Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Len Simms, M.H.A. for Grand Falls substitutes for Ms. Verge, M.H.A. for Humber East; Mr. Kevin, Aylward, M.H.A. for Stephenville substitutes for Mr. Gover, M.H.A. for Bonavista North; and Mr. Ramsay, M.H.A. for LaPoile substitutes for Mr. Reid, M.H.A. for Carbonear.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Murphy) Order, please!

Gentlemen, at this time I would like to convene the Social Services Estimates Committee to deal with the Department of Justice. I want to, first of all, welcome the Minister and his staff, and the media, and introduce to you the Members of the Committee who are here this evening. To my immediate left the hon. Member for Stephenville, Mr. Kevin Aylward, next to Mr. Aylward is Mr. Bill Ramsay, the hon. Member for LaPoile. Sitting next to Mr. Ramsay is Mr. Len Simms, the hon. Member for Grand Falls, who is replacing the hon. Lynn Verge, and I am sure his questions will be equally as sincere and intense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know Mr. Alyward's questions will be just as enlightening. Next to Mr. Simms is Mr. Doug Oldford the Member for Trinity North, and next to Mr. Oldford is Mr. Jack Harris the Member for St. John's East, and of course this evening our secretary is the Clerk of the House of Assembly, Miss Bettie Duff. I would like to welcome the media.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Member for St. John's East is questioning why Mr. Ramsay is here, and I sense that, he has a letter from the House Leader which is totally appropriate under the Standing Orders. Is there any question?

MR. HARRIS: I know that the Chair is trying to run the meeting in an efficient manner, but surely it should not be suggested that just because I asked who Mr. Ramsay is replacing - you did not have the courtesy of telling the Committee who was here and who was not here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the first statement the Chair heard was: what is Mr. Ramsay doing here?... he is not on the Committee.

MR. HARRIS: No. no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, very much. I hope it is cleared up. There is no point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Well, the point of order, Mr. Chairman, is when the Committee was being introduced you indicated that Mr. Simms was here replacing Ms. Verge, who is a Member of the Committee, but you did not indicate under what basis Mr. Aylward was here, or Mr. Ramsay. You did mention Mr. Oldford and myself as Members of the Committee so I just thought that for the record we should know. I certainly would not question Mr. Ramsay's credentials or seek to examine them, but it would be nice to know who is here and who they are replacing so that we would know whether they could do as adequate a job as the people they are replacing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your note is taken to heart. Mr. Aylward is here replacing Mr. Gover, and Mr. Ramsay, of course, is here replacing Mr. Reid.

MR. HARRIS: Just a matter of protocol, Mr. Chairman, because I have been at other committees where I was in fact not a member of the committee and the Chair, not yourself, but the Chair, took great pains on numerous occasions during the meeting to indicate that, of course, Mr. Harris, is not a member of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would not do that.

MR. HARRIS: I know you would not do that, but the press is here, and for the record it would be nice to know who is here, who is on the Committee, and who is extra, and that sort of thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, Mr. Harris.

I think, I would at this time, like to ask the Minister if he would be kind enough to introduce his staff and give us a brief opening statement.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Committee was doing such a good job itself that I did not know whether or not I should really intervene and make any comments whatsoever. Certainly, I want to introduce my staff. On my immediate left is our Deputy Minister, Ms Lynn Spracklin. On my immediate right is Mr. Edward Kent who is our ADM for finances and virtually everything else such as policing and so on. Next to Mr. Kent is Mr. Fraser Drover who is the Director of Finance and General Operations.

I usually do not make an opening statement at these Estimates hearings. I usually leave it to Members to get on with it. I would like to compliment the Opposition House Leader for being here tonight and I am sure it is because he did such an excellent job in guiding a couple of bills through the House as acting Justice critic. Of course, he is now seconded here on a permanent basis to deal with Justice matters and I certainly look forward to his questions. Mr. Ramsay, I want to assure the hon. Member for St. John's East, will do an excellent job as always in these committees and I certainly do not suggest that he should not be here either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I appreciate your comments. Let me give the opportunity to Mr. Harris now, who indicated that he would like to put some questions to the Minister and his staff.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to take the opportunity of publicly congratulating your new Deputy Minister, Ms. Spracklin, whom I did congratulate privately on her appointment.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister, some to do specifically with particular line items in the Budget. I hate to start with such a mundane item, but being new to the examination of Estimates, I sometimes ask questions which may not be very insightful, but come up with different answers from different Ministers and perhaps the Minister can explain the difference between - and this is the estimates for the Minister's office, and I am comparing the departmental salary estimates in detail, where, in the detailed estimates, page 171 of the Estimates, shows $139,232 for Minister's office salaries, and yet on page 213 of the Estimates, line 1.1.01, the amount to be voted for salaries is $142,800, it is a slight difference, there were larger differences in other departments with different explanations; what is the difference here, why is there a $3,500 difference?

MR. DICKS: If you go back a few pages, page 167, you will see there are permanent and other adjustments in the amount of $4,432 to give you the total of $142,800, that appears there, although in the-

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. That is the figure that is in this year's estimates which is up from $148,300 last year. The $142 will be spent, I am told by Mr. Kent that is a modest adjustment taking into account some possibility of vacancy factor and so on like that; why they occur, frankly, I am not entirely sure, I do not know if Mr. Kent has a better explanation.

MR. HARRIS: Because there was a similar difference in the - well maybe Mr. Kent has an explanation, fine, but the Minister of Education had a similar difference, his was about $8,000 and he said that that was his car. Perhaps the Minister of Justice does not have a car and does not have that adjustment.

MR. DICKS: If you will notice in the next one for executive support, $57,471, I believe we are carrying that as a vacancy and in the general counsel position so some of these you will see an adjusted figure; most of them have to do with anticipated replacement or vacancy factors through the turn over of staff, that is certainly the case in executive support.

Beyond that, why does the $4,000 figure is there I have no idea. The salaries are fixed in the estimates, I do not know whether it has to do with any other benefits or if it has to do with an allotment for over time.

MR. HARRIS: That $8,000 that shows there as overtime and other earnings, that is the vehicle, is it?

MR. DICKS: I do not know how it is allocated but we do of course have an $8,000 car allowance so I expect that is it, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Maybe Mr. Kent can confirm that.

MR. KENT: Yes, Mr. Harris, that is correct. All the departmental salary accounts have either a plus or a credit in them for varying anticipations of turn over rates and vacancy factors.

MR. HARRIS: So, this is the fourth column (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: An estimate of vacancies in areas when somebody is not in. As I say, it was rather mundane, but I am kind of interested in the answers from time to time.

Again on staffing: On the permanent staff complement, Mr. Minister, page 171, I was not aware that you had a general counsel, I am just curious about that. Under Executive Support you have a Deputy and three assistants as well as a DPP below that, and then there is a general counsel position. Who is that?

MR. DICKS: That is John Cummings. John was a former ADM and then he was moved into the general counsel position some years ago and he is now back as ADM. So we still have the general counsel position, but the incumbent was made an ADM. The position is vacant right now.

MR. HARRIS: This position is actually vacant.

MR. DICKS: Yes, because we transferred the incumbent, John Cummings. The position was created some years ago when John was an ADM and they moved him into the general counsel position because he was mostly doing high level negotiations for Government on Hibernia most recently and so on like that. When we did some reorganization when Jim Thistle left, John was put back in the ADM position and we still have a general counsel position which we will probably fill because we need a senior counsel to be engaged in high level negotiations. We have the Churchill Falls negotiations ongoing as you know. Usually, the Province is engaged in some fairly significant high level discussions, interprovincial or else economic, where you need a senior lawyer who will probably be putting in a lot of overtime and dedicated to those types of tasks. John was doing that and putting in extensive hours in a position that was created specifically in recognition of that and we still retain the position.

MR. HARRIS: That position has been around for many years has it?

MR. DICKS: Since about 1986.

MR. HARRIS: Who else would have filled that position?

MR. DICKS: John was the first one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If I might, Mr. Harris, would you be kind enough, as you jump around, for other Members and maybe the media - I realize you have yourself well organized there - but would you say Departmental salary details, page and subhead, so it is easy to grab.

MR. HARRIS: I would be happy to do that, of course, and that particular information is on page 171, on the Permanent Staff Complement, Executive Support, the third position down.

Looking through the departmental staff estimates, or the staff detail, page 172 under the Civil Law Services, there is a Manager of Social Law. That is a new one on me. Perhaps, you could tell us a little bit about that.

MR. DICKS: Last year the Department was reorganized and in the Civil Law section we just had approximately twenty-two lawyers or so and there was no structure as such to it other than to have a director, John McCarthy of Civil Law, and above that the ADM, Civil, who had other responsibilities. At that time, it was deemed fit to organize our civil solicitors in the general government structure so you had lawyers who had been working in the area that would equate to the social departments of government, lawyers organized into the financial, governmental services and resource policy. So lawyers who would be advising those departments and working on those files essentially were grouped together. One lawyer was appointed from among those to be the director. This is the first time I have seen the term manager but it is essentially director and it carries a 5 per cent salary premium in recognition of the additional responsibilities for supervising the files. That is where that comes from.

MR. HARRIS: So that is actually a legal position. (Inaudible) Ms. Spracklin.

MR. DICKS: Yes, a position for a lawyer. Ms. Spracklin was Manager of Social Law.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Yes, Manager of Social Law which included Health, Education, Social Services and Labour. I held that position and have since been promoted so that position is vacant and will be filled as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Simms.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Lynn as well on her appointment. I congratulate belatedly, publicly, the appointment of Mr. Kent. And while I am at it I suppose I might as well congratulate Fraser. I am not sure when you were appointed Fraser but....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, and belatedly congratulate the Minister. Now, with all that out of the way, I have some questions of a policy nature more so than financial questions. I have considerable confidence in the financial competence of the Department having worked and trained the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Kent. So I will not have as many financial -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and having served as the acting Justice critic on a number of occasions in the past, as the Minister would know, I will not be asking financial questions too much, although I do have a couple. But there are some questions of policy that I would like to flick out to the Minister. He might take note of them. I will run down through them maybe, which is the easiest way, and then he can comment at his leisure, because I do not want to keep going back and forth all night long.

Perhaps he can give us an update on the status of the contract negotiations with the Federal Government with respect to the RCMP contract. Is the Minister still committed to maintaining both the RCMP and the RNC for Provincial policing? I presume he is but it might be good to hear it said again. I would like to hear whether or not he is aware or has heard of any problems in the RNC itself, morale problems, caused mainly by the negotiations, or lack thereof, or ongoing fuss with respect to negotiations. I do not have to elaborate, I am sure the Minister knows what I am talking about. There are obvious problems that have been expressed publicly but I would like to know if he seriously has any concerns about the morale in the Constabulary in particular. A lot of us do.

In addition to that, the position of Chief Electoral Officer has been vacant, I guess, since Mr. Whalen left. Does the Minister know when that position is going to be filled, and what process will be used? Will they be using the Public Service Commission, for example, to publicly advertise? Or will it be done by Cabinet appointment or what? Perhaps he can tell us that.

And I will just throw out one or two other ones and then I will stop and the Minister can respond - I do not want to pile it up too much there. Mount Scio House: I understand the Crown attorneys have moved out of that location, now moved down to Atlantic Place -which incidentally I suspect is a good move as they are closer to the courts. I presume they have. I ask the Minister in his capacity as a Minister of the Cabinet what is going to happen to Mount Scio House? Has the Government decided what it intends to do there? Does the Department sort of have any responsibility any longer? Is it just Public Works or what?

Just a couple of quick financial questions and then I will clue up, if I might. I am sorry I did not give you the pages of all those items but I guess I could have. The revenue from lotteries: In 1990-1991 the revenue was $19 million; 1991-1992 the revenue projected I think is $20 million? Does not seem like a lot, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) could you give -?

MR. SIMMS: Can I give you just one final question, then I can sit back and listen to you respond to all these things?

MR. DICKS: Okay, yes, go ahead.

MR. SIMMS: Maybe I am wrong. If I am then you just tell me. The final one is: the revenue from the Registry of Deeds. In 1990-1991 it was $7.8 million. Well, the projection actually I think in 1991-1992, is $9.5 million, which is a sizable increase. I wonder what it was in 1989-90, for example? I do not have that number myself at my fingertips but I am sure Ed does, or Mr. Kent. Maybe he could tell us. I am just trying to figure out how big a tax grab the Department of Justice has put on through the Registry of Deeds fees over the last couple of years.

