of Canada wants to have the ability to hold a referendum should the occasion arise, and because of their parliamentary timetable they must bring it forward now because the House will rise shortly for its summer recess.

The 31 May deadline is one that was created at the meeting in Ottawa in mid-March where the process began. It represented a date arrived at by counting back from the Quebec referendum, and the Quebec referendum, Bill C-150 I think they call it, is set for the 26th of October. Of course, you have to count back to allow for a campaign period and then to allow for a setting of the question, so effectively the first week in August is the cutoff date for Quebec purposes.

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

MR. ROBERTS: They are tabling legislation - I do not know where it stands - to relax that date, which is of course assigned by Mr. Bourassa and his colleagues. They are taking the process seriously and they are responding in good faith to what is a good faith initiative that has been put forward to them.

So the deadline is one of our own creation. We are holding to it. It is not a matter of looking for sympathy, but I can tell you the officials concerned have been working. I can tell you every one of those people I named was working in this building yesterday. They left at seven o'clock this morning to go to Montreal, and they will be at work, as we all will, for the next three or four days. It is a maximum effort by a very large number of people right across this country.

I think we will come close to the 31st of May. The process will then go on because of course all we are doing is preparing the road through, like a John the Baptist if you wish, for the First Ministers. I would say to my hon. friend, nobody has asked us to have a dance of the seven veils as yet.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on the Constitution for a minute. I understand by newspaper reports a few days ago that our Province and one other province - I think it was Alberta - were not really favouring this third order of government, or the self-government approach. I think The Globe and Mail carried a story that Newfoundland and Alberta were sort of against the rest of the provinces with respect to the request by the native people. So would the minister respond to this particular issue? I will ask the minister four or five questions and the minister can respond to them after I am finished, if it is okay with the minister.

MR. ROBERTS: Whichever way my hon. friend would prefer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WARREN: My second question, Mr. Minister: I understand that the correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, which has beds for I think fifty people, at the present time I understand there is something like eighty people housed in this particular correctional centre, way above how many they can officially accommodate. So if the minister could would he advise me on this particular situation.

In various areas of our Province there is a caseload in the courts. I am left to believe that in Labrador the caseload far exceeds other portions of the Province by the length of time while waiting -

MR. ROBERTS: Is my hon. friend speaking of the Provincial Court or is he speaking of the Supreme Court or is he speaking of both?

MR. WARREN: Basically the Provincial Court. The reason I say this is I have a constituent of mine who was initially charged way in excess of a year ago. Much longer, in fact. With all due respect to Judge Igloliorte, this is not coming directly from him but from people working with the system in Labrador. The man is overworked. He just cannot keep up with the demand that is required in Labrador.

In fact, last year in the estimates I asked your predecessor then if there was some thought of having an extra judge allotted to the Happy Valley - Goose Bay court. At that time the minister who reviewed the case did admit there was a heavy work load in that particular area. I believe my constituents are not getting justice in due course as required. I think, regardless of whether you go to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Nain or along the coast, it is the same thing. The judges just cannot keep up with the requirements that are there.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Minister, that going on the Premier's promise of fairness and balance, I think that we need fairness and balance in the justice system in Labrador. I do not think we are getting it at the present time.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me deal with the third question first, the question of the work load in the Provincial Court in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, which also includes the coast of Labrador.

First, to clear away any misapprehension there may be, I understand the problems - and there are problems there, as my hon. friend says - the problems are not related to the fact there is no judge in Western Labrador, in Wabush and Labrador City. There is a judge, Judge Igloliorte, at present in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. But as my hon. friend knows, Judge Igloliorte I believe intends to move, and I understand Chief Judge Luther may be moving him. I'm not supposed to say that? I wasn't supposed to say that. But I mean I have heard it outside my ministerial role. Anyway, it is not up to us where judges go. Chief Judge Luther is in charge of that.

I understand there is a very heavy work load placed on the judge who is stationed in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. I do not need to tell my hon. friend, because I know he will agree that Judge Igloliorte is a splendid example of everything that is fine about the Bench in this Province. He is certainly carrying his share of the work load. I understand that the problem is particularly acute in the coastal circuits. I can tell my hon. friend that I am told that Judge Luther - who is in charge, it's not a matter of passing the buck, he runs the Provincial Court, it's his responsibility - has assigned another judge, I do not know who. He or she may not have been identified but there will be additional circuits held on the coast of Labrador. We hope that will address the problem and resolve it.

I can also tell my hon. friend that the Askov decision, of which he may have heard, the Supreme Court of Canada sent a signal to every prosecutor in the country, every Crown in the country, that if prosecutions were not moved forward with reasonable expedition the accused could come before the court and say: my rights under the Charter have been violated, please take the appropriate steps. The Supreme Court said eight months in Askov, but it has since relaxed that requirement somewhat. Nonetheless, every prosecutor in Canada will tell you that she or he is very much aware of Askov and the message sent by the Supreme Court.

So I cannot tell my learned - my hon. friend, I'm sorry. He's learned, but not in the sense we use that phrase in a parliamentary sense. But my hon. friend, I cannot tell him that there will be no difficulties. I can tell him that the difficulties have been identified. We are addressing them. I hope they will be resolved. Because like him I would agree that justice must be quick. I also believe very much in fairness and balance. Perhaps you will permit me to say that: who knows, I may someday have a closer acquaintance with Happy Valley - Goose Bay than I at present have.

MR. WARREN: Maybe Torngat Mountains, sir.

MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps. If my hon. friend would do the decent thing, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to.... As long as it is not my friend for Eagle River. The decent thing for him is to stay in the House and continue serving his constituents as he is.

The correctional centre in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Not surprisingly, my hon. friend's information is correct. At least half the time he gets it right, and this is one of the times he has it right. I do not know if the precise numbers are there. They might vary from day to day. Let me put it in perspective. We have a serious overcrowding problem in the penitentiary and prison system in this Province. We have 20 per cent more inmates than we have officially established places. There is nothing we can do about that, in the sense we do not control the intake. I am told that the average Provincial Court sentence has gone up from thirty to thirty-seven days in the last few years.

Seven days might not seem like a lot. There is an old Western song, "Seven Lonely Days Make One Lonely Week." But that is a 25 per cent increase, I would say to my hon. friend; that means a 25 per cent increase in the numbers of men and women going through the system. I am told that in Happy Valley - Goose Bay it was designed for two inmates per cell. Certainly they are there. On occasions, a floor mattress is put in for a third inmate, the numbers of floor mattresses may vary.

Now I do not want to pretend, there is fairness and balance, we are doing the same thing at the penitentiary here in St. John's. I am not at all happy with it, my colleagues aren't, but we have no choice; either that or we must let these people go and the judicial system sentences them. It is bad enough now, people get out on weekend passes so these cursed weekend sentences can come in. The crowd comes in Friday night and another crowd goes home for the weekend so the crowd can come in Friday night and serve their weekend sentences, you know it is the mad hatter's tea party.

We are very conscious of life and health safety and I can tell my hon. friend that I am assured, and I have every reason to take comfort in these assurances, that matters of life and health safety are addressed and there is no problem, maybe a degree of inconvenience, but I guess going to prison is not quite the same as putting up at the Newfoundland Hotel or even the Aurora Inn in Goose Bay or the Hamilton Inn.

Now my hon. friend's third question was on aboriginal matters. I do not know which newspaper report he saw, but it is wrong. One of the difficulties of this process is, the meetings are in camera and all concerned have observed that with remarkable fidelity. Joe Clark, by consent, briefs the press at the end of the day and we are all at liberty to address the issues we want to, but since I am not running for election in that forum, I respond only to questions that come from the media, and there is not a lot of interest in the national media on Ed Roberts, who is a sort of insignificant anonymous figure and that is good for his soul.