I will leave it at that for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: I will try to answer them as briefly as the questions were posed, Mr. Chairman.

First of all the contract negotiations with the RCMP have been really troublesome, and to say frankly, the real problem in my view was, in part at least, the former Solicitor General, Mr. Cadieux. I say that not from any personal observations alone, but that is also the sentiments of other people who have met with him, Jim McCrae who is the Solicitor General of Manitoba, Ivan Messmer who is the Solicitor General for British Columbia, so it is not a partisan political comment because they are of other parties than the Liberal Party. Mr. Cadieux was singularly difficult to deal with and as it happened myself, Mr. Messmer, and Mr. McCrae, were asked by the other Solicitors General to try to settle the contract negotiations with Mr. Cadieux and we had several meetings with him. The best thing that has happened in the contract negotiations with the RCMP is that we have Doug Lewis, the new Solicitor General. I knew Mr. Lewis when he was Minister of Justice, then he was moved to Transportation, and now he is back as Solicitor General, which is essentially a legal function. Because of that I am very optimistic that the pace of negotiations will increase, and I expect that there is a significantly improved chance that we will get the thing settled. As long as Mr. Cadieux was there, I think, his stance and his tactics as he conveyed his instructions from his colleagues to us, any prospect for a negotiated agreement was very slight. I think with Mr. Lewis things have vastly improved because I think he is a fine, decent fellow and he will go back to Cabinet and probably put our position clearly and frankly. I did not have the confidence that Mr. Cadieux was doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. DICKS: I can tell you that there was recently a meeting in Vancouver with Mr. McCrae, Mr. Messmer, and Mr. Lewis, but I really cannot say what came of that, but I understand it was a good meeting all around. That was Monday past. I was invited to go but obviously I could not make it, and it could not be justified for me to go out there for one day. It was an informal meeting.

The contract negotiations with the RCMP essentially are stalemated. I have canvassed many times the amount of dollars involved but it could mean an increase in the RCMP contract of a minimum of 15 to 25 or 30 per cent. Those types of figures would be extremely difficult for the Province to find and it would mean an increase of possibly $5 million or $6 million. It is problematic for us, but I expect with Mr. Lewis at the helm we have some better prospects to negotiate something reasonable that I could bring into the House, or to my colleagues, and say, look, this is a reasonable request. Some of the positions the Federal Government have put forward are, I think, reasonable but certainly others are not. At the present time nothing is happening until Mr. Lewis gets a better handle on it, and I think we have to give him a period of time to do so. We are committed to having both the RCMP and the RNC as provincial police forces. They both police a significant portion of the Province. The RNC right now has approximately 350 members and the RCMP have about 420 dedicated to provincial policing. They have more staff on the Island but the ratios are different and the RCMP a significantly larger portion of the Island but that is made up by ratio. We are committed to both police forces, and for policy reasons have two police forces, because if there are difficulties with one you can always invoke the other to help out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there any plans to extend the RNC at the moment?

MR. DICKS: No, not at the moment.

Are there problems with the RNC morale? It is like everything else, I suppose. I hear rumours that there are problems with morale in the Opposition ranks, things like that.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) you should not -

MR. DICKS: The point I was going to make is that it is very difficult to pin down. I suppose you could say there are morale problems in any group, or whatever, but I do not think the question is whether or not there are morale problems so much as, are the police doing their job as well as would be expected under the circumstances? Frankly, I have not seen anything to indicate that any of Government's negotiations with the RNC over the past couple of years have caused any significant problems. In fact I have been very pleased with the manner in which the RNC has discharged their duties. I believe they are an excellent police force and they have done an excellent job.

It is very difficult for me to say whether or not there are individual morale problems or not. And I suppose when you are dealing with 350 members on any given day I am sure some of them are having a bad day as much as the rest of us. But I do not see anything in our relationship with the force that would lead me to believe that there are morale problems that would affect policing. In fact the salaries of the RNC have been raised significantly over the last couple of years as relative to the changes in pension. So, while on the one hand people may see a detriment, on the other hand you can see a significant benefit on the other side as well.

So I think in the long run these things balance out. And from the standpoint of policing I have no reason to believe that policing of the RNC areas is impaired for any reasons having to do with morale or otherwise.

The Electoral Officer: Mr. Whalen, as you know, retired, or resigned. Right now under the statute the appointment of a Chief Electoral Officer is the prerogative of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The decision has not been made as to if it will be filled or when. There is a new Elections Act being drafted and whether or not that would provide for a different method of selection I am not at this point able to say. But I know that Cabinet has not yet addressed that question, and whether it will be and how it will be filled I really cannot say yet. It is not my decision as you know, and would have to be a decision of Cabinet.

Yes, go ahead.

MR. SIMMS: Is there some question that (Inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: No. The point I wanted to make was there will be a Chief Electoral Officer, but I am not sure if the appointment will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or in some other method, and Cabinet has not yet made that decision. And it is not mine to make, so it is not my choice as to how to fill it.

Mount Scio House has been given over to Pippy Park for use as a headquarters. The lottery revenue - I need to check on that. Is that in our - I do not think that is in our estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Department of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is in the Department of Finance. We only regulate lottery revenue. In other words, we pass the regulations but essentially the majority of funds raised for lottery revenue comes into Finance vis-à-vis the Atlantic Lottery scheme, on which the Deputy Minister or the Secretary of Treasury Board - as you know, they sit on the committee. But what we do is, we have small licensing fees for bingos and things like this. So the $19 million that you are referring to is I think the payback from the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, rather than anything in the Department of Justice. So why the figures would be - the figures are close this year and perhaps those questions might be better addressed to the Minister of Finance and possibly Treasury Board.

Yes, excuse me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Our lottery licensing revenues from the fees we charge is $635,000. That is from the fees we charge. The payback comes into the general revenue from Atlantic Lottery Corporation and as I say that is not in the Department of Justice itself. That is in - Treasury Board, Lew White, the Secretary, sits on the board as does Gilbert Gill, the Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. POWER: Can I just ask the Minister while he is on lotteries a question? For a long time I think those lottery regulations have been much too stringent. I know when we brought in those regulations a long time ago they were designed primarily to prevent private shopkeepers and club owners from making a fortune on illegal lotteries, which they were doing, but I think in the process we went too far with it. We have made it downright difficult for a lot of - whether they are Girl Guide outfits, whether they are political organizations - to actually go out and do what is regularly charitable volunteer fund-raising. Is there any intention to lessen or reduce some of those regulations to make it easier for charitable organizations to raise money?

MR. DICKS: Yes. There is conscious effort. The real problem with the lottery licencing regulations is that they are not in very good order. I think the points you make are valid. For instance one that is often made is that in relation to, say, softball, if you are sponsored by one distillery you can go out and raise money - or not distillery, I guess brewery, or brewery group if you are sponsored by another one, softball tournament, you cannot, so in fact, a paper was recently passed through Cabinet that will change the regulations in some respects, so I am concerned about the inequities that are between sports organizations, but you do have a policy difficulty in point of view as to how far you should extend what is state licence gambling, and particularly in sports areas. Should you allow, you know, Princess Scuba Club, that does not compete in competitions to be able to raise money by virtue of selling tickets, so there has to be some control over it because it is a potential for fraud.

But we do have a lot of concerns; these organized commercial bingo halls are a real problem, we are changing those regulations as well; in fact what we have done with those is that we have only temporarily extended the licences, as I recently instructed the Department of Consumers Affairs, they have extended them to the end of March.

It ran out about the 20th of April so I consulted with them and have extended them to the end of July, but it calls for a gross return of $15 million but if you look at the experience on bingo itself, it is supposed to return 15 per cent to charity; the experience has been that since, I believe October of 1987, there has been over $11.25 million spent on bingo; there is a net loss to charity of $79,000, I think the figures are, so these bingos are a problem.

The reason it can be is that the fee charged by the people who own these bingo halls are excessive, for instance, I think $500 or $600 a night to use a hall, then if you have two bingos, they charge you $1,200 or $1,000, whatever the ratio would be, so it is a real problem you see, so the middle man or the middle group gets the money, so if you ask me if there are problems of what we are licensing, there certainly are; as a matter of fact, I have a meeting with Consumer Affairs tomorrow at 2:30 to get a briefing on the whole re-draft of the lottery licensing and regulations and in my view they need extensive work and we have had great difficulty in trying to come to terms with it.

The other thing being that the charities are not in favour of having their licences pulled because they make money by virtue of the sale of these strip tickets, Nevada tickets and so on, so we have to examine what a proper return to charity is and whether or not we should include both the direct return from the bingo, receipts as well as the other gambling that goes on there in terms of the selling of the strip tickets and another figure might be appropriate, but on the face of it most of these bingos are in violation; then you also have to consider the price structures, is $3,500 too much, plus, yet it may be just competition; maybe too many have them licensed and only a certain number of people in say, St. John's who will be going to bingo in any one night, so it is not a simple issue and it is very difficult to find a way to resolve it easily. But the sports thing: we are going to bring in an amendment having to do with anybody who is sponsoring a tournament that leads to a provincial or national championship and who will probably be able to run a lottery too to offset expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Sure.

MR. POWER: Is that like the Ferryland P.C. Association, which cannot raise money through a lottery? We cannot or, you are not supposed to, but, the Ferryland Senior Men Softball Team, if they want to go to PEI to a tournament, can raise money. I mean, the public has the ultimate control, because the public can choose to buy a ticket for a softball team or not buy a ticket, providing it is done within the regulations and I just think that there are a whole bunch of things out around that are quasi-charitable, not necessarily church oriented, but are regularly supported by the community and are now not allowed under the new regulations and I just think we really went too far when we did it.

MR. DICKS: Well these were the old regulations and I agree with you-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. POWER: Well, it is supported by the public in lots of ways, through volunteer -

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

MR. POWER: - we do not all have unions, unions do not donate to all polititcal campaigns.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not going to have committee members debate among themselves. We are here to question the Minister on Estimates primarily, but the Chair is of course very accommodating to Members, but I am not going to let Members debate among themselves I can assure you of that right now.

Has the Minister addressed all the questions?

MR. DICKS: I just want to finish on Charlie's point and I have one more to do with respect to them.

The first is that I agree with you; you know there are legitimate things that you would like to licence in individual circumstances. For instance, a Girl Guide Group locally might want to do it but the test prescribed is that you either have to be a legitimate charity or a church group or else, if you are a sports group it would have to lead to a provincial championship.

For instance, a group in my constituency or close by, a scuba club called the (inaudible), I know they are legitimate, in fact one of the fellows is an RCMP officer. I have known him for a number of years but he did not come within the regulations so he could not get a licence. They were trying to raise money to refill their tanks. A lot of these guys when there is a need to look for a body will go out and search. So, there is a genuine public interest in it but the trouble is when you try to draft a regulation that will be confined enough so as not to open up so much that we will have to give a licence to everybody, it is very difficult. I have looked at expanding it but frankly if you can give me any idea of how to do it, we will do it. But the lottery stuff is a difficult thing for us.

The other question was revenue from the Registry of Deeds: The increase there to $9.5 million from $7.8 million relates to increases in the base price of registration of deeds of conveyance. We raised the minimum from approximately $10 or $11 to $50 for registration of any conveyance and that has raised, I think, the $1.25 million of the dollars we are looking at there. So, I think in answer to Mr. Simms last question, most of that money is related to increase in the fees for the registration of deeds and there is also some monies coming from late registration fees or late filing fees for notices in companies and so on like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Aylward.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to sit with your Committee tonight. I would also like to congratulate the new Deputy Minister, Ms. Spracklin, and welcome her to her position. I also welcome the Minister and his officials.

I believe the Minister is doing a very honourable and respectful job in the position he is in. I think he has brought a great deal of effort to it and I believe there are many positive changes occurring within the Department.

I would like to just go through a few items and identify them through the estimates and maybe you could comment on a few of these for me.

In the area of correctional facilities: In Stephenville we have two facilities a women's centre and a men's centre. I think last year or a year and a half ago a computer programme was instituted into the men's correctional centre to help with literacy and literacy training, I think, for people within the system. I was just wondering if I could get the status of how that is going? If it is working out, or if it is under way and so on, to see where that is going. I thought it was a very good idea and I would like to see it happen in other institutions. I know they were pretty excited about it out our way at the institution itself.

Also in the area of community corrections: I would like if you could outline for me exactly what that entails? In our area we have the John Howard Society for example and I was wondering if that comes under that area? Does the Province have any involvement in the administration of the John Howard Society?

In Stephenville, we have a corrections course at the college that is also being offered to students who are trying to get into the corrections field. So, it has really become a centre for corrections in the Province actually in the last number of years.

The Victim Services under 4.2.06: I wonder if the Minister could possibly give us an update as to how that is going. I know I heard some comments made during the last week or two that there are some counselling services being offered for the first time, I believe, to victims and I would just like to see where that is heading. I think it is very positive that it is occurring and I congratulate the Department on being able to get that off the ground.

So, if the Minister could comment on a few of those items it would be appreciated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Aylward.

Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: Yes. Thank you.

The area of corrections is one that I think the Department has been justifiably proud of over the years. We have a very good correctional service and most people have a rough idea of how difficult a prison environment is to regulate. I think it is probably attributed to the (Inaudible) not in the people who work in the penitential service that we have not had a lot more difficulties than we have had. And if you follow the news in other parts of the country let alone around the world you know what difficult circumstances guards find themselves in, as well as prisoners who are sent there.

The emphasis in our system is on the aspect of rehabilitation. Because the first effort has to be to return individuals who have offended society back to society as productive members. The first thing you mentioned, the (Inaudible) system of computer instruction was, I think unveiled about this time last spring. The Federal Government contributed a significant amount toward acquisition of the system and basically supplied most of the equipment. It is computer assisted learning. Part of what you find in the prison system is that a lot of the people that are there are less literate than the general average. So part of our efforts to rehabilitate people is that when they leave they will have acquired some significant skills that can enable them to get a job, essentially.

So that system is in place. Part of it is administered as well and we work very closely with community colleges as you know - in Stephenville, you have mentioned. Also here in St. John's, the Cabot Institute and their instructors have taken a very active role in providing instruction to people. As well, to give you an example, in Goose Bay, Labrador, I was up there this January and one of the things that is done there is to instruct people in small engine repair, for instance, skidoos and so on, also to enhance people's personal skills as well as their job skills. You will find that generally in our correction system there is a great deal of emphasis on retraining and trying to help people learn something that will be a benefit to them.

The John Howard Society is supported by the Department of Justice with a $72,000 grant each year. They have approximately 1,000 clients that they help each year, we are told, and I met with them not too long ago and we went through their budget and some of their services. They are a very productive society and I think for the amount of money the Province invests we get a very good return.

I mentioned the community college. In Stephenville in particular it may be worthwhile noting that one of the changes we have made is that now it has both a male and a female facility for inmates. Part of the problem we have is that the female facility is running at a very low occupancy rate. It is able to take I think twelve or fifteen, and the average is about six. And weeks at a time there will be no one there. And we have fifteen staff, I believe it is. So from the standpoint of cost alone it is difficult to justify keeping the facility operating at maximum capacity. But the superintendent of the prison there, Mary Ennis, has recently been put in charge of the male correctional facility too. That was effective May 1. So I am pleased to report that because I believe she is the first superintendent in our system who is a female.

The other thing is Victim Assistance. This is something that has received a lot of attention over the years, in the last few years at least. We are pleased that in this year we were able to obtain money in the estimates to provide a programme. Essentially what we hope to do is to provide individuals on a regional basis to coordinate services. Because you have a lot of volunteer groups who are interested in providing services as well. I do not envisage that the Department of Justice is the repository of such wisdom that we can counsel people through difficult emotional situations which often accompany trials, particularly criminal trials for sexual assault. I think part of our role should be to make people aware of where these services can be obtained, and try to coordinate their availing of them as well as instructing them as to what they might find in the system. As well we hope to provide brochures to people that will be instructive as to what court is all about, how to comport themselves, and some essentials of the system.

So hopefully we will have that up and running. We have the job descriptions completed. In the larger St. John's area we will probably ask for proposals from the private sector to provide that service and we will have coordinators here in Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Oldford.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

MR. SIMMS: I do not know if the Minister brushed over one of the questions. I asked about the Registry of Deeds and the increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not listening.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, perhaps I was not.

MR. DICKS: No. I answered the question. I think you may have been engaged in another topic there but the increase in revenue comes essentially from increases in the fees for the registration of conveyances. The minimum charge was raised from approximately $10 to $50. We did not change the rate per $1,000. Take the base rate: to register any conveyance it is $4 per $1,000 so the difference on a $100,000 conveyance or deed would be insignificant. It might be $450 opposed to $410, let us say, plus $1 or so for each affidavit, but where you find the impact is that people who are registering one document instead of paying a fee of $12 would pay a fee of $50-odd, which frankly is probably a fair charge when you consider the protection that people acquire by registering a convenance -

MR. SIMMS: How many of those would be done in the run of a year?

MR. DICKS: Pardon me?

MR. SIMMS: How many of those would be done in the run of a year?

MR. DICKS: I am not sure, but I can tell you (inaudible) -

MR. SIMMS: Hundreds, thousands.

MR. DICKS: Oh, thousands and thousands. I could get the figure for you but let us put it this way, of the $1.5 million that we are raising, I would say about $1.25 million comes from that additional $50 fee alone. Divide $1.25 million by $50 and that will give you a rough idea. It is not only deeds but it is also mortgages, debentures, and all those sorts of things really. We had a little thing on releases of mortgage, I think there was a hiatus period.

MR. HARRIS: There was a little problem with that, if I may.

MR. SIMMS: Could I just finish?

MR. HARRIS: I know it is out of order, but if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like Mr. Harris to understand that his microphone was not on.

MR. HARRIS: Oh, thank you.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish my question.

I also asked the Minister, if he will recall, Mr. Kent perhaps might have the numbers from 1989-1990 revenue from the Registry of Deeds. Does he happen to have that number there?

MR. DICKS: No, we do not have it but we can give it to you from the other estimates though.

That is the bulk of it now, for instance -

MR. SIMMS: You can give it to me when?

MR. DICKS: Tomorrow.

MR. SIMMS: In the House you mean.

MR. DICKS: I have a copy of the old estimates up in my office and it would be in those.

I should say that is where the bulk of the money comes from. There are also some additional filing fees, I think we have a $50 late penalty as an extra charge if you fail to file corporate documentation by April 1, but by and far the vast bulk of it comes from the registration of documents in the Registry of Deeds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I just wanted to touch on three or four subheads and look at some of the figures in those subheads. On page 215, number 2.1.01 Civil Laws, they show in the revised 1990-1991 Budget the figure of $582,400 as provincial revenue and yet there is nothing included in 1991-1992 Estimates. I wonder what that figure represents?

MR. DICKS: Yes, what happened is that last year there was a figure budgeted of almost $2 million to pay the costs of the lawyer who represented Quebec in the water rights reversion case, I believe, it was. The Province took that case and lost it. When you lose a case the costs of the other side are often awarded to the winning party. So, in that case because Newfoundland lost -

MR. SIMMS: Who was the lawyer for the other side?

MR. DICKS: I do not know who the lawyer was. Jim Chalker was our lawyer. And I think it was a Quebec law firm. I could check it. But in any event they had claimed almost $2 million as an amount of taxation. We had put that in the estimates because that was our potential liability. We started at $1 million and I think we must have settled for around $1.4 million or $1.35 million. And the $600,000 roughly, you see there the $582,400, is a difference between what was allocated and the amount we were able to beat them down. So we beat them down by half a million dollars on their claim for costs.

MR. OLDFORD: Okay. Subhead 2.2.01 on page 217. You have increased your salaries under Criminal Law by $500,000, approximately. And you have reduced purchased services by about $850,000. Is there a relationship between those two?

MR. DICKS: Yes, very definite relationship. What happened last year was, you will notice that we had budgeted $1.8 million. We only spent about $1.5 million. I am just rounding the figures off to the nearest hundred thousand. The reason for that was we were unable to recruit lawyers in certain areas. It is very difficult to - we mentioned earlier about some of the vacancy factors - but it is often very difficult to recruit lawyers, particularly outside St. John's. The upshot of that is that if you have to pay members of the private Bar to do what staff lawyers would do you pay an expensive premium for it. So while we saved approximately $300,000 on salaries, you will notice that our professional services went from $500,000 to $1.15 million. So we saved about $300,000 there but on the other side we were up by about $650,000.

The reason we have reduced it this year is that we hope to be able to recruit enough people and thereby reduce our reliance on members of the private Bar which is more cost effective for the Department. So the two are directly related, and this year we have put up our salary estimate and put down our professional service, hoping to be able to retain the people we have and recruit to fill vacant positions.

MR. OLDFORD: Okay. Subhead 2.3.02, Legal Aid. Under the Federal contribution in your revised budget for 1990-1991 the Federal revenue that you are showing, the Federal contribution is $3,311,900. Even though the grants and subsidies have gone up in your 1991-1992 estimates, the Federal contribution is only $2.5 million. Could you explain that to me please?

MR. DICKS: Yes, and two points. One is that the Federal Government last year froze their participation in Legal Aid. They said that they would not pay any more in the Federal contribution to Legal Aid then they had paid in the fiscal year 1989-1990, I believe it was. It was frozen at that level. Before that they had participated by funding us 75 per cent of what money was spent on criminal law, 100 per cent of what was spent on immigration and 50 per cent roughly of what was spent on civil law. When you take that mix into account the Federal Government contributed approximately two-thirds of our Legal Aid budget. They froze it, and of course what that meant is any increase in Legal Aid would have to be funded by the Province.

So what you see here in the current year is that whereas last year we were able to manage the legal aid system with a budget of $4 million - well it was budgeted at $4 million, $3.9 million - we actually spent about $4.3 million. And the excess was mostly immigration, which we picked up 100 per cent from the Federal Government. But the Province's share of that was $1 million. This year we have upped it in the Budget by $500,000, from $3.9 million to $4.4 million. But the Province's contribution has almost doubled to $1.9 million, if you follow the figures across.

So really what is happening is the growth in Legal Aid is being funded solely by the Province at this stage, you know, the growth as opposed to the overall programme. The revenue last year was up somewhat because of the immigration being funded 100 per cent.

The other thing I should comment on legal aid is that the Province was well behind in terms of auditing its figures for legal aid and I think at one point we were two or three years behind in actually getting the amount of money that was owed from the Federal Government. Since Mr. Kent came on staff, I guess a year and a half or so ago, he has taken the problem in hand and legal aid is now up to date, so you know that was a factor as well because what was happening was, we were not getting our claims for process and audit and we just were not receiving the Federal contribution.

I think at one point in 1989, we had not received the 1985 contribution or something in that order; we were about three or four years behind in that case, so we have done quite a bit on the revenue side to improve our systems and also to bring in the revenue on a more timely basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Oldford. Before I give the floor to Mr. Ramsay, I would ask that one of the committee Members move the minutes of May 7th, please.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), that went on that night and just that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what you are basically looking at, Mr. Harris, is something that has gone in Estimates for a great number of years; these are usually just the minutes because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of course, we use Hansard and the transcript carries every word.

MR. HARRIS: I noticed that the 10:20 adjournment, takes into account all the extra questions that the Vice-Chair was trying to get in at the end, so I guess that it is sufficient to note that circumstance.

MR. SIMMS: I did not even get a chance to say 'nay.' Can you have Divisions in Committee?

MR. HARRIS: I have not had the experience of the Speaker of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, I would like to say, which I should have done earlier, that the vice-chair, Mr. Charlie Power, the hon. Member for Ferryland, joined us about thirty seconds late, but I understand he had a problem getting down from the Southern Shore, so Mr. Power, thank you.

Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We welcome Mr. Minister and his officials here tonight and although I do not know, Ms. Spracklin I do say to you that I am sure that the faith and support given to you in your appointment, a well earned appointment I understand from speaking with people in the legal community, will be borne out in the future.

Also to Mr. Kent, I might add that in the past you have been very corporative during these estimates proceedings in having the figures right at your behest and were always very forthright in providing information for the Minister to answer the questions.

The other gentleman I do not know either we may have had the opportunity in the previous estimates committee to meet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Previous life.

MR. RAMSAY: - previous life, yes. Mr. Minister, I just have a few things within the body of the estimates. If you will remember the Opposition, whom I have just provided with copies of the estimates -

MR. SIMMS: It is the Budget I wanted, but it is okay.

MR. RAMSAY: Oh, I see. In the past, I did often mention purchase services as something that might possibly be a way that we could save money I guess, as a Government, and I have often been of the opinion that there is a certain amount of purchase service that has to be done in a given year to make sure your equipment is maintained at a a high level of repair and that replacement does not cost you more and more down the road.