The Premier at the Halifax meeting, speaking for this Province, in common with every other province and the Government of Canada, acknowledged the inherent right to self-government. It was a moment in history and like many moments in history, it almost passed unnoticed. We have been trying to flesh out that skeleton. Newfoundland and Alberta have raised a concern.

I will take whatever time you allow me, Mr. Chairman, but I do not want to trespass on the committee's time, but let me just tell you the problem. There will be a third order of government, so Canada will have a provincial order of government with ten provinces and twelve in due course or more, but at least twelve, maybe thirteen, Nunavut, The Western Arctic and Yukon. The federal government would be an order of government of course, and then the Aboriginal governments, and we do not know how many there are. I get figures ranging from one to 900, take your pick, and my hon. friend is smiling, I think he would agree. I mean there is no consistency and these Aboriginal governments will vary from something akin to a municipality to something probably midway between a province and the federal government, we really do not know.

The problem is we are trying to define whether the powers of the self of this third order of an individual part of this third order are defined in the Constitution before the inherent right becomes enforceable or justifiable, which is the new buzz word we are using. In other words, declaration of inherent right, negotiation of self-government agreement, enforceability, or whether it is the other way around. Whether the declaration then the enforceability, then the negotiation process, my hon. friend will acknowledge and readily understand that if we are going to go the second route, declaration, enforceable right, working out details, we must put bounds on the right.

Could the federal government sign an agreement giving an aboriginal government the right to have embassies or to issue its own currency, or to have its own defence force, or to take over some provincial power?

These are very real questions. So all I will say to my friend, without going into the tedious details of these tedious discussions, is that Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador are among the provinces that are making quite strongly the point that we cannot have it both ways. I think my hon. friend, upon reflection, I know he is deeply concerned with these issues, would agree that you cannot have it both ways. That is where we are. Now I hope that answers his question, but again, if not, I would be happy to respond further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this time we will be taking a ten minute break. We should all try to get back within the ten minutes because it is a business day and the Committee will not be here all day. So, ten minutes. There is coffee available in the caucus room, I believe, if any of the guests would like to have a cup.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Sure. I have some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MS. VERGE: I'd like to get some statistics from the minister and the other officials. First, statistics for the most recent year as well as previous years indicating the number of sexual assault prosecutions, sexual assaults against children, and sexual assaults against adult women. Then, physical assaults, indicating if possible how many occurred in a family or domestic setting. What I am really trying to get at are the trends. I am led to believe that we are still seeing an increase in the number of reports, in the number of prosecutions, of sexual assaults against children. Is that borne out in the Justice statistics?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, all that I can say by way of response to the hon. member is that we do not have the statistics here. I shall undertake to get them. My understanding is that the procedure adopted by committees is that they are filed with the committee and sent to the members. I understand that the - when I say the trend is up, there are more charges being laid, there are more matters being prosecuted, there are more convictions being registered. But we just do not have the precise figures. My officials I believe have made a note of the exact questions asked by the hon. member and we shall get her an answer as quickly as possible.

MS. VERGE: I will start with assault convictions, sexual assaults against children. Is there a summary of sentences indicating again whether there is a pattern?

MR. ROBERTS: We could -

MS. VERGE: Do the Crown attorneys have a compilation of sentences for child sexual assault convictions? If so, can that be provided to members of the Committee?

MR. ROBERTS: I can't answer that. I'd like to reserve on it for two reasons. I will undertake to get the hon. member an answer, of course. But there are two points. We obviously have or can get information on sentences. That is simply a matter of putting it together. I'd want to look at how much effort will be involved, if in fact we do not already do it

The other question I would say to my friend may raise an issue that I would want to tread wearily on. There may well be instructions to the crown prosecuting attorneys on the ranges of sentences that the crown might consider appropriate on certain offences. I just don't know the answer. I don't get deeply involved in prosecutions for obvious reasons.

If there were such instructions then I think we would be very wary of making them public because that would simply, you know - this is an adversarial system.

MS. VERGE: I didn't ask for the instructions.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. I am just simply saying -

MS. VERGE: I asked for a compilation on the actual sentences -

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know if we have one.

MS. VERGE: - which obviously are all in the domain of public knowledge. It is just a matter of getting a list of sentences again to indicate if there is a pattern or if there is a trend.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank the hon. member for her clarification because I had misunderstood her question. My answer is: I don't know if we have one. If we have one I have never seen it. I am not aware that one is kept. If however we do have one I shall undertake to make it available to her and the committee. If we don't have one I want to reserve, Mr. Chairman, if I may, on the issue of whether we compile one. I would want to see how much work is involved. There are an awful lot of these cases, but we shall gladly provide the hon. member with whatever we can.

MS. VERGE: In terms of work load for police and crown attorneys, are there statistics about the volume both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total number of cases that are assaults against children or assaults against adults in a family context? What I am trying to get at is the number of child abuse investigations and prosecutions, the number of family violence or domestic violence reports and prosecutions absolutely and as a percentage of the total caseload.

MR. ROBERTS: I may be missing something, but I think that is much the same question as the first one the hon. member asked. I am told there are such statistics, you know, the number of matters dealt with by the major assault unit within the RNC, and of course the RCMP keep figures for the areas in which they provide services. We will get them and provide them to you, sir, and to the members of the committee. Then we can take them on from there. The answer is yes, records are kept to that order. I don't have them here.

MS. VERGE: Net statistics about police in the Province, we have two forces doing provincial police work. I would like the total number of members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the number of women members of each force working in the province and the percentage of the total for each who are women.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, I do not have a gender breakdown here, Mr. Chairman. We can get you one. That is not difficult. I do have, I think, numbers on the number of RCMP and the numbers of the RNC. I understand we have 339. Am I correct Ed?

MR. KENT: When you count the commission officers we would have about 350.

MR. ROBERTS: We have about 350 members in the RNC. Now I am not saying all of those positions are filled at this moment. There may be the usual staff processes. In the RCMP we have 480 officers, male and female. These are not kept by gender, but we will see if we can get this information. If you want the rest of it the RCMP are responsible for policing 62 per cent of the population of the Province, and they are in forty-six detachments. The RNC would take the other 38 per cent and have detachments here.

MS. VERGE: Yes, I know all that.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I know.

MS. VERGE: I am interested -

MR. ROBERTS: I know the hon. lady knows, but I want to make sure the committee knows too.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I would like to have the current numbers of women in each of the two police forces and the percentage of the total of each. Obviously, I can do my own arithmetic -

MR. ROBERTS: We will get that.

MS. VERGE: - but I think it is important for the public to know how we are doing in terms of correcting a very long standing imbalance in the composition by sex of our police forces.

Lottery revenue is up by about 50 per cent over the past year. It has risen from about $20 million a year ago to something approaching $30 million now. I understand the main explanation for the dramatic rise in income from lotteries was the introduction about a year ago of video slot machines operated by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. I would like to have the statistics for the number of video slot machines presently, the number for each quarter during the last fiscal year, and an indication of whether there are any plans to increase the number of video slot machines in the Province over the next year or two?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, obviously we will do what we can, and I put it that way. I asked one of my officials here and I was a little taken aback because there is no revenue item in our estimates to cover these things. These fall within Finance. The revenue comes within the purview of my colleague the Minister of Finance. We have a licensing responsibility. What I will undertake to do is speak with Mr. Vivian, or have somebody speak with him, and we shall get what information we can in response. The rest, I assume, is available through the Minister of Finance but I understand lotteries is a growth business and whether that is good, bad, indifferent I cannot say. There is a divided responsibility there. I think we license some of these things. For example the directors on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation are the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Secretary of Treasury Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms. Verge.

Mr. Efford.

MR. EFFORD: I have just a couple of points, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to take up a great deal of time. I will probably direct this to the minister but it is in response to the question the vice-chair, Ms. Verge, just asked the minister. I have heard this same question at least five or six times over the last three or four years and again when I was Minister of Social Services. I am really surprised that the hon. member, who has been kicking up such a fuss in the House of Assembly about wanting to ask the Minister of Justice a number of questions relative to his department, would ask the minister the number of cases of sexual assaults against women, the number of cases against children, and whether they are on the increase. Well, it is common knowledge that the reports are certainly on the increase but the Minister of Social Services carries those statistics and I can tell her very clearly that they are on the increase. I told her the numbers, I think, last year and the year before on the exact number of cases reported and the types of situations around each family but there are no statistics to tell you if it is on the increase against mothers and children. It happens all over the area but that is a statistic of the Department of Social Services and not one of the Department of Justice. The Minister of Social Services and all the officials could give, and have given, answers to those questions.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Chairperson.

This is not a productive use of the time of the committee but obviously while the member for Port de Grave may not realize this assaults are a criminal activity and it is very much the responsibility of the Department of Justice.

MR. EFFORD: I was not taking up time. I understand what you are saying but I was clarifying for you, if you did not understand it, that those statistics can be obtained. You asked, what were the cases on the increase? What were the numbers of the present day cases?

MS. VERGE: When I asked for cases I was talking about police investigations and prosecutions.

MR. EFFORD: That was the third part of your question. Anyway I was just making that point because I think it is important. When I made my first comments I realized that young offenders and sexual assaults against children are the responsibility of social services but what I was trying to get at, from where I was sitting, was what was happening once these people are led into the system and led into the adult correctional system. I think that is the main concern I have because once they get into the adult system at eighteen years of age, and as it is such a large system, they tend to get lost. That is the point I was making. What happens in the system? What happens to the children who are abused? Whether it is 1000 cases or 10,000 cases is an important issue but what happens to the victims after the assaults and the convictions have taken place, and also to the young offenders? I realize it is the responsibility of the Department of Social Services.

There is one young man I referred to, and I could have referred to dozens and dozens, who was a young offender and ended up just last week, as was reported in the news, down in the penitentiary. In fact he was one of the escapees who has, I think, since returned to the penitentiary. That is where I think the system, all of it, is not necessarily the responsibility of the Department of Justice any more than it is that of the Department of Social Services, Heath, Education, or anything. The whole system is failing to deal with that and that is where we are paying the price. It is not a matter of whether there are eighty in the jail cells versus accommodation for fifty. It is a matter of human beings getting lost in the system. I think that is what we are talking about and that is the concern I had. I think it is not the fact that the actual cases are on the increase it is just the fact that they are being talked about more and the public are being made aware of them by the media and by people coming forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister have anything he wishes to respond to?

MR. ROBERTS: What I would do is agree with the hon. Member for Port de Grave. I touched upon this before and I assume you do not want to get into it again now even if I were competent to address the issue. There is a great deal wrong with the whole prison system and the whole way in which we treat offenders in this country. It is not unlike, and I must say this, Winston Churchill's famous aphorism about democracy, 'it was the worst system ever tried except any other system that was ever devised.' I say to my hon. friend the problem is nobody knows how to improve it. What he says is right, the recidivism rate in Canada is huge. The incarceration rate in Canada proportionately is twice or thrice many comparable societies. On the other hand the murder rate here is a tenth of the American rate. Nobody has the answers to these questions but we must move forward on them because they go right to the heart of our society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: In response to your last comment I do not believe there is nothing we can do about the system. You indicated that the prisons are overflowing in part because we have no control over it and the judges can sentence how they like. There is one aspect, I suppose, that can be directly dealt with by government in terms of the prison population. Perhaps we can start by asking: do you have the answer to the following question which would be how many, or what percentage of people in our prisons are there because they are unable to pay fines that have been imposed upon them by the courts, and could you tell us the cost per day of keeping these people, all individuals in prison in the provincial system? I think there is a cost per day figure that is probably fairly readily available but perhaps the other one is not; how many people are there because they have not paid fines? There can be a response to that and that would be like some other provinces have, what they call a fine option program, some form of alternative to prison for those who are unable to pay fines. Indeed, if there were some other sort of quasi rehabilitative program based in the community, then the provincial court judges who are the main people responsible for sentencing in criminal matters, might not be so anxious to fill up our prisons to overflowing, so can you respond to that perhaps and give us some specific answers about what might be done?

MR. ROBERTS: I would be delighted to respond, Mr. Chairman, but before I do so let me say that the hon. gentleman quite properly brought me up when I said 'nothing we can do' I was speaking in a very general sense. There are many things we can do but there is no one answer, there is certainly no easy answer; there is no universally accepted answer and any answer is bound to be expensive. The hon. gentleman I think raises a very important point. I am told we do not have numbers of how many or the percentage of persons who go through our prison system who are there because of their failure to pay fines but it would be significant -

MR. HARRIS: Can we get it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh we can get it for you.

MR. ROBERTS: We can get that and I will undertake to have it provided for you. I should say we tried to anticipate the questions we might be asked; we are batting about 50 per cent I would say at this stage, whether that is good or bad, others will have to decide. The cost per day is about $130 per person, so to keep an individual in jail for a week, costs roughly $900 and that would be board and lodging, a little below the rates of the Hotel Newfoundland and the Radisson, but still very expensive.

We are deeply involved in trying to develop a fines option program. Now I do not want to go into it in detail because I am not sure the Cabinet has addressed it so I cannot announce government policy and I am certainly not going to say what I recommended to the Cabinet because I think that is constitutionally highly improper, and I know that I am not being asked to, but let me just talk of some of the parameters generally.

There is whispering going on behind me about things we have done in Cabinet. I have not been in Cabinet meetings for weeks, if the truth be known, because the Cabinet meets on Thursdays and I have been all over the country on Thursdays, but there are two types of fine option situations. One is partially in our jurisdiction, partially the criminal code, where a judge will say: I fine you $1,000 or in lieu of that so many days in jail; that is essentially a criminal code or a charging statute, a penal statute provision. Some of those under the summary jurisdiction act is ours, but the criminal code of course is federal.

There is also a situation where we have one kind of fine option, you know: we sentence you to community service instead of jail. There is another one where a guy simply cannot pay the fine and he is told: it is $500 or two weeks in jail, whatever the current equation is. The guy says: well I do not have the $500, you cannot get blood from a turnip, I will have to go to jail. That does not help anybody if he does not have the $500.

We are looking at other options and other ways to - I mean the purpose of a criminal sentence is to punish, to deter, all these principles. It is to have an effective punishment that is fair to the individual who has been sentenced and fair to the society who sentences him, so what I say to my hon. friend is, I hope that very shortly, we shall be able to announce at least a pilot program here in the St. John's area, which is the greater part of the problem, the more immediate part, the larger part, and it will be along we hope, some fairly imaginative lines, but the system is not working now. It is not working properly and we want to try to improve it.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. I am pleased to see that something is happening there but I would appreciate the numbers and I acknowledge that the minister has undertaken to provide the statistics to the committee with respect to people serving time as opposed to paying fines. Another area of great interest to me and to many members of the community, Mr. Minister, and that has to do with the provision of services to victims of sexual assault.

The Springdale Crime Prevention Committee has written to me and others I think expressing concern about problems in the Green Bay area where they have indicated that there have been in excess of 150 reported cases of sexual abuse. They go on to say: if we believe statistics, this is only a small percentage of the actual sexual assaults that occur. They are concerned that there is a need for preventative and rehabilitative programs as well as counselling services for victims and their families. They say there are no such programs offered in Green Bay, and in fact very few exist in the Province.