I note for the record a certain spot which has a significant amount of purchased services. On page 214 in the estimates I note in 1.2.02 an amount of $168,300 which is significantly below the budgeted amount of last year, although the expenditure last year was not that high, it was $130,000. I also bring your attention to a decrease in purchased services in the Sheriff's Office, which I understand may have an explanation, something to do with the administration of that, and in various other places throughout. Maybe in going through you could highlight just what services are purchased outside of Government and to what end. And then maybe a better understanding of how come these are important expenses and why they should continue in the manner in which they are slated in this Budget document.

That is all I have right now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Ramsay, purchased services covers a broad category of evils. For instance in our criminal end, and where we are dealing with lawyers for example, the purchased services there would be professional services and in that area, frankly, dealing with lawyers it is cheaper to have permanent staff than it is go out to the legal community and ask them to do it on an hourly basis. So to that end I would probably favour diminishing the purchased services and upping the salary account, because I think the cost benefit to Government would be positive.

The other one you mentioned there, 1.2.02, Administrative Support, is printing, I am told, and that was less because we have less printing requirements. But generally what we try to do is balance two factors. One is that in many cases we are party to union agreements, so we cannot contract out services contrary to collective agreements. But in areas where we do have a legitimate right to determine whether we try to get it done in-house or outside we will do a cost benefit analysis. One area where we have been able to make some improvements is at the Penitentiary, for example. The food there is contracted out by I think Versa Foods or one of the large - is it Versa or...?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a combination of companies across the Province.

MR. DICKS: Yes, a combination of companies. And come to think of it there is a small one in Corner Brook, a little restaurant, that provides it. And it is cheaper to do that in some of our facilities, just have someone to bring the food in.

Sheriff's Office, which was the other one you mentioned, purchased services there. That was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, that was last year. We had to pay to get the juror's list done. So sometimes what you see in purchased services can be misleading because there is sometimes -

MR. RAMSAY: It fluctuates according to the....

MR. DICKS: Yes, one time expenses. So it is a category that in our Department is probably not equivalent to what you would find in Transportation or Works and Services, where they contract out for quite a bit of their engineering work and design work and so on like that. But your point is well taken. We do a cost analysis on each item where we have an option to determine whether we should hire people permanently when we may not need them on that basis just for singular transactions.

MR. RAMSAY: (Inaudible) just one more, Mr. Chairman, with regards to these support enforcement services. I deal with quite a number of constituents who are clients of the Support Enforcement Agency and as the hon. Member for Humber East often focuses on this programme, I just wonder what kind of analysis is ongoing as to the capability of the Support Enforcement Agency, and just how efficient it operates, and how good a service it does provide to the individuals served by the agency. Insofar as a quick turnaround I guess in the case of spouses who habitually are avoiding the judgements that come in for attaching maintenance payments from a variety of sources. If they change profession, if they go from one job to another or they move from unemployment on it just throws the whole system right out of whack. I wonder is there anything in the administration of the Support Enforcement Agency that may improve that area?

MR. DICKS: Well, the Support Enforcement Agency has been a real success story in a number of ways. First of all, as you know the payment of maintenance orders across the country was very delinquent when the Support Enforcement Agency was set up a couple of years ago, if my memory serves me correctly of all the maintenance orders given in the Province only 15 per cent were being adhered to. Last year, if my memory serves me correctly, that default rate had been - we assumed the default rate was about 80 per cent to 85 per cent - reduced to 40-odd per cent. At the present time the payment rate is 78 per cent. So, we have reduced the delinquency rate, we have turned it around in fact. If in fact before only 15 per cent were paying now we have only approximately 22 per cent not paying. So, it has been a very successful programme and it is something that we may look at expanding in certain ways. In the meantime, the caseload has increased in the last year from 2,000 cases to 3,000 cases. Now that may be misleading. That does not mean they have 50 per cent more work, because if we have improved the payment it is a lot different than going after delinquent accounts. So, that does not necessarily transpire into requests or a need to expand it in terms of the number of people we have there. That figure is increasing and we are adding to it at the rate of about seventy-five per month.

Overall the Support Enforcement Agency notwithstanding, individual complaints relate to certain files, because no matter how good we are in that aspect there are some people you are never going to collect from because they are not working, they have no assets, and they have no intention of paying besides. But, in general terms where the money can be obtained I think they are doing a very good job.

I do not know if that answers your question, Mr. Ramsay, but for example in 1990 the Support Enforcement Agency collected $5 million. There were some complaints at one time about the telephone service, that it was hard to get through there, but we have a toll free number, as you know, and we put some money last year into changing telephone systems so that messages would be recorded and returned and since then, I think, quite a number of the complaints have been diminished. There is concern over the turnaround time, let me put it that way, for the certainty of people getting money and service we are probably doing as good a job as can be expected on that end of things, not to say at some times we could have done a little better but I think that is one thing that is working very well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Power.

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have one general question for the Minister and one very particular question.

One of the basic things, I guess, that keeps all our society together is that under the law everybody is supposed to be treated equally and fairly and there is not supposed to be a two-tiered system for sure or any tiered system. One of the cynical things that has happened in Newfoundland and probably in other Provinces of Canada as well is that some people have lost faith in our justice system. I think the Hughes Commission here, the whole Mount Cashel thing, the Ontario police coming in and investigating what happened up at the Lester Hotel, I think Chief Justice Hickman's incident of being investigated and being suspended for a period of time, I think all those things cause some individuals to begin to lose faith in our justice system. I would not want the Minister to give a long drawn out speech but I think it is important that people have confidence in it.

I would like to ask the Minister: Is he confident himself now, that at least in the Newfoundland judicial process those kinds of things are in the past and that we will have a pretty fair justice system in the future?

MR. DICKS: You would have to answer yes and no to the question because there are really two parts to the justice system. One is the process. I think in point of process you are not going to find a better system than the system that has been devised over the last thousand years in the English speaking world, if you compare it. We have basically an adversary system where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In other systems, such as the French system you have to prove yourself innocent. So, of the two principles I think we have espoused the better one from the point of view of individual liberties. If you work in point of process I think our system has good process and it is difficult to fault it. Along with that process comes a need, as I say, that justice seem to be done, and that really raises the question of perception. What happens, to take an individual case, that is not only that you do a good job, and do it properly, but that you be seen to have done it. To take a recent example of the police investigating themselves: the reason the OPP was called in, which was one of the things you mentioned, was not because I did not have confidence that the RNC would do a good job, but I think the problem was, even if they did a good, because the police force in this case was investigating its own members, people would assume that a good job had not been done. In point of process and perception sometimes you have to address that and make sure that the process being followed is completely objective and will withstand public scrutiny. In most cases it is as important that it be seen to be done as in fact it is done. I have complete faith in the system of justice we have. Beyond that you have to recognize that every system of justice functions with individuals. The Department of Justice itself employs about 1700 people. As I mentioned, we have 350 constabulary officers, we have another 400 and some RCMP. We have members of our staff and you have the judges, and so on, like that. Because the system is good and works well, and there has not probably been a better one devised, does not mean that everyone who has a function in that system is the best person, or can withstand absolute scrutiny, so you have human failings that are understandable and you have, I suppose, from time to time, people who act below a certain standard of behaviour and we try to tolerate the normal human frailties that people have but beyond that there is a system and a standard of conduct you expect and really have to get people to adhere to. To that extent we will always have problems with an individual who does not come up to the mark. We will have police officers who will be charged with theft or sexual assault and who will be convicted and go to jail, but because individuals within the system fail should not cause people to lose confidence in the system. If anything, when people are arrested, tried, and found to have done something wrong that should restore their confidence because, to an extent, it shows that the system of justice, if not entirely self-correcting, at least has the ability to scrutinize itself. From that point of view I do have a lot of confidence in our system and I think we have to recognize that within it the people who work there have greater and lesser degrees of integrity, and so on like that, but I think they are generally up to the mark.

MR. POWER: Could I ask the Minister a question on the Hughes Enquiry which he does not have to answer. How much money has it cost, when will we get the final report, and will the final report be made public even with all the ongoing court cases there? Is that going to happen or not?

MR. DICKS: First of all the Hughes Commission has cost about $2.5 million. The exact figure is, I think, about $2,582,000 or something. There may be a few odds and ends to clean it up, but it is probably going to come out to about $2.5 million, give or take $100,000 or so. The second thing is I expect Mr. Justice Hughes will be here on the 29th to deliver the report. Following that I will have to bring it to Cabinet because, of course, it effects other Government Departments, and to allow Government Departments a chance to scrutinize it. Once that is done we will release it as soon as possible. The only additional matter I will have to consider is whether or not there may be anything in the report that is specific to individual trials which are still outstanding and then we may have to consider if that would prejudice those trials and if we should keep the report back, or if there was some method by which we could delete those portions. We will, to the maximum extent possible, make the report public.

MR. POWER: One final, and it should be a very brief question. I remember one time sitting around the Cabinet table finding out that the Sheriff of Newfoundland was making a very decent salary and a very hefty salary on fees besides. It was something like twice the Premier's salary the year that I saw it. I think that system was rectified.

Has it been rectified so that the Sheriff now makes a normal income?

MR. DICKS: Oh, yes. The whole question of fees in the court system has been corrected. I think we had one registrar who made $250,000 one year, which is probably three times what the Premier of the day made, so the system of fees is one that goes back eons. What it was, the state paid a very low salary but they collected from the individual litigants and that has been changed. What we have done is all fees now are paid into the general revenues. The only exception I should say is, that is for the Sheriff's office and are people who are permanent employees. We might find incidences of deputy sheriffs in small places who do it on an ad hoc basis and who are paid a fee. If you need to get a writ served in Glovertown or Woody Point you might have to pay somebody locally to go out - but those rates are controlled - and they charge you a certain amount for mileage and what not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: They have been there for years in most cases. They are not political appointees. I mean, I think the Sheriff gets them. As a matter of fact we tried to formalize a little more. A lot of these people have been out there for years so last year we organized a training session for them which cost about $15,000 and I went out to Gander and spoke with them. They were there for about three days. But mostly they are just people in a community.

MR. SIMMS: They got their monies worth when you went out there, that is for sure.

MR. DICKS: I had a group in the other day and it is not something you can readily get someone to do. You know in a small community you do not want to be walking up to your neighbour and handing him or her a writ. So, they do provide a service and they are doing something that a lot of people find distasteful as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that the Chair was complaining the other night that he had lost the protection of this hon. Member but I am glad to see that the Chair is protecting me nonetheless despite the efforts of Mr. Simms to be as vigorous as the one he is replacing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will not tolerate that Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

On the subject of fees, Mr. Minister, Mr. Simms was asking about the fees for registration, and your explanation was that the basic fee went up from $10 to $50 and, of course, this has had a big effect on some single documents that have to be registered whether they be releases or whatever, and in some cases it may be four or five releases or quick claim deeds or tidying up some of our pretty nasty titles that we have around. It strikes me that was a fairly big increase for the single documents that may be deeds of confirmation or whatever. In some case it could be four or five of these things having to be registered with one title and that struck me as a rather serious increase. I know there was a problem with the lack of notice. I think the Minister was trying to explain when Mr. Simms was questioning that that would be cleared up by putting a grandfather type clause on older releases. So, that strikes me as a very big increase there, 400 per cent or whatever, a four times increase for these minor deeds, if we can call them that.

In another area of fees, one of my colleagues at the Bar sent me a list of all the fees that were increased, the old and the new, which I do not have with me tonight, but particularly the Sheriff's fees, the fees for execution and enforcement of judgements. There were a lot of increases that go there and these end up getting paid. People think they can go ahead and do these things because nobody will notice these are just legal fees or lawyer's fees. But, in the area of collections, if the court is involved or the lawyer is involved in collection from debtors, it is the debtor, the poor old fellow or person who cannot pay his debts who gets nailed with these fees ultimately because they are all tacked onto the bill.

MR. DICKS: Or the rich old age person who will not.

MR. HARRIS: Or the rich old person who will not. I think it is probably fair to say that the people you are chasing after with collections are not the rich old people who will not pay their bills. If you get to that extent, where you have collection agencies running through and doing these things, can you justify those increases? They were massive increases, in some cases from $2.00 to $50.00. For example, $2.00 to $40.00 for execution orders, fee increases of that nature that were nominal before but are now substantial.