What they specifically ask, Mr. Minister, is that there be a sexual abuse victims service coordinator for the district of Green Bay. Now this would presumably be part of the minister's program. But I would go further than that and ask: having had a look at the program, there does not appear to be any provision for extra counselling outside of the court process itself. But we know that the court process is particularly traumatic for victims of sexual abuse. Equally important after the court process has taken care of the 'justice' side of things, that there still is the trauma of life that the individual victim of sexual abuse has to go through, and it is a very complex and perhaps sometimes a long-standing problem that requires long periods of counselling.

What plans does the minister have, having taken the action in the crimes compensation area of taking the money out of the hands of the victims who could presumably buy services with that, and make them available I suppose by creating a market for them, what alternatives does the minister have in that area? Is the minister able to respond to the request by the Springdale Crime Prevention Committee to have a victims services coordinator stationed in, presumably, Springdale or in the Green Bay district?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me first give credit where credit is due. That letter I think was a copy of a presentation made to the PC caucus when it visited Stephenville -

MR. HARRIS: It's a letter to me.

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon? Yes, I have it too. They sent it to me. Fair enough. Common practise is to send it to everybody. What I want to say is that was a presentation made to the PC caucus. Now I was not there. Even were I elected, I say to my friend for Humber East, I would not have been there, but that is on grounds of taste and political judgement.

Now let me come to the problem itself. My hon. and learned friend, to use the context - there was once a member who was honourable, learned and gallant, but there is nobody in the House now who is gallant. There are some who are learned, and all are honourable.

First of all, sexual assault victims certainly have undergone trauma and certainly need help. I would make the point - and I take it my friend would agree - that they are not the only people who need help. They may be the most traumatic and certainly they got the most attention in this Province, for understandable and proper reasons.

Second, the response to that comes from a number of departments. Social Services, Health, because of course all these people are entitled to the benefits of counselling provided - I'm talking now of psychiatric counselling, these can be psychiatric problems - and we have a role in the Department of Justice. We have increased the victims services branch activity substantially. The estimates reflect that. But I am the first to say we have not done enough. We are making progress. We are focusing at this stage on helping people to work their way through the court process. My hon. friend says that is only part of it and he is right. There is the post-court process.

I am not sure that is a Justice Department matter. I acknowledge it is a government or a societal matter. I would also agree with him that not enough has been done, but once again, I must say, the fact of life in government is we are juggling ever scarcer resources.

Now, let me come through to the other point you raised because I want to address it if I may, Mr. Chairman. It is this: we ended the Crimes Compensation Program and took some of the money - we haven't ended it, there was $1 million there this year. We have decided to put our resources - and I use 'our resources' because the federal government backed out of this, got the provinces in and left them hanging high and dry once again, those charitable ladies and gentlemen up in Ottawa. They have shown no concern for criminal compensation, but we have decided that the best way we can use our resources is in the victim impact, the Victim Services Society. We have set up branches in Happy Valley, Gander, Corner Brook, and in St. John's. Here in St. John's we have contracted the Salvation Army.

I hope and expect - but certainly make no guarantees, I can't make them - we will expand that in the years to come. I think I should say, too, that on the Crimes Compensation Program, my hon. learned friend says these people could have purchased something. Maybe they could have. They certainly had an amount of money they could spend as they want, but the awards, by definition, were quite small, $4,000 and $5,000. I have the report here. The average award has been quite small.

The reason the costs have been going up astronomically in that program is that the number of people coming forward to claim under it has been increasing. I will say, and I think my hon. friend would agree, that you can't buy a lot of counselling for $4,000 or $5,000. Now, I am not saying you can't buy any, and I am certainly not saying that it wouldn't have been more desirable to keep the program than to end it. What I will say is we faced a decision. We did what we believed to be the best decision given the factors I have just told you about. I am convinced it is the right decision, but can tell my learned friend that it was as tough as any decision we had to take this year in connection with the Budget. I don't know if I have addressed his concerns satisfactorily. I mean, I am satisfied with them, but I have tried to address them, and again, I would be happy to carry on because I think this is a very important area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: There is one point I wouldn't want to leave on the record without correcting it: The minister may not be fully aware, but in addition to the lump sum payments that Crimes Compensation were able to make to individuals, they quite often, where counselling was indicated, also indicated that the Crimes Compensation Board would pay for counselling upon the submission of invoices to the board. That was, in fact, over the last couple of years, I understand from the people at the Crimes Compensation Board, becoming a part of the awards, particularly sexual assault cases where individuals were given access to counselling, where services were available and could be purchased, that the Crimes Compensation Board would pay for it. That was available throughout the Province whether there was a victim services co-ordinator, as you have now, enforcing it. Wherever anybody could get counselling there was counselling paid for by the Commission.

MR. ROBERTS: I may be under misapprehension and if so I will gladly acknowledge it. My understanding is that the Crimes Compensation Board doesn't purchase counselling services. Let me read the concluding section of the reports from Mr. Badcock. This is the report for the current year, ending 31 March 1991, which I just happen to have here. 'The board acknowledges the valued contribution of all court officials, police forces, hospitals, doctors, counsellors, and legal counsel involved in the presentation of matters for its consideration. The police reports to the Province have been very co-operative in providing reports that are of great assistance to the board. Without these reports, victims would have to explain the events at the hearing. Doctors' and counsellors' reports are especially essential to the board and it acknowledged with appreciation the submission of these reports from skilled physicians and counsellors at very reasonable fees.' That is the end of the report.

MR. HARRIS: I am speaking of the awards, themselves. The Crimes Compensation allowed a maximum of up to, I think, $20,000 per individual and the $5,000 or $6,000 you are talking about is one aspect of the award for pain and suffering. But the provision of services in the nature of counselling is something that the board would, as part of its award, say that they would pay for on behalf of the victim. So victims would have to submit invoices based on their obtaining counselling that they had to pay for, and the board would then pay it as part of the ongoing award. So it wasn't something that would have to come out of what the individual was receiving but was something that was part of the award of the board, itself. I can discuss it with the minister afterwards, but I did not want to leave the record showing that the crimes compensation scheme had victims paying for services out of the lump sum award that they might have received.

MR. ROBERTS: I will ask my deputy minister, Ms. Spracklin, who is more familiar, to answer that. Before I do, let me just - we are having a consultation, as you can see, Mr. Chairman. Last year the board spent $353,000 - $339,000 was in lump sum awards. I am reading from the report. I am leaving out the hundreds and the cents. But $339,000 was spent on lump sum awards which are just given in a cheque, presumably. Blended awards came to $4,180; monthly periodic payments brought forward from previous years came to $6,600; and they have the power to revisit awards and review them, and that came to $3,445. That gives you the total. The feds contributed less than 40 per cent of it. But Ms. Spracklin, I think, can add to it, because we think the hon. gentleman is right, it is just that we can't find the figures here.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Chairperson. The legislation governing the Crimes Compensation Program requires that the minister responsible table an annual report of the board in the House of Assembly.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MS. VERGE: That has not been done yet this session of the House, and I would like to ask, first of all, that that be done this afternoon, and that copies be made available -

MR. HARRIS: The minister can come to the House this afternoon and table it.

MS. VERGE: - through the full House.

MR. ROBERTS: I would like nothing better than to come to the House and take a seat, but I can't today. The hon. lady is correct. We are under an obligation to table it. We shall table it. The copy I have, I saw on the weekend. This is not - when I say it is not ready, it's got my scribblings all over it. But we shall table it as obliged to, and gladly. I would think it is a story that members would want to read about, and we are proud of the work of Mr. Badcock and his colleagues. We will table it as soon as we can. I do not even know how many copies there are around.

MS. VERGE: Unfortunately, not proud enough to allow it to continue.

MR. ROBERTS: That's a cheap shot, and I am not even going to respond to that kind of cheap shot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Ms. Spracklin going to have something to say or has that passed?