MR. DICKS: In calling them nominal you put your finger on the point. I think they were nominal and they were not increased for twenty years or more, and I think they did not reflect the cost of the Sheriff's office in carrying out these functions. As you know to properly do an execution order on a house you have to go out and attach it to the premises and so on. I know the Sheriff's office searches were increased from $2.00 to $25.00, but we changed that. Remember how you would do it, $2.00 for each name? I used to go back three years, or whatever, and now it is not $2.00 to $25.00 because it might be $6.00 to $25.00, for example, because it is on one particular property. The execution orders went from $5.00 to $25.00, so I think to start with, the fees were reasonably low. The justification for it in my view is that the Sheriff's office, and you may see it less in St. John's, but when I practised in Corner Brook if I had to close a transaction today I would call the Sheriff's office in St. John's and they would not give me a Sheriff's certificate as of today. They would only give it to me when they received the letter. What I would have to do to close the transaction that day was to get the deed into St. John's and register it. I had several instances where between the time you tried to get your deed registered and the time you got the Sheriff's certificate a execution order may have been issued. In fact I got caught on one transaction like that myself so there is a difference as to where you practice in the Province as to what it is. If there is a justification for the fee increases what it is, is, we have put a lot of money into computerizing the Sheriff's office and we are getting to the point where you can walk into Corner Brook or other parts of the Island and have immediate entry to the computer and get a read-out of all the ones on the Island. It was generally easier in St. John's because the Sheriff's office in St. John's kept record of the ones that were outside but did not work the other way. In Corner Brook, and in Gander you did not have access to the ones in here. I think they are substantial increases but they reflect the fact that over the years they were not increased. For instance, at the time we did this we did an analysis in Wisconsin where they charged $12.00 to $15.00 to do a search and we were still charging $2.00 and we were bringing in new computer equipment and so on like that.

MR. HARRIS: Is the fee set now on a cost recovery basis, or user pay basis? Is that the theory or is it still a service in other words?

MR. DICKS: It still is a service. We will collect revenue of $425,000 from the Sheriff's office and this year we are allocating $755,700, so it is approximately a little better than 50 per cent, perhaps 60 per cent, so it is still not completely recovering the cost of the Sheriff's office.

MR. HARRIS: But that includes the cost now of the Sheriff serving jury lists or serving jury summonses for criminal trials and all other aspects of the Sheriff's office?

MR. DICKS: It does. That is right, which, by the way, is also a service to the Bar. They are not charged for that. If you elect a trial by judge and jury the defendant is not charged for doing that.

MR. HARRIS: I would have to disagree there is a service to the Bar.

MR. DICKS: The service is to the public.

MR. HARRIS: I suspect that it is a service to the accused who is entitled to a jury trial.

MR. DICKS: The point I am making is that when you speak in terms of service and cost recovery I think you have to take it as a public service and not only as a service to the individuals who are going to use it at any particulare point in time.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, that is what I say. The whole administration of justice requires this type of activity and -

MR. DICKS: Sure, and the public benefits from that as well.

MR. HARRIS: Why are you picking on St. John's in terms of cost recovery of policing services? I mean, one is symbolic I suppose, the traffic cop down on the corner of Prescott and Duckworth. But the Regatta, for example. Surely crowd control, if there are thousands of people together for whatever the event is, the policing of that event and the policing services, we are not talking here about directing traffic. We are talking about crowd control. The fact that there is a massive number of people together may require a little bit more of a police presence. And why should that be a municipal cost as opposed to the general cost of delivery of policing services? Law and order, if you will, or generally keeping public safety and security at events or where people gather for whatever reason.

MR. DICKS: Well, if I could... I'm sorry, are you finished (Inaudible)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: To start with, we are not picking on St. John's, this is a Province wide policy. The only thing that was unique in St. John's was the traffic cop at the Prescott Street intersection. And frankly if we are going to do it at the Prescott Street intersection we should do the West Street in Corner Brook, Main Street in Stephenville, and - what is the main street in Grand Falls, High Street? If you are going to do it there for St. John's you should do it for every municipality. And not only that, but St. John's has sixteen or fifteen municipal enforcement officers And you do not need a PhD to direct traffic. It is not something that is made out and should not result in any additional -

MR. HARRIS: That is a slur on Frank Miller.

MR. DICKS: Oh no, Frank was an exceptional individual. But what I am saying to you is that any person could be trained to direct traffic at the Prescott Street intersection. So what I am saying is that it has been seen or been portrayed by certain people as additional cost to the City of St. John's and it is not that. What we said to them was if you for some reason want the Constabulary to continue to do it we would have to recover our costs. Because we cannot justify doing it for one municipality and not the others. So our suggestion was that they can train - they have their own people on staff whom they can train. So there is no need for the municipality to incur additional cost. So from that point of view, yes, that was a particular measure in St. John's, but that was only because St. John's is the only area in which it was provided. And I do not see that taxpayers in the rest of the island should subsidize municipal traffic direction in St. John's.

The second thing is that the item of police cost recovery is an item that is Province wide, that is not only St. John's. For instance, it applies to a rock concert in Grand Falls and festivals elsewhere in the island. But you have to recognize that there are a number of criteria before we apply that policy. The first is that the event must be revenue generating. So if something is being done for which there is no charge there will be no charge if there is extra cost of policing. Note I do not say that it is profitable, that it has to show profit, but is revenue generating. So there is an ability to collect money toward it.

The second thing is that... revenue generating....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The other thing too is it is only our additional costs of policing. It is not our regular staff that we have on on any given day. St. John's will benefit from this because with our shift changes at the RNC we will probably have an increase from thirty members on during the day to approximately forty-eight, because we are shifting them from the back shift at night to the day time. So as of yet we have not quite determined what if any additional cost there would be.

Now as for crowd control: I would expect that our crowd control could probably be maintained by our normal complement of police but last year for example we had to recall eighty police officers on overtime and double time to come in, and what a lot of them were doing is standing at barricades for most of the day saying go here go there. These are the sorts of things that could be done by volunteers. Part of what this will do is have groups address what is really a police service. The other thing too is that when you are not paying for something it is very easy to demand or expect that you will be given this, that or the other thing but at the same time I think some of these services now people have to look at and say because we had to pay the police to do it perhaps we can provide it ourselves or volunteers will do it more efficiently.

MR. HARRIS: One final question: The Public Utilities Commission in its late hearings would attract interveners and these interveners mostly did not have funding for representation. I know the Federation of Municipalities used to have Mr. Hutchings in Corner Brook for many years and Noel Clarke and others, I did some occasionally myself over the last couple of years. I notice you have the office of the consumer advocate here in your Justice Estimates on page 231 with no salary unit but professional services of $85,000, is that to pay people to act as interveners or is that something else?

MR. DICKS: No. I can probably clear that up. At the time this was looked at that amount really should have been in salaries. What we intend to do is to hire a consumer advocate representative and we have in fact in the past week or so conducted interviews for people to apply for that. But that figure should be moved up into Salaries and should not have come under Professional Services.

MR. HARRIS: My point was going to be that is not something you can do on an adhoc basis you do have to have some expertise and experience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister and Mr. Harris.

Mr. Simms.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Getting back to some questions asked by the Member for LaPoile on Purchased Services, 1.1.01.06, page 213, the Minister's Office, Purchased Services 90/91; $4,700 budgeted, revised $10,200. On what was that spent?

MR. DICKS: I do not know exactly. That was Purchased Services, for example: when we took office, the amount of purchased services was cut dramatically. For instance the previous Minister, in her last year spent $12,000 in purchased services; when we took office we reduced it significantly. That pays for things like meals when you have to entertain people, meetings that you have to arrange when you are travelling, conferences and things like that, so it is a mixed bag of different things, but that figure is significantly below in most departments what was spent or allocated by the previous Government.

MR. SIMMS: But it is also three times almost what you budgeted?

MR. DICKS: Yes, and $2,000 below what was spent.

MR. SIMMS: So, why would that have been?

MR. DICKS: I beg your pardon?

MR. SIMMS: Why would it have tripled?

MR. DICKS: It was an estimate that was not realistic.

MR. SIMMS: And this year you have estimated $4,700 again?

MR. DICKS: I beg your pardon?

MR. SIMMS: I said this year you have estimated $4,700 again, even though the last time it was not realistic?

MR. DICKS: Well considering that allocation, frankly it is unrealistic as well. Look, some Ministers do not because of the nature of their portfolios, but other Ministers are called on to entertain, have more meetings and travel more. In fact this year my travel is up significantly because of the RCMP negotiations; I had trips to Vancouver, Ottawa and so on. These are the best estimates that the Department does, if anything, we have been excessively modest in determining what amounts are appropriate.

Frankly, my own estimate is the whole thing should be about $12,000 if a Minister is going to do a lot of travelling, and going to have a lot of meetings out of the Province in particular, and if you are going to have meetings here as well.

MR. SIMMS: Sorry. Did the Minister say the estimate should be $12,000 and not $4,700?

MR. DICKS: Yes, you know it is a blanket, it is an allocation for the Department and if you look at all the ones between the different departments - you see these are not ones that I particularly make up myself, but it is almost similar for all the other departments.

If you look at when the previous Government was in power, I mean significantly more was spent that we have spent. I frankly do not think that $4,700 is all that realistic.

MR. SIMMS: I notice the Minister keeps coming back to the previous Administration, but of course that is not the question I asked; why was it tripled, that is the question, simple and straightforward, why would it be tripled?

MR. DICKS: Why would it be tripled? It was estimated as I said, because the estimate was unrealistically low.

MR. SIMMS: So does that mean this year's estimate is unrealistic then in that area?

MR. DICKS: Yes, in my view. The other thing to do is, to generally look at the Budget of the Province as a whole -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not tripled, but roughly doubled.

MR. DICKS: It is roughly doubled, yes, doubled.

MR. SIMMS: Two and a half.

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: So the Minister said this estimate is unrealistic; I wonder, are there any other estimates in his Department that he thinks are unrealistic or is it just that one?

MR. DICKS: It depends, in the course of the year you see, what is estimated at the outset of the year is different from what happens during the course of the year. For instance, if you look at the RCMP, if we get a contract we have allocated the same for this year, that could be anywhere from three to five to ten million dollars higher, depending on what the final outcome is, so, if you go through it item by item, it could be as well.

The same thing with purchased services for legal services and so on like that. You have to recognized that they are estimates and you know -

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Well of course we saw an example of that in last year's Budget, the estimate was a $10 million surplus and it ended up with a $120 million deficit, so I guess it can happen as you say.

MR. DICKS: Yes, but you will notice that last year was the first time that the Department of Justice came in on budget-

MR. SIMMS: There were l4 other departments that did not follow your lead.

MR. DICKS: In any event, I take some pride, and I speak for the people who are here, last year was the first year the Department of Justice, in living memory, came in on budget, and the first time in living memory it did not have to go back for a special warrant, which is unusual and I do not say we will do it again this year. I take absolutely no credit for that.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other questions.

What is the status on the gun issue for the RNC? Is that up in the air now because of the negotiations or anything? Was there suppose to be some kind of a trade-off, as I recollect, in the negotiations? What is exactly happening on the gun issue? You know the one I am talking about, without elaborating.

MR. DICKS: There is no trade-off. We do not trade guns for money or anything like that. We are not in that type of business. What happens with the police force is that you have to do an ongoing evaluation of what is necessary for the security of the public and the members themselves. There was an arbitration this year dealing with salary negotiations and other things. One of the issues that comes up every time we get in discussions with the RNC, as you know, is whether or not they should carry side arms and have total access to firearms. The last time the RNC put it on the table the arbitrator said: I do not have jurisdiction to deal with that. That has to be a policy matter for Government. He made some general recommendations notwithstanding, that is to increase the number of cars that would be available in which weapons would be sealed in the trunk. If my memory serves me correctly I think we had roughly three vehicles that were there and that was increased to, he said, seven or eight. We reviewed the whole thing and what we decided was that we probably should equip each vehicle. If you are going to have seven or eight and you have eighteen vehicles, or fifteen vehicles on shift you may as well have them all. These are street patrol vehicles, by the way, and not just the ordinary vehicles that are used. The arbitrator required as well that we provide the police with bulletproof vests, kelvar, these lightweight things. It has nothing to do with the monetary issue. The police will not carry side arms but it is something we have to look at and I would not rule it out. At some point or other we may have to do it, depending on the level of violent crime.

MR. SIMMS: So, is it done now then? Do they have the guns they are suppose to have in the cars?