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to add to not the cheap shots, but to Mr. Harris' points?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I can, if Mr. Harris wants. Mr. Harris is correct that the board could make an award for expenses incurred by a victim in obtaining medical assistance including the costs of counselling. The major problem that we faced, and our attention was directed to it by victims, was that number one, there is no counselling out there to purchase, outside the major centres. There just aren't counsellors there. You couldn't assist them by giving them money for that.

Secondly, they had to have a certificate of conviction, by and large, to come before the board. That would be two or three years, sometimes, after the actual offence, from the time of the offence to when the thing went through preliminary hearing, trial and conclusion, and then came on before the board. So they were basically asking for community services at the time of victimization and forward, rather than having to wait. I think they were feeling as victimized by the system as they were by the original crime.

So our objective, frankly, is to try to deliver counselling at the community level to victims and not make them wait all this time. It would be our intention to work with volunteer and other groups in the community to develop those services at a community level. Obviously, we are going to have to have help from Social Services, and Health, as well. There are various levels of help needed. Some help can be provided by support peer group counselling. Others may need more specialized care which really has to be delivered in the health care setting.

So, it is the intention of our Victim Services Division to assist in the process of developing the necessary services. It is not going to happen overnight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Warren.

MR. HARRIS: Is there a specific answer for the people of Springdale who presented, in person, as the minister quite rightly points out, to the PC caucus, put by letter to the other two -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, I have to interrupt you. You have had your turn. Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: If the minister wants to respond to Mr. Harris' comments -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there is no provision in the Estimates for this position. That is really as far as I can go. We do not envisage it in this current fiscal year. The hon. gentleman would agree, I think, that it would be wrong to make policies simply on the basis of a group making a request. That is a legitimate thing to be addressed, but we are not going to simply appoint these people where requests were made. We are going to look at the needs of the entire Province and apply our resources as best we can. But I think I have written to the people in Springdale. I am pausing because there is so much mail that I have dictated and not yet had a chance to sign. It may be one of those letters.

Your concern is genuine. I acknowledge it. It is just that we are not going to be able to put somebody in Springdale for this purpose this year. No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to continue on the same format I did earlier, asking a number of questions and the minister could answer them.

Recently the House passed a resolution that the name of the Province change from Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a constitutional lawyer - that is the term I would use for you now, Sir, as you have indicated that you have been deeply involved with the constitutional process in our Province. Would the minister advise if provinces other than Newfoundland, and the federal government, have to be involved in this matter in order for us to change the name of our Province to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

My second question to the minister -

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raises a good point, of course, but, as he well knows, being vice-chairman of the committee empowered to look into this issue, one certainly would not want to just throw it out for a commentary. We have been mandated by the Legislature to go out and research this question. I would hope the hon. member would allow for that process to take place rather than see it thrown out to the Committee today.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order. I don't know what my hon. colleague is up to. The Minister of Justice is the Minister of Justice for our Province, and surely goodness, instead of us going out around the Province to meetings trying to find out whether it is right or wrong, we have a constitutional lawyer here in our presence now, who is part of this government.

MR. HARRIS: He was appointed for that very reason.

MR. WARREN: This is exactly why I am asking the minister the question. So, if my hon. colleague is upset now because he is afraid the minister might give the right answer or the wrong answer, sobeit. I think it is a good question for the minister.

MR. HARRIS: He won't be able to travel around the Province and grandstand.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what any hon. gentleman is up to but let me say this: I don't have a copy of the Constitution Act here. There is a section; from memory it is Section 43 of the 1982 amendments. It is in the amending formula part which says that where a matter affects only one province, a constitution in respect to that matter may be changed upon resolution of the Legislature of that province and two Houses of Parliament in Ottawa.

The issue would be whether a change in the legal name of this Province from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador affects only one province. I do not think it proper of me to offer an opinion here now, and I do not think my hon. friend from Torngat is asking for one. If he is, I would agree with my hon. friend from Eagle River that I shouldn't give it.

There are a number of amending provisions in the constitution. There are unanimity provisions, there are 7/50 provisions, and then there is the 'one province only' provision; so the issue would be into which it falls. I think it would be premature for me to offer an opinion. I don't know whether the Committee will ask us for an opinion. Quite candidly, I am not sure that we can advise the Committee. Our job is to advise the minister. The House seeks its own legal advice from wherever it seems appropriate; but I guess that is a question for another day.

What I will say to my friend from Torngat is, there is a section in the Constitution, I think it is 43, but please don't hold me to that, that says - I don't know if either Ms. Murphy or one of my colleagues here ... nobody seems to want to volunteer an answer but it is there anyway - if the matter affects only this Province, or any one province, but that is the issue.

Of course, my learned friend will acknowledge that since 1964 the Government of this Province have called themselves the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is followed properly and faithfully.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Minister, by the government in 1964 calling us the Province of -

MR. ROBERTS: The House of Assembly passed it, yes.

MR. WARREN: That is right - the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Actually, it is on our letterhead and things like that. That is basically why I ask you the question, could it be just by our own Legislature and the two Houses in Ottawa, the House of Commons and then also the Senate?

MR. ROBERTS: A good question.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Minister, a number of months ago there was a serious, fatal fire in the Innu community of Davis Inlet. It has been a considerable time since this tragedy took place, and there is a lot of concern expressed throughout my district, and probably in other parts of the Province, that - and I probably reflect back to Springdale Street a few years ago when there was a fatal fire; a person died on Springdale Street. It was just a matter of a month or a couple of months thereafter that there was an inquiry. I am just wondering, has the minister decided to proceed with an inquiry into this fatal fire tragedy, or is the minister satisfied with the police report? I think that is my question.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, to that, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is a terribly good question, first of all let me straighten out one point. I do not take these decisions. The Act vests them with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Colin Flynn. I know there was an RCMP investigation, as there would be in any such situation. I do not know if that has been completed. I do not know if Mr. Flynn has taken a decision. I have just asked one of my officials to see if we can find out by telephone if I can make an answer. I don't know when the Committee rises. We will be here for a little bit. If I can make an answer I shall. It is not my decision and, as far as I am aware, no decision has been taken. It is Mr. Flynn's decision whether there is an inquiry or not. I don't want to go beyond that until I know whereof I speak. My hon. friend, having served in the ministry, would agree that is wise practice for a minister.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I am going to deal with the Native issues on several other short topics.

In Nova Scotia recently, Staff Sergeant Emerson Kaiser, who had performed here in our Province with the RCMP over a number of years -

MR. ROBERTS: He was an inspector, I think.

MR. WARREN: That is right. He has recently been appointed to organize or to co-ordinate a Native police force in Nova Scotia. When I heard this I thought it was a good move on somebody's part. I know the minister has only been in the Department of Justice a short time but he has been in the ministry for a number of years and I am sure he is aware of the Native concerns in our Province. Has the minister had other examples of consideration of a Native police force?

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend says I have been in the ministry, and that is true, but I have to tell him it was almost twenty years to the day from the day I left Government House, no longer a minister, to the day I went into Government House and joined the Cabinet again, so what happened twenty years ago is not altogether relevant. I am told by my colleagues to stop telling war stories. I hear that frequently.

The Nova Scotia authorities have a good man in Emerson Kaiser, in my view. This is a subject I have not gone into but it is an area that we have to address.

The problems of policing the aboriginal communities are very troubling. My hon. friend is familiar with Davis Inlet and Nain. While there are other communities in his district, those seem to be the two most prominent ones. The matter is complicated very much because of the fact we are on the verge of some kind of self-government, as he and I discussed earlier, Mr. Chairman. We don't know what form that will take. It may well include some policing functions. All I can say to my friend is that all of us in the department - and I think I speak for the RCMP, as well, on this point - take this matter very, very seriously.

The regular police mechanisms, it would appear, may not be appropriate to police these communities and you probably have to extend that to the regular justice systems at least to some extent. Now, this is an awfully thorny issue, I say to my friend, and a very contentious one.

We are also in the middle of a negotiation process, as my friend knows, with both the LIA and the Innu nation and that has impacts on policing, as well. I assume he does not want me to get into this question of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights but these are issues with which we must address the Supreme Court. Ian Sparrow has blessed us with this. Indeed, when he spoke in Nova Scotia, I thought he was going to mention the 1752 Micmac Treaty. There is an argument, as my hon. friend knows, that this may apply to this Province. So, all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that in some ways these are extremely complex issues with interfaces on a great number of public policy areas. I don't plan any immediate moves but it is an area I hope to put some attention on, assuming the electorate, in due course, wherever I may seek a seat, blesses me and allows me to carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would any other members like to have the floor at this point?

Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Minister, one final question to you, Sir, with respect to the Whitbourne Boys' Home. I understand there was an issue of grave concern there some time ago between the inmates and the custodians. Would the minister like to bring us up to date on the events that took place at the Whitbourne Boys' Home on this particular occasion?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, because the home falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, I cannot answer that.

MR. WARREN: But, Mr. Minister, the police were also involved in that, I understand.

MR. ROBERTS: My policy is to make no comment on any police investigation. If they were requested by the authorities to investigate, they would investigate. If charges need to be laid they will lay them. I will read about them in the newspaper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dumaresque.

MS. VERGE: I have a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walsh.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, the discussion this morning has been fairly wide-ranging. As much as possible, I and my colleagues have let it go and done our very best to co-operate with the members of the Opposition so that -

MS. VERGE: You've done a good job of running interference, I'll give you that.

MR. WALSH: - as many questions as possible could be asked. I am wondering, are we ready to at least deal with the Estimates in terms of 2.1.01 all the way through to 5.1.10. That would simply leave Executive and Support and Services to be dealt with. I am prepared to make that motion now -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Seconded.

MS. VERGE: I have some detailed questions.

MR. WALSH: - unless there are some questions we want to deal with right into, and I suggest we go to those now, Mr. Chairman, if we could. We could deal with them as opposed to the wide-ranging questions. Some of the detail they may wish, would come up in those areas. But I am prepared to move 2.1.01 through.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I second that.

MR. WALSH: I am prepared, unless there are some questions that somebody would like to go to now.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have already indicated that I have some questions in mind that I would like to ask. So, in my opinion, we are not ready to ram through the works.

MR. ROBERTS: May I, Mr. Chairman, simply respond, to follow up on the Davis Inlet point? I am told the Crown - and that would be the attorneys, Mr. Flynn or one of his colleagues - has returned the file to the RCMP for additional information. So there has been nothing - the matter is not yet at the point where the DPP feels he can take a decision. That is really all I can say, and it is certainly all I should say, so it is all I am going to say. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge and Mr. Harris have indicated they have further questions, Mr. Walsh. (Inaudible) withhold your motion and (inaudible)?

MR. WALSH: As long, Mr. Chairman, as we are now moving into the actual Estimates. I know we sometimes go with the wide-ranging, but I would like for us to at least get into -

MS. VERGE: Well, with respect, we can ask whatever we want to ask. Now, what I am going to ask first has to deal with Crimes Compensation and Victims Services, to follow questions that Mr. Harris asked earlier. It is page 226, 4.2.05, 4.2.06.

For Victims Services, last year, $100,000 salaries was budgeted, but only $43,300 was spent. I would like to ask why that was. This year $139,000 in salaries is budgeted. I know, early in the 1992 calendar year, the Department of Justice had in place five employees with the Victims Services - I should say four employees, and one contractual worker through the Salvation Army. I would like an elaboration on who those people are, where they are based, and the responsibilities and geographic territory of each. After that I will ask about the offsetting provincial revenue, presumably the victim surtax revenue.

MR. ROBERTS: Right. Mr. Chairman, let me try to respond to the hon. member's questions. First of all, her numbers are correct, of course. I don't need to say that. What happened - and this provides the explanation - is that the recruitments weren't made until late in the fiscal year. We now have - I am subject to correction - four, plus the co-ordinator?

AN HON. MEMBER: Including.

MR. ROBERTS: We have four including the co-ordinator, then we have the Salvation Army under contract here in St. John's, I do not have those people's names and I do not think the names are terribly relevant, really.

MS. VERGE: Isn't it three plus the Salvation Army contractual person plus the provincial co-ordinator?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, four.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, four plus the Salvation Army, that is what I said. Of the four, we have the provincial co-ordinator and then we have a person in Gander, a person in Corner Brook, a person in Happy Valley - Goose Bay and the Army here in St. John's. I do not have their names and I do not think that is terribly relevant but if you need them I will get them.

MS. VERGE: No, it is not. What I asked for was the responsibilities -

MR. ROBERTS: Okay.

MS. VERGE: - or the job descriptions and the geographic territory each worker serves.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. The geographic territory is simply dividing the Province, with each of these centres being the central point for the area surrounding it.

MS. VERGE: Now if I might interject, I met with a worker who began her duties in Corner Brook in January of 1992, and that worker told me that she is confining her activities to the Corner Brook/Deer Lake area, that she physically cannot stretch herself to do any work in, for example, Stephenville Crossing, Stephenville, the Port au Port Peninsula, the Codroy Valley, Port aux Basques, Bonne Bay, the Northern Peninsula; she is confining herself to Corner Brook and Deer Lake.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. I do not know what passed between the hon. member and the person in Corner Brook, so I cannot address that. I am not going to. It does not surprise me if the individual in Corner Brook or any other individual finds that she or he is not able to do everything; this is a pilot project and I am not going to sit here, Mr. Chairman, and pretend we are able to respond completely to everything, that would be insulting the committee to suggest that; what I will tell you is, we are making a start and I suspect -

MS. VERGE: My understanding from the Budget Speech is that last year it was a pilot project, but the pilot, having been judged satisfactory, is now a permanent program.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what understanding the hon. member took from the Budget Speech; her understanding often passeth my comprehension, I can only tell her what I know and what I am told. Now, if I may finish, what I am saying is that the workloads are extraordinarily heavy. We have no idea what we are getting into, we know what we want to get into and we are trying. These people were hired, when, late in the calendar year?

AN HON. MEMBER: December.

MR. ROBERTS: - in December, of 1991 and they are only coming on stream now and we are very much finding our way, very much feeling our way, very much trying to find out what the need is and how best to address it. The point I was making when the member interrupted me was this, that I have no doubt that the demands made upon this service are - I will not say limitless, but far beyond the capacity of even the most devoted individuals to respond and I have no doubt the individuals we have are devoted.

Now, the brochure that we send out says that: regional victims services co-ordinators have been mandated to provide some direct services and to co-ordinate and support existing community services in the area. To date, and this was written I think in about the turn of the year, approximately 750 agency contacts have been made throughout the Province in an effort to fully utilize and participate in the Province-wide network that exists. Direct service will be provided within the provincial court jurisdiction for their area, the individual court area; however, clients who decide not to proceed through the court system or who will be involved in supreme court proceedings, can avail of direct service provided they reside within provincial court boundaries for the region.

Now I could go on, there is a very detailed list and this is a public document, is it not, is this not the brochure that has gone out to everybody?

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of it is (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: So, what I say to the hon. member is that her concern is real, the problem is real, her concern is legitimate and I do not mean to be judgemental about her, but we are only getting started. The striking factor about all of these types of programs is the way they skyrocket; it is an unmet need and as you begin to meet it, new needs emerge. I mean for a number of years crimes comp went on like this on the graph and then it went straight up and the number of people coming forward increased absolutely geometrically. So we are still in a pilot project stage. We are not sure (Inaudible) -

MS. VERGE: Well, Chairperson -

MR. ROBERTS: Please let me finish.