MR. DICKS: I do not think we have gotten them in yet. We do not have all the bulletproof vests, but in another week or so we hope to have the weapons available.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister is also responsible for consumer affairs, of course. We have not really touched on that area tonight but I have a question, perhaps of a parochial nature, but perhaps I will be permitted to ask anyway. It is very unusual for me to do that. The Department closed out the Consumer Affairs offices at Grand Falls and Goose Bay, I believe, but certainly Grand Falls is one I am familiar with. I want to ask the Minister if he can give me some statistical information. I do not know if he has it at his fingertips. If not, maybe he can table it under Answers to Questions in the House tomorrow, or something like that. It seems to me I recollect a couple of years ago, when the previous administration was there, that there was a study done at the time by the Senior Expenditure Review Committee and in that study my recollection was that if there was a Consumer Affairs office to have closed in central Newfoundland the one that had the less activity was the one located in Gander as opposed to the one located in Grand Falls. Therefore the Minister would understand my surprise when the announcement was made that the Grand Falls office would close. In fact I am researching it now, because I think I have a copy of that report, which showed that information. At the time the previous administration decided not to close either office. If the Minister has some stats, or some information that shows comparably why one office or the other would have been closed I would appreciate hearing it.

That is a representation from the Member, I guess, as well as the Committee. While he is flicking through that, if he would like, under Consumer Affairs, and I might as well stick with a couple of questions I have under Consumer Affairs which he is also responsible for. Some time ago I think there was some kind of an indication given, either by the Minister or his colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, that the Government was considering bringing in some method for controlling, or regulating, gasoline prices in the Province. I presume they are working together on it or something. Maybe he could tell me where that is now because it seems to me that was quite a while ago, a considerable while ago as a matter of fact. And the other question I wanted to quickly ask is the consumer's advocate on PUB that Mr. Harris referred to; how long has that position been vacant now? Anybody know offhand?

MR. DICKS: Do you want me to answer all three questions in that order?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, okay.

MR. DICKS: The Consumer Affairs offices: part of what happened was the Department had to save funds. In the normal course of things no one likes to close out an office or diminish service, and it was an unfortunate aspect we had to choose in our Consumer Affairs department where we would save money. We felt that the only thing we could do in the central Newfoundland area was consolidate on a regional basis. And if my memory serves me correctly the person in Grand Falls had retired. But the analysis that was done showed that there was more activity at the Gander office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, I should have that available. Ed, can you have it ready for me to table tomorrow? Yes, it is no problem, I will get you those figures. The second thing is, on regulating gas prices, the Minister of Energy and I have met with the oil companies on a number of occasions. We have had our staff working on it, we have a paper that is going to go to Cabinet dealing with various alternatives as to what if any regulation might be appropriate.

The third thing, office of Consumer Advocate: The office has never been vacant because the office was only created in the PUB Act last year. What happened was there was a consumer representative appointed as a commissioner of the Board of Public Utilities. So there never was a consumer advocate as such.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) other guy in the Department (Inaudible) after Andy Wells.

MR. DICKS: No, we hired Brian Casey to represent the Department on an ad hoc basis until we are able to fund the office.

MR. SIMMS: So when did he retire from the position (Inaudible)?

MR. DICKS: No, he did not retire. We just hired him on an agency basis to do a hearing, to appear on one hearing.

MR. SIMMS: One case?

MR. DICKS: One case, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, so since you created the position there has been nobody in the position, is that the - ?

MR. DICKS: That is right.

MR. SIMMS: And that is about a year?

MR. DICKS: No.

MR. SIMMS: Oh. You said last year.

MR. DICKS: The PUB Act was passed last summer, I believe it was, I am not sure when it was proclaimed. There was no consumer advocate position, it was established by statute. And if my memory serves me correctly it may have gone through last June. I am not sure when the proclamation date was. June, was it? Anyway, some time last year. I would have to check.

MR. SIMMS: So it is nearly a year.

MR. DICKS: It is nearly a year. No, it may have been earlier. I am trying to think. The appointment of Gordon MacDonald expired February 15. Maybe it was January or February of last year. But in any event, we intend to fill that position.

The other thing to recognize is that we have been trying to balance the timing of it. Because the other thing too is that the activity at the Public Utilities Board has decreased significantly because of the lessening of jurisdiction, and the absence of jurisdiction now, over Newfoundland Telephone. It is basically now only Newfoundland Light and Power. There will not be another hearing until the fall. But at the same time we expect the consumer advocate to intervene at hearings of the CRTC on cable applications, possibly, and telephone applications and so on like that. So I guess to sum it all up, there has been a moderate - it is not the most urgent thing on our agenda. We are looking at our overall salary estimates to see when the best time to fill it is. But I expect we will have it filled within the next month or month and a half.

MR. SIMMS: How many staff are down there by the way at PUB now?

MR. DICKS: PUB? There are two full time commissioners. Mr. MacDonald retired, we will have to appoint a third. There were six part time positions of which we have filled four. One has retired so there are three. They are just used as required. And beyond that I do not know -

MR. SIMMS: Staffing.

MR. DICKS: Staffing, yes. How many more staff do we have at PUB?

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of them were transferred to the Transportation (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: A number of the ones who were down there were transferred over to Transportation because of changes in the Motor Carrier Act. And I am not entirely sure. Is it six or nine? Does that number sound right? Fraser, do you have the number there? We can get that number for you.

MR. SIMMS: My point is, Mr. Minister, if it is between six and nine for argument sake or whatever it is, and you have just said yourself that a lot of their jurisdiction has been transferred elsewhere, do they need that many staff down there? That is the question that would pop into anybody's mind, I suppose, especially if you were looking at areas of saving.

MR. DICKS: Also, the consumer advocate will not be attached to the PUB. It will be funded through the PUB but it will be in the Department of Justice, Consumer Affairs Division, so that we can use that person for other things such as other rate applications in other agencies or agency hearings. The only thing about the PUB that you should not underestimate is the amount of activity may not be all that great but the importance of what it does is significant to all the rate payers of the Province. So, we have to balance off the need for staff against the need to have those staff there when they are required to have experienced people on these rate hearings.

You may be right there may be room for some diminishment there but as of this point no one has made a case for it to me. I understand that the study is under way on the staffing and that Treasury Board and Justice are looking at it.

MR. SIMMS: Just one final question, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience but this is an interesting and important area. It is much better to deal with them tonight rather than have the Minister and his staff come back another night. There is no real need of that if we can deal with it tonight.

The Minister talked about philosophically, I guess, earlier in a discussion with my colleague the Member for Ferryland about perception. I think it is fair to say, now he may not agree with this, that the perception out there is that the idea of having a consumers advocate as a public servant within the Department of Justice, Consumers Affairs Division, could easily give people the impression that that public servant will be taking orders somehow or another from the director, ADM, or DM and ultimately the Minister. You know the way the system works. If that individual is meant to be there to represent independently the views of consumers, is there a better place to have him or her placed as opposed to within the Department? I know that has been an argument made by politicians but I am just wondering if it is not a reasonably sensible perceptive argument, I do not know. Personally, I am not sure in my own mind, but I think there is some room for doubt.

MR. DICKS: You have raised a good question. The problem as I see it is that there is a need for the public to have confidence that the consumer advocate will be free to make representations at the hearings that are independent of any particular governmental influence. So, there is that element to it. The type of hearings we are talking about are not ones where the Government will have a vested interest necessarily in subjecting the person to influence. For instance, what would Government gain by trying to influence him or her if they are going to appear before a rate hearing for Avalon Cable Television or A1 or whatever it is called, or Newfoundland Telephone and so on like that, but there is an element of that in it.

The other concern is that because there are a very few number of hearings down at the PUB someone has to bear the responsibility of direction. In other words, should we leave it to the consumer advocate himself or herself to determine when they are going to intervene or when they are not going to intervene? So, someone has to have direct concern and say: look we want you to do this to intervene at this hearing or that one and also keep control of the budget as well. But you get someone there and they see themselves in a totally autonomous position and the next thing they are going to Washington, DC and hiring someone to do a $500,000 study as to the rate structure of this and that. So, there has to be an element of control and I have thought about that and at this point I feel comfortable with leaving the person rather than putting the person at the PUB, where he would be subject to some regulation there as well, I think the direction really would be best in the Department of Consumer Affairs. Now, if that is a wrong judgement, that can be changed at some point in the future, but I feel comfortable with that for the time being at least.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Well thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I think it might be appropriate now that we have a ten minute break for coffee. The Government common room is to my left. Yes, it is the room that was build by the previous Administration for themselves, it is rather luxurious to say the least, so we will break now for ten minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much and welcome back after that short recess.

I would now like to give the opportunity to Mr. Aylward.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question relevant to the monitoring of the insurance related agencies in the Province.

A number of months ago, I believe, I had some discussions with the Minister concerning the monitoring and regulations governing insurance and related companies.

It has been brought to my attention by a couple of constituents that they have experienced problems with seeking medical disability pensions with private insurance companies. There seem to be problems in the sense of distinguishing whether or not the claim was being accepted or not by the company and there were problems of lack of retro-active pay once the decision was formed and other similar problems. It really made it difficult for individuals who are in a very vulnerable position once they have had an accident and are supposed to be covered. They ended up having to get into a legal battle to find their way through and to get their proper compensation. I believe you were reviewing it and looking at possible changes and looking at the implications, so maybe, you can comment on that, if it is possible. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Aylward. Mr. Minister?

MR. DICKS: Yes. I guess the difficulty most people have with insurance companies is that until you try to collect on a policy, you do not know how good or bad or fair your insurance company is and it is one of the most difficult things in practice. The law has tried to collect money from insurers when they do not want to pay.

It is a very difficult problem, but let me just say that the thing we are trying to do with insurance law across the country, is maintain model acts and uniform regulations and so on. Most provinces are a little careful about getting out of step with what the other provinces are doing in terms of uniform regulation, the main reason being that the policies apply generally across the country and have the same rules that apply in them.

But I am not sure that I fully understood what your question was directed to. If you meant the difficulty of getting insurance companies to pay up when the person feels he has legitimate claim, or if it was the amount of benefits that are prescribed by the standard policy, say for an automobile insurance and so on.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The point that was identified to me was that provinces differ as for example, the requirement for retro-active payments. If you were pursuing legally to get your claim approved, the insurance company, once it is found that, yes the claim is medically valid, in some instances in some provinces, the insurance company has to pay retro-actively, but in other provinces they do not. That has just been brought to my attention and I do not know whether or not that is something you are familiar with or not.

MR. DICKS: My recollection is that your entitlement to benefits and damages starts from the time of the accident. That is generally the rule across the country, and if you made your claim within that period of time. Where people run into problems sometimes is that the insurance policy, say in the case of automobile insurance policies, provide limits. One notorious example, I suppose, is that you are given $35.00 a week, I believe is the limit, for lost income, income supplement, or whatever, and have prescribed amounts if you lose an arm or leg, this sort of thing. Other than that, the fact of trying to collect from an insurance company, having to sue them, and that sort of thing, is very difficult. Again, you can come back to a point of process, the onus is on the person who claims to have been injured and who wants to claim from an insurance company to prove that the accident was the fault of the person who carried the insurance, the general agent. By and large insurance companies will, for the most part, refuse to pay out monies until such time as you take them to court, which makes it very difficult for some plaintiffs who find that the court process is slow. They are losing income, or they do not have the means to earn it because of an accident, and the insurance companies, in my view, often use it as a means to get leverage to get individuals to settle for less than what they might get if they went to court. Other than the fact that the system is there, there is very little protection and most people are better off taking their claims to court - at least the court will force the insurance company to come to terms with whatever amount it is ultimately prepared to settle for. From the legislative point of view there is not a lot we can do to force insurance companies to pay out without having it adjudicated by a court first. Then of course if it goes to court there are a lot of things that follow in terms of being able to collect from an insurance company, segregation of claims and so on, like that. The only other system that has been tried is the no-fault insurance system. I believe it was brought in in Manitoba some time ago, and in the States, and Ontario was looking at bringing in a very, very complicated system. I am not sure if that ever got off the ground. BC was the first one to do that type of thing, when Barrett was in there, the NDP. It has gotten very mixed reviews and at this point we are not considering bringing in a no-fault insurance scheme whereby we would substitute, for the most part Government insurance for private insurance. I am not convinced that the benefits of no-fault insurance are such that you would eliminate all the evils associated with private insurance industry, such as it is.

MR. K. AYLWARD: In most cases insurance companies pay what they are suppose to pay, and they pay out, but you are seeing increasingly more private individuals who are taking our disability insurance for their own protection and it can become more of a concern in the next little while. It has been identified to me as a difficult situation to tackle but one that I just want to make you aware of.

MR. DICKS: You are right. I think it is a real problem for anybody who is injured in an accident, the length of time it takes to acquire benefits. The problem is it is difficult to deal with it because there is a presumption in the counterpart of the criminal principle that you are innocent until proven guilty, and until a claim is litigated and you are judged to be at fault you do not have an obligation to pay as such, so the insurance companies stand behind that.

MR. RAMSAY: May I, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, Mr. Ramsay.

MR. RAMSAY: I have just a few quick questions. I wonder why the new act to amend the Queen's Council Act did not abolish the Queen's Council designation as it has in other jurisdictions? I will not get anywhere with the lawyers with that one. Secondly, as to the matter of paralegals: I just wondered what if anything is happening in that area in the Province today?

Thirdly, The Insurance Agents, Adjustors and Brokers Act which was passed through the Legislature back in 1987 or 1986 and has yet to be proclaimed with regulations, I wondered where that is in the system?

MR. DICKS: QCs, I guess there is a divergence of opinion as to whether or not they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. Someday Jack you may join us.

No, it is matter of distinction. I suppose, it depends upon your view of society and whether or not you think there should be any honours whatsoever accorded to individuals. So I suppose someone could make a case that you should abolish QCs, should abolish the Order of Canada, as we did away with knighthoods and that kind of thing, and abolish the use of the word honourable for Cabinet Ministers and all those sort of nonsensical views. You can make a case issue to abolish the QCs. I think there will come a point in time that if the people who receive them are not worthy of the honour or if it is done blatantly and politically, if you debase the coinage that you are using then, of course, it becomes meaningless and people do not see the benefit of it.

MR. RAMSAY: Certain people would be given the QC title, is that the kind of thing that you imply?

MR. DICKS: Yes. Well, I guess, the bottom line is that I do not think it has been so abused in Newfoundland that it has become meaningless and that we should do away with it. But on the other hand I do not think people pick a lawyer because he or she has a QC and figure that they are smarter or better than others. Although in England it is interesting that a QC can charge more and you need a QC to conduct a murder trial, for example, and stuff like this; so it has very important implications in England but we do not have them here. All you do here is that you end up sitting at a different table perhaps and wearing a silk gown and that kind of thing. You can make arguments both ways but I am not convinced that it adds anything to a lawyer's income although it looks nice after their names. At this point in time, I have not been persuaded that we should abolish it in Newfoundland but I really do not have my mind set on it one way or the other.

Paralegals: a lot of law firms use them for in-office work. I suppose you can say some of the RCMP prosecutors are paralegals and I think there was one fellow here in St. John's seven years ago who wanted to appear in traffic court. I forget what happened. I think we allowed him to, did we not?

OFFICIAL: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, he has been applying to the court to do it.

I guess there is no legislation governing it; they are a fact of life, law firms use them and anybody who works in a law office or say in the Department of Justice is in some sense a paralegal because you are required to have a particular knowledge. I am not so sure there is a legitimate area in Newfoundland where we would want to licence them to give them rights to certain things that lawyers do. I am not really sure if that is what you are getting at in terms of the question, Mr. Ramsay.

But paralegals exist and beyond that I guess there is not a lot we can say as to whether or not there should be additional rights given to people who are not lawyers as such.

The third question was: Insurance Agents, Adjustors and Brokers Act, that has been on the books. There is one section we wanted to get cleared up. We were to Cabinet with it and I suspect it will be proclaimed in the not too distant future. In fact, we may already have a Cabinet minute enabling us to proclaim it. But I think we may want to come back to the House on a clarification as to the extent of liability that one section imposes on directors and officers for the acts of each person who is in the brokerage, the sale of insurance, and its very broad scope liability. I am not really sure if that is what was intended by the Legislature. But what it essentially provides is that any person who is a director of a corporation will be liable for every act of negligence and everything else of any person who is acting in the name of the brokerage.

MR. RAMSAY: Was that adjusted because of the Rideout case, possibly?

MR. DICKS: No, it has nothing to do with that. The Rideout case posed a different set of problems in terms of regulation of estate planners which no other jurisdictions have come to terms with yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: The question of the registration of deeds came up a little earlier this year in the context of the fees being raised, and one of your back bench colleagues offered the opinion that the real problem was that members of the legal profession were charging a lot of money to people for certifications of titles.

Now it was made obviously as a political swipe at me and the members of the bar, but the member did have a serious point and I have in fact taken it up with him, and the question that I have is: has the Department given any consideration and will it have a look at the registration system that we have, with a view to making it a little bit more efficient, not from the point of view of computerization which is progressing and I would not say apace, it is progressing at a slow pace, but from the point of view of providing a point at which at least a title is certified and some how or other a lawyer does not have to go in and do it all over again; that if a lawyer for example, has certified title to a particular property, that somehow or other, that certification either sticks to that lawyer or the insurance system covers it so that if another purchaser comes along he does not have to pay a different lawyer the same amount of money as the last one got, to say yes, to the mortgage company, yes, this is good title; that perhaps if a member of the bar certifies a title, perhaps he could file a certificate with the registration, saying: I certify this title as a marketable title and that other lawyers or consumers should be able to rely on that, that is just one idea.

My question is a broader one. Has the Department given any consideration to our registration system which is a rather ancient and cumbersome one? Is there any consideration being given to some way of making it less expensive for people to transfer land?

MR. DICKS: I do not know if we are so concerned about making it less expensive for people transferring land per se, as making sure that our registration system is an appropriate one for the Province. I do not think that the expense of transferring land is undue when you consider the transfer taxes in other jurisdictions.

People say: well our registration fees are higher and such and such and they do not realize the fact that there are registration fees or, that instead of registration fees in other jurisdictions, you have land transfer taxes, but on that, we are open to suggestions as to the improvement of the system and if any thing in that improvement would enable us to save cost, then that may be something we could look at, reducing the cost of our fee system.

The other problem to which you alluded is an interesting one and that is to do with certifications. The problem with it is, as every lawyer knows, something you certified ten years ago which was marketable then, and no one is accepting it now. There is nothing more embarrassing then to have someone call you about a file you did ten years ago and now you have to go back and explain why you now have to do new work on it. The worst thing about that is, I do not ever see a point at which we probably would be able to have a certificate system on which every one could rely on when one of the judges of the Supreme Court some years ago set aside a Quieting of Titles certificate on the basis that the affidavit was not correct. And I think at one point I always believed that if a certificate of Quieting of Title was filed with the Registry that you did not even have to search beyond that point. And once one is set aside that opens the floodgates. So the judge in question - who shall remain nameless - was heard to remark after, he was wondering why the hell he had ever done it to start with, because of all the issues it raised.

But one thing they have in Florida I am told is that you can actually insure the title through a separate company. But I think you would have to find a company that was prepared to do it. And I think the legal fees down there are diminished. But I am told that for instance you go to Florida to buy a condominium, you go to see your lawyer. And then you go to someone else to do the search, and then someone else to - you buy certification of title or some sort of insurance. We are open to suggestions on it and I do not say our system is perfect.

But the other alternative is they have out west to implement a Torrens system. It would probably be a little more difficult here for us because we do not have that tradition. And what you would have to do - and I know it was discussed some years ago - you would have to first of all have a comprehensive list of all the property owners and proof of their title, get them all on cadastral plans and then regulate it down to each individual piece of land and who owns what. And not having started out that way as they did out west it is very difficult to try to block it all in now, particularly when you cannot have any real assurance that the title deeds that are registered are good title to the property in question.

It is a good idea. It is the easiest system. But to work back the last 200 years would be difficult.

MR. HARRIS: So what you are saying is that you are welcome to ideas for improving it as long as it is not too cumbersome. Perhaps we should -

MR. DICKS: Well, even if it is cumbersome, if there is a better way of doing it we are open to it. I think the trouble with the Torrens system is - the Torrens system works because when it started out it started out with grants based on that Torrens system. And what you do is if you have a grant to a section and then someone sells a portion of it, it is all blocked out and you just go in and you change the - I have done it. I have sent the deeds off (Inaudible) I forget how it works. There is a land transfer thing, it is a very short form of conveyance. But here our Province is not mapped out like that, and you could have two conveyances that do not appear to be related. And then you find out that they have overlapping surveys or something. You know the problems with our registry system.

MR. HARRIS: No, the Torrens system basically decides who owns this particular piece -

MR. DICKS: And you block it in.

MR. HARRIS: - whoever is the registered owner of that piece of land is it, no matter who is on it or whatever.

MR. DICKS: Well, Lynn may have some thoughts because you had a substantial practice. Lynn, what are your thoughts on it?

MS. SPRACKLIN: I am a bit stale at this point to be honest with you on the various systems. But your notion of tagging on to solicitors who have already certified, I do not think works for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is professional liability insurance and one's professional relationship with people that deal with you. I just cannot imagine that I would be liable ad infinitum to people that I have never dealt with at a time that I am not dealing with them. For reasons that Mr. Dicks stated - you know, standards of practice and all sorts of things.

I have thought about this a lot actually, how you could improve it. I do not know how you could do it in Newfoundland with the possessory titles in all honesty. And there are combinations of systems that may work. I need to read up on the various systems again and refresh my memory. I had at one point some familiarity.

MR. HARRIS: One of the other suggestions that I have heard from time to time was that perhaps there ought to be a regulation that if a landowner or developer is proposing to subdivide a piece of property into two or more parcels that there be an obligation that the certification of title be acquired. Because I and anybody who has practised law have seen some real messes in subdivision - new subdivisions, old subdivisions - trying to sort out where this actual piece of land was at one time, especially when they are assembled from various other pieces as well.

And that would be simple - not simple - but something that could be regulated and require a certificate that would assist a speedier and more certain title system.

MS. SPRACKLIN: Are you thinking about a certificate from a court, you mean a - ?

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MS. SPRACKLIN: I see.

MR. HARRIS: To require that the person be a -

MS. SPRACKLIN: A Title Quieting in other words, of sorts.

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

MS. SPRACKLIN: A Title Quieting certificate, is that what you were you referring to?

MR. HARRIS: No, a certificate of Quieting associated with a -

MS. SPRACKLIN: Particular subdivision.

MR. HARRIS: - subdivision or development. That is another suggestion that I have heard from time to time.

MR. DICKS: The only thing with that, if I may, is that a certificate of Quieting of Title is only necessary - you know, if it comes out of a Crown grant for example, if the title is good, I would not see the sense of requiring every person who wants to subdivide to have to go back to court to get a certificate of title in respect of land that is obviously clear. You know, something arising from a Crown grant and so on. I do not know if you are suggesting that a certificate be obtained in all cases.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I am just, again, there is another suggestion that had occurred. That you run across these problems particularly when there is an assembly of land and then a subdivision created. Where one never necessarily knows exactly where the plot of land you are now given - especially when it is done in a different surveying system with different meets and bounds and put on a grid, as opposed to the older grants be on something else. There seems to be a very cumbersome process.

MR. DICKS: But you know what the problem is? The problem is not with the registration system, the problem is with the lawyers. Because what happens, I always found in practice, is that you get someone who considers themselves a hotshot in real estate practice. So you know, for years in Corner Brook we had the old subdivision, CMHC subdivisions, lower town site? And everyone accepted the old conveyances that were basically meets and bounds descriptions. And then someone decided that that was not good enough. Everyone knew where the boundaries were and the titles were good but they wanted a new survey, up to date. And then someone else decided it had to be from a fixed starting point. So every time the title would change someone would require the vendor to go out and get a new survey. And you would have to explain why when you certify a title he or she cannot use that survey. And the only reason was that lawyers were getting pickier and pickier. And in St. John's they are pickier than they are in Corner Brook. Stuff that we would certify in Corner Brook lawyers in St. John's would not accept from each other here.

So I think the problem with respect to certification of titles by and large has more to do with the standard of practice that lawyers demand from each other more so than the fault of the registration system. Because we are merely a depository. And the thing that needs to be done is maybe the Bar itself start trying to establish standards of practice. Because a lot of demands that lawyers were making in my view were unreasonable. But yet the son-of-a-gun would be there and if you did not satisfy him your client could not sell it, so you would throw up your hands and say: okay, to hell with it. But what you do is the next time you had to deal with it you would make sure that you force him to do the same thing, out of spite if nothing else.

So I think the problems lie often with the Bar more so than with the Registry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think it is a subject that probably -

AN HON. MEMBER: Arcane.