MS. VERGE: I would like to read to the minister -

MR. ROBERTS: Please let me finish!

MS. VERGE: - what is in the Budget Speech on page 25.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, may I have the protection of the Chair from this hectoring lady from Humber East?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Mr. Roberts.

MR. ROBERTS: May I finish? The hon. lady would not let me interrupt her this morning, let me not be interrupted by her. Let her extend the same courtesy she expects from others. Now what I was saying is that we are beginning a process. I do not pretend to know where we are going, I do not pretend to know when we will get there. All I can say is we are going forward in good faith and with the best of intentions. Now if the hon. lady has something from the Budget Speech I would be glad to hear whatever it is and try to respond to it. But what I said was in response to her comment: she understood something. I said her understanding passeth my comprehension. And it does.

MS. VERGE: Well let me read to the minister what is in the Budget Speech -

MR. ROBERTS: She'll be making -

MS. VERGE: - which presumably the elected members of the Cabinet wrote. The elected Minister of Finance says, on page 25: "Based upon the success last year of a Victim Services Pilot Program... Government has decided to develop a permanent Victim Services Program, providing practical support and assistance to victims of crime...."

It is fairly plain. Now the minister is saying that it is just a pilot. We both agree that there are five people in place. The minister does not seem to appreciate that the geographic territory served by each of the workers is very confined and represents only a tiny fraction of the Province's territory and a small percentage of the Province's population.

The deputy minister has said, and she would be drawing on her experience as Chair of the Crimes Compensation Board, that counselling services do not exist in most rural areas. Counselling services for the most part are confined to the same urban centres where the victim workers are located. Now there is nothing for victims of sexual assault or other personal injury crimes in rural parts of our Province, apart from occasional volunteer agencies, women centres. Victims in rural areas have to for the most part travel to urban centres, and transportation costs money. Counselling in many cases costs money. Effectively with the termination of the Crimes Compensation Program and with the confinement of the victim workers for urban centres, there is absolutely nothing available for victims of personal injury crimes in most of our Province.

We have heard about the astounding caseload in the Green Bay area. We have heard through the news media about the staggering number of child sexual assault victims on the Port au Port Peninsula and in Stephenville Crossing. They are typical of the caseloads of the individuals who have reported personal injury crimes but who are being failed by the system.

I would like to ask about the revenue from the victim fine surcharge which came into force -

MR. ROBERTS: May I respond first to the...?

MS. VERGE: I am just getting into asking a question about the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is about to run out, Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Therefore I will complete my question. Thank you very much. The criminal code fine surcharge came into force in August of 1990. Last year the provincial government budgeted $80,000 revenue from that and actually got $72,000. This year only $60,000 is forecast.

I would like to ask why the forecast for this year is less than what was actually received last year; why we are receiving less than was budgeted previously; and I would like to ask for a court by court breakdown of victim fine surtax revenue. Does the Department of Justice believe that different judges have different patterns of ordering victim fine surcharges? Is there much discrepancy among judges in ordering victim fine surcharges and in assessing amounts of fine surtax?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. lady said she was asking a question. It is like trying to find a needle in a haystack but let me try. The difference is it would be a needle without a point, if I may.

First of all, she did make some sense when she read my colleague's speech. But what he was saying is quite clear from his words:

"Based upon the success last year of a Victim Services Pilot Program" - and he was talking of the 1991-1992 year which ended on March 31; and as I just said, we hired these people in December - "and the federal government's withdrawal of cost-shared funding for criminal injuries compensation, Government has decided to develop a permanent Victim Services Program, providing practical support and assistance to victims of crime from the time of their initial contact with the justice system." So he was making his comment in the context of our decision, which I have already addressed, to phase out the Criminal Injuries Compensation Program as being the lesser desirable of the two, which is not to say it is not desirable.

The hon. member may want to get hung up on the word "pilot". I have used the word "pilot," my colleague used the word "pilot." We are still in the first year of this program with the five people, or the four people plus the Salvation Army person, in place. There is no doubt in our mind, and this is what my colleague was saying, that we are going to move forward to a permanent Victim Services Program. What I did say was we do not know how far it has to go, we do not what the need is, we do not know how best to respond. We are trying. We are going to make an effort to find out. I am not going to sit here or any other place and claim that we have all the wisdom in the world. I have been in Opposition long enough to know that only oppositions have all the wisdom in the world. Government does not have that luxury.

Now let me talk about the fine surcharge. I do not think the hon. member was serious when she asked if we had any views on judicial practices. It would be improper of us to have views on judicial practices. Judges are independent in this Province, in this country. They make their own decisions as to the fines to be levied or the fine surcharges or punishment or what have you. That is up to them.

I can tell the hon. lady that we collected $72,000 under this head last year. Our best estimate for this year is $60,000. I do not pretend to understand the process by which whoever makes these numbers comes up with them. I can tell the Committee and her, Mr. Chairman, that this is our estimate. I hope we are seriously wrong. Greatly wrong. I hope it comes in at $600,000. Because I would like nothing better than to be able to fund this. All I can say is it appears - so what I say to the hon. lady - is it appears that for whatever reason, judges are not minded to use the fines surcharge mechanism to the extent that some of us might hope they would. That is really as far as I can go.

MS. VERGE: I am looking for statistics and I wonder if the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm afraid this segment is concluded now, Ms. Verge, unless -

MS. VERGE: No, just to draw out the answer to that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: - nobody else wants the floor. Does anybody else want the floor? Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I have a question about Police Services.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, about Police Services?

MR. HARRIS: Police Services costs. Found under head 4.1.03 and 4.1.04. I notice that there is an outstanding increase in the cost of Police Services provided by the RCMP, approximately a 10 per cent increase, whereas the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary police services, which takes place in the principle population areas of the Avalon Peninsula, Corner Brook and Labrador West have a very minor increase of a couple of hundred thousand over last year whereas the RCMP has a substantial increase of around $3 million. Is there an explanation for that? Has there been an improvement in the services provided by the RCMP? Are there new areas that they are looking after that they weren't looking after before? I know that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has been given additional obligations, the establishment of the new child protection unit and other administrative changes that would require a redeployment of forces. I wonder what is happening here. Why are we promoting by a large increase the RCMP services as opposed to the RNC, or is there an explanation that I am not aware of?

MR. ROBERTS: Well I don't know, of course, of what the hon. gentlemen might be aware of but there is an explanation. For the RNC, we are asking, as he points out, for a relatively modest increase. In fact I'm not even sure if it is an increase over the - yes, it is an increase over the actual for last year. I am reminded, and rightfully so, that the constabulary are under the same wage freeze as are everybody else under the provincial service. I am assuming that in due course the House will adopt - is it bill 17? I forget the number of it. If not there will be a democratic exercise in the Province and we will see what the people of the Province want.

You know that is the RNC situation. Let me come through to the RCMP where there is a very significant increase. That reflects the fact, Mr. Chairman, that during the year now under review - and I think it began on the first of April which is also the federal fiscal year - we entered into a new agreement with the Government of Canada because, of course, we rent the RCMP. It is sort of rent-a-cop if you wish, and the new formula is the one applied across the country. The ten year program was up. My hon. friend from Port de Grave is nodding. No doubt when he was at the Cabinet table he heard about these negotiations.

Let me tell the committee because I think it is something that the government can be proud of, that the new contract is a very, very good one from the point of view of Newfoundland and Labrador. First of all it is for twenty years. We used to have five and ten year contracts so we don't face the risk of having to renegotiate these things. In the negotiation - remember the feds own the RCMP so at the end of the day we have to sign whatever they want or find our own police force.