MR. CHAIRMAN: - we could debate between the legal, professional people here this evening for some time, I am sure. However, in all fairness to other Committee Members I would move the questioning on to Mr. Simms.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking of bars - not the same Bar that you have been talking about for the last ten minutes - but I was wondering about those slot machines in bars. Remember the big fuss that was kicked up by some group? I think it was a group already in existence, or private business, or whatever, who are in some kind of a competitive business, some kind of other kinds of gaming machines, who were quite concerned as I remember - they expressed it in writing, publicly - about the affect it might have on their particular industry. And also the affect it might have in terms of job losses and so on. The Minister probably will recall their concerns. I must say I have not heard much about it since. I do not know if it has just died or if the Minister has heard from anybody, or if it still alive.

MR. DICKS: I - sorry.

MR. SIMMS: Can I just whip through three or four? It is the simplest way, I find, rather than going back and forth. Perhaps he could comment on that, I would appreciate it. Secondly, compensation and support for victims, particularly those victims of the Mount Cashel affair. The Minister made some public comments about it some time ago. I would like him to reiterate, I guess, the Government's position with respect to that particular matter and try to make it clear as to what the Government's position is? I know there have been calls for it from time to time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The other question I wanted to ask, and I did not ask for that reason by the way it just totally slipped my mind, is his position as a Minister for Newfoundland and Labrador on the federal criminal code provisions on gun control and perhaps more importantly his position or thoughts on the current proposals put forward by the Federal Minister for stricter controls? There seems to have been some debate on the matter; not much here in Newfoundland that I have heard off but it might be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks of it.

My final question deals with the police commission. Always a favourite topic, always an interesting topic and I know the Minister has articulated the Government's position on numerous occasions but I for the life of me am not certain exactly what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to give him a job.

MR. SIMMS: He is doing a great job; yes.

So, I would ask him once again to take advantage of this opportunity here in his Estimates to perhaps tell us: First of all is there going to be a police commission? When does he expect it is going to be put in place? Will it be put in place this fiscal year, for example? If so, where are the funds provided for in the Estimates? What will the cost be this fiscal year? What do you anticipate - I would not expect you to give the exact amount - the cost to be in the next full fiscal year? Then I would like him to comment on whether or not - I should wait to hear what the estimates are for such a police commission but I am interested in hearing - perhaps it might have been more efficient to perhaps give a bit more teeth to the Ombudsman's role rather than eliminating the Ombudsman and enable a system that was there to have been given a bit more teeth and maybe making it more efficient than to deal with complaints against police and so on through the Ombudsman's Office which might have been strengthened as opposed to establishing a brand new police commission which may or may not - nobody has any idea yet, I guess, from any of the statements the Minister has made - cost a fair dollar. I really do not know what his position is.

I would like to hear him talk on about those four items before I get a chance later on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you may.

Mr. Minister.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the amusement machine operators were in to see me. I believe the Premier, Hubert Kitchen and maybe Winston Baker were there as the Ministers responsible.

First of all, the Department of Justice only performs a licensing function with respect to these machines. We do not make the policy decision as to whether or not they should be out there, if you follow what I mean. For instance if you take Atlantic Lottery, Government makes a policy decision but it is the joint responsibility - and I have never quite determined which it is - really of the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, with the Minister of Finance appearing to take the lead on it. So, in terms of whether or not they should be out there to start with, that would be a Cabinet decision at the behest and instance and subject to the briefing to Cabinet by the Minister of Finance.

What happened was, these machines, these video machines were felt by the amusement machine operators to be a danger to their business because they would be very attractive and displace machines they had in the bars and other locations.

The Minister of Finance brought a paper to Cabinet after Atlantic Lottery had approached the Government, essentially to allow these video gambling devices to be placed in lounges throughout the Province. Cabinet decided to allow those to be placed in that limited context just in the lounges, not in the corner stores and so on like that through Atlantic Lottery and I think there were something like 300 or 350 machines that were put out and were limited in number to five per location.

I am not sure how many establishments have them but they are out there and the split with Atlantic Lottery I think was significantly more to the bar owner than might have been the case with these break open tickets and so on like that; that was not a matter for us in the Department of Justice to determine, that is a matter of negotiation between Atlantic Lottery and the individual bar owners and the things they came up with and the decision to do it was a Cabinet decision.

Now at the same time, the amusement machine operators were very concerned at the time that the decision was made to go ahead and place those out there. I have not heard from them since about the time the decision was made in late December early January, and we had meetings about that time and I have a record of it somewhere, but since they have been out there, I do not know if it has had any effect on their business or not; some of them made a very strong case that it would undercut their businesses and people have been out there collecting monies and so on, but in any event it was not a policy decision for the Department of Justice, it had more to do with Finance and ultimately it was a Cabinet decision to place machines out there.

Does that answer that part of the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Compensation and support for the victims of Mount Cashel: Are you asking about the status of the legal claims against Government or -? Okay. The position that Government has adopted and I guess Mr. Harris can probably support this as well, and if anything he might want to add to it to clear it up.

What we have said is that the Province is prepared to negotiate any claims that an individual may make to the effect that the Province was in some manner negligent in failing to provide the degree of protection required for that individual; now that assumes certain things.

First of all, the individuals would have to prove that they were assaulted in some fashion; they would also have to show that, that arose as a result of some act or omission on the part of the Government which constitute a negligence, and thirdly, they would have to prove that they sustained damages and then it would have to be decided what the appropriate amount would be.

So we have said, look, we are prepared to consider these claims but we would do it on an individual basis, damages would have to be shown and proven, you would have to show that the acts in fact occurred and so on, on the normal civil balance of probabilities, that has been our position.

At the present time, I think both sides have agreed to await the outcome of the criminal trials before really progressing much further in the actual settlement or negotiation of any particular cases. Is that fair to say, Jack? So in other words if someone wants to bring forward a claim, we will assess it and if we see a liability on the Province, we will pay it and the other thing we will look to is, contribution or indemnity from any party who may have actually committed any act of assault, if that is proven.

I would just like to emphasize that, that is not to say that in any particular case, particularly in any criminal trials that may be pending where an actual act of assault did occur, I mean that is entirely a matter to be proven in a court of law or, ultimately, maybe in these cases, to be subject to negotiation.

We also consider to some extent whether or not it might be possible at some point to appoint an arbitrator or a third party to come to some terms on what appropriate damages might be, where it could be proven that there had been some act and corresponding default by Government.

MR. SIMMS: Presumably, an individual who could not reach some kind of agreement with the Government on a claim after all the other things had gone through, can take -

MR. DICKS: The other thing we have said is that we will not raise limitation periods as a barrier to block someone from claiming.

Okay.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. DICKS: Our position on criminal code gun control. Current proposals: we support in general terms the Federal Government's desire to, I suppose, control or prevent the importation of automatic weapons into the country and so on like that. The only thing I would say is that we support legitimate gun control laws but at the same time you have to recognize that in Newfoundland we have to be sensitive to the fact that we have a lot of hunters and people who have access to weapons and see it as part of their normal life, for example, in the fall going out and getting a moose. There is a very virulent anti-gun control lobby in the country as there is a very virulent gun lobby and you get people at various ends of the spectrum. We are trying to adopt a reasonable stance in line with our provincial concerns. The first AGs meeting I was to in June over in Prince Edward Island of 1989 they were going to bring in a law dealing with hunting knives. That would make it virtually illegal for anyone in Newfoundland to ever have a hunting knife. It was too broadly based. And it was really to address a problem that was based in Toronto where people were walking subways with hunting knives.

So, while we support legitimate and strong gun control laws we also have to recognize the fact that Newfoundland is a little different than some urban areas where no one should be walking around with a rifle. But, if you are in River of Ponds looking for a moose in the fall we do not expect those laws to apply in quite the same way. So, most of the proposals we have put forward have been very strong in supporting the Federal Government in gun control but we have always echoed our concern that those not prevent or in any way diminish the right of our people to legitimately hunt and do the sorts of gaming that we have here in the Province.

MR. SIMMS: Is there much of a lobby on either side of the fence here in Newfoundland?

MR. DICKS: Yes. I had a client a fellow who used to do our accounts in Corner Brook a very, very strong gun proponent. He used to say stuff like, an armed society is a polite society and things like this. You get all different points of view and I have heard them all, and he was in favour of people being allowed to carry guns on their hips and so on. I do not quite espouse his position but at the same time if you hear people on both sides of the issue it is refreshing because they do not echo the normal. I think the mainstream thought is really the Government's position. You do not really need to have a semi-automatic weapon to go out and pull down a moose. But at the same time you cannot go out and do it with a pea-shooter either. I think our position has been pretty reasonable throughout. I think the Federal initiative is a good one, but I would want to see the final proposals before I say that we can accept them exactly for Newfoundland. There has to be some sensitivity to people who still hunt as part of their way of life.

MR. SIMMS: Sure. But my question was, does the Minister as the Minister of Justice find that there is - this is a Newfoundland way of asking the question - much of a lobby either way in Newfoundland? Does he receive much in the way of lobbying aside from his friend over in Corner Brook?

MR. DICKS: He has moved to the United States so I do not hear a lot from him any more. He was an extreme lobbyist. He was very good at it.

MR. SIMMS: Is there much of an organized lobby on either side of the coin in Newfoundland?

MR. DICKS: No, not really. I hear some stuff occasionally from people who are members of rod and gun clubs and so on. Occasionally, we deal with people who want to set up shooting ranges and so on like that, but we do not have a really strong lobby. There are some people who have very loose views on gun control but it is not a big issue for most people. Most people are satisfied with the current state of the law; about the only thing I hear is that laws are very detailed with respect to hunting and most people find that the wildlife laws are such that it is very hard to keep track of all the regulations.

I do not have anyone in my office saying that every infant should have the right to carry an AK-47 or so on.

MR. SIMMS: Or not.

MR. DICKS: Or not. You get that extreme point of view and I do hear it but it is not really that strong.

On the police commission (Inaudible) your other question. It is the police complaints commission. The police commissions in other provinces run the police forces. They train, they recruit, they hire, they decide who the chief will be, they do all those sorts of things. The Department of Justice will continue to do that. We will not give the running of the police force over to an appointed agency such as a police commission. What we will do is we will establish a police complaints commission to hear complaints against members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. We would do it for the RCMP except that there is already a Federal complaints commission so there is no need to have two. But we will receive those complaints and refer them.

So we will deal with complaints against members of the police, and it may have a little broader based power dealing with matters of discipline, possibly, and so on like that. It would be put in place this year. The only concern I have and express is unless there is something in the Hughes Commission report that would suggest something else, and I do not expect that to be the case, I expect that we will have it in place sometime the fall with the proviso that in order to do so we will have to bring in an Act to do it, either amending the Constabulary Act, bringing in a police commission act, or perhaps a new Police Services Act. And we probably favour the last rather than the other two.

But in order to establish a police commission there will have to be extensive legislative changes or a new act. So that is in prospect. And depending on when the act goes through the House we will establish the commission. So that might - the normal course of things we hope to have the act ready by the fall but it probably will not go through the first day of the session, it may not be till December. So that may affect how and when we establish the commission.

The cost is buried in 4.1.01, in Administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, it is in there -

MR. KENT: Allocated.

MR. DICKS: - allocated. I say "buried" because if you try to dig through it and find the -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Kent is very good at terminology, very good.

MR. DICKS: Pardon me?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Kent is very good on terminology, I said.

MR. DICKS: Yes. He is much better at it than I am. He has had more practice of course.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the subsection, Mr. Minister?

MR. DICKS: Page 223, 4.1.01.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is several accounts spread out.

MR. DICKS: It is spread out in several accounts there.

MR. SIMMS: So how much is buried in total for the police commission?

MR. DICKS: It is $100,000 this year.

MR. SIMMS: One hundred thousand dollars?

MR. DICKS: One hundred thousand dollars this year because we did not expect to have it up and running till the fiscal year was about halfway completed.

MR. SIMMS: So does that mean projected?

MR. DICKS: About $200,000 a year.

MR. SIMMS: Roughly you are anticipating (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible). What we would need is someone to do the investigations and someone else who would sort of be secretarial, executive assistant, this sort of thing. There will probably be three commissioners. And the Department put in a very modest honorarium of about $12,000 for that, which knowing how commissioners operate is probably unduly optimistic on their part. But I expect that (Inaudible) base it essentially in terms -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) like purchased services estimate?

MR. DICKS: Well, that was unrealistic.

MR. SIMMS: You underestimated unrealistically.

MR. DICKS: Yes, exactly. But what we decided in this one was to base it on the New Brunswick model which is very streamlined and which is in that cost category.

MR. SIMMS: How long have they been in place in New Brunswick? Quite