The cost-sharing formula has been set at 70/30, us being the 70. The feds started I believe at 90/10 and there was some very tough bargaining. My ADM, Mr. Kent, was one of those involved. The Treasury Board people really did a superb job in leu of a raise I will tell you. The feds started 90/10, these charitable gentlemen in Ottawa who care so much about the poorer parts of the country wanted to put the boots to us, but they came back to 70/30. Also, thanks to the eloquence and articulate advocacy of the Newfoundland and Labrador government representatives they have agreed to allow the municipal police functions that are performed by the RCM police to be performed on the same cost ratio as their other provincial police functions as opposed to the expensive municipal contract that they want. Am I right?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. ROBERTS: The question was not unanticipated. Elsewhere in Canada the municipalities have to pay a far higher proportion of the RCMP than we do here in Newfoundland.

Now the RCMP salaries have gone up and several new items have been added to their cost base. Member and civilian staff pensions had to be paid for, unemployment insurance payments have been factored in, accommodation charges, training costs - this one is going to prompt a question - and the expenditures associated with a public complaints office. That is the federal one. They have all been factored in.

The net additional cost to us this year is $1.2 million. This year in addition the RCMP officers were given a 4.2 per cent salary increase retroactive to January, 1991. This increased the salary base for 1992 - 1993 by $1 million gross and retroactive payments will be made this year, as a result, for a gross cost of $1.3 million. There are also some operational costs, but that is the bulk of the increase in the new contract which we think is a good contract.

MR. HARRIS: So there are no extra services being provided for them, it is just the cost of the services that are involved here?

MR. ROBERTS: No, there are not. I wish there were but there are not.

MR. HARRIS: You did mention a further question, but before I get to that: In the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, could you tell the Committee what process is in place involving moving forward in terms of the recruitment of female police officers? We have a very low ratio of women police officers to men in the force. Although there may not be any specific hiring going on at the moment, what does the department have in mind for increasing the complement of women police officers?

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know if I can answer for the department, but I can sure answer for the minister. The minister is concerned with this imbalance and will do what he properly can to see that it is rectified and remedied. It is not easy. If we are not increasing the size of the police force we are only looking then at replacements.

MR. HARRIS: You are looking at replacements?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: What are the numbers of replacements (inaudible) for example?

MR. ROBERTS: About ten to fifteen leave the police force each year for whatever reason, most of them retirements. We have not replaced them because, of course, the size of the RNC has come down the last two or three years. Did we have any layoffs last year?

AN HON. MEMBER: No layoffs.

MR. ROBERTS: There were no layoffs. So the reduction in the complement of the RNC has been made through, I think it is called attrition, you know, through people leaving and not being replaced. But as we move into replacements, all I can say to my hon. friend is we don't hire them directly. I mean, the minister and the department don't hire these police people, but it will be made clear to the authorities that I am concerned and I believe the government is concerned about the imbalance and we shall ask them to do what they properly can to redress it.

MR. HARRIS: Is the minister prepared to mandate an affirmative action program to the department or to the RNC?

MR. ROBERTS: I would want to be sure I understood all the implications of that before I said yes or no. So, with all humility - not a word usually associated with me - I will pass on that. I hope the hon. gentleman will keep it to the fore because I think it should be - I am not trying to duck it, I am just saying I am not ready to answer it yet and I won't answer it until I am ready.

MR. HARRIS: Is the department ready to proceed with the appointment of a police complaints commission? Money is provided in the budget for it, $100,000. When would the minister be ready to announce the appointment of the appropriate people or to put in place the program that is necessary?

MR. ROBERTS: The police complaints commission will be a matter for legislation. It has not gone through the Cabinet at this stage. Cabinet have had a number of bites at it and we have chewed up a large part of the problem but I don't think we have masticated it all. I anticipate legislation will come before the House in the fall session and there can be no appointments until the legislation is brought in. I can assure my hon. friend that appointments will be made as soon as possible. By that, I mean very quickly, once the legislation is adopted, assuming it is adopted, but I anticipate we would have legislation in the fall. The Premier, I think, has made it clear in the House that this is a very real priority, the trouble is there have been a lot of priorities in Justice in the last few weeks.

MR. HARRIS: Would the minister give the explanation for the increase in the grant to the Public Utilities Board, from $207,000 in the 1991-1992 budgeted and revised estimates to $410,800?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. That is a straightforward one and a good question. The PUB is self-financing; it essentially has three functions as my hon. learned friend knows, regulation of public utilities - and that is now down to Hydro and Light and Power - the insurance function and then the motor carrier function because they are acting on power the government has delegated to them on the motor carrier end of it.

The amount that showed in the Estimates, the $410,800 is the net cost of the motor carrier operation this year; the other two aspects of the board are self-financing and they levy costs and charges to cover their costs. The increase is accounted for by the fact that last year, there was a $300,000 surplus that the board had built up. This I am told is the normal, annual cost of the motor carrier regulatory functions carried out by the PU Board.

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, I would come back to where I was a few moments ago. Unfortunately we lost almost an hour this morning and I would now like to move the Estimates Committee for the Department of Justice, 1.1.01 through 5.1.01.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seconded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved and seconded by -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, at least a couple of us have not finished our questioning -

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion before the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chairman, you have presided over this committee for most of our meetings this session and I take it you are aware of how estimates committees have functioned in the past. We have always allowed enough time to satisfy all committee members desire for questioning. It is not usual that a department is completed in one sitting -

MR. WALSH: It is very much normal.

MS. VERGE: It is quite common that we have a second and third sitting. Now I think all the questions I wished to ask can be looked after probably in the space of ten or fifteen minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. Mr. Harris?

MR. HARRIS: It is interesting that the minister would mention the term 'rent-a-cop' in his remarks, almost regarding the members here as doing a policing function on behalf of the government here in trying to shut down the committee.

MR. WALSH: You are here for the opposite reason. You are here to try to tear down the government, so let's not get silly.

MR. HARRIS: There are a number of questions that still remain to be asked. I know the Member for Torngat Mountains has some questions. The Member for Humber East has questions, as do I, so I do not see why we should end it now.

MR. EFFORD: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is about the last sarcastic remark I am going to take from the Member for St. John's East, and I tell you that very loudly and very clearly for him to hear.

I have a medical problem, a very serious medical problem, necessitating that I must eat at twelve o'clock, otherwise I will be in serious medical condition. I am not here as a 'rent-a-cop'. I am not here to be abused by the Member for St. John's East, and legitimately the committee should either pass the subheads, Mr. Chairman, or we will have to adjourn until I get my medication.

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Had I been aware that the member wanted to leave - we should have an adjournment. I have no problem with that.

MR. WARREN: I have no problem either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to move an adjournment?

MR. WALSH: I am sorry. We have a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARRIS: The motion for adjournment takes precedence, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nobody has made one.

MR. HARRIS: I move that we adjourn to allow the hon. member to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a seconder for that?

MS. VERGE: I second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is moved and seconded that we adjourn.

Those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MS. VERGE: We do not want to keep Mr. Efford waiting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Contrary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I heard one on each side of that point.

MR. HARRIS: There are two ayes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order, Mr. Dumaresque.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would just like to clarify it. I thought there was a motion to the floor. Do you entertain another motion before that motion is dealt with?

MR. HARRIS: A motion of adjournment takes precedence, I understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been suggested that the motion to adjourn takes precedence. Nobody contested that, so that is what we are voting on.

MS. VERGE: And the majority voted that we do adjourn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those in favour of adjourning, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you raise your hands?

Three in favour of adjourning.

MS. VERGE: What about Mr. Efford's needs?

MR. EFFORD: I have to go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against adjourning?

AN HON. MEMBER: I am against adjourning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One against adjourning.

MR. EFFORD: Well I have to go, so I have no choice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the meeting adjourned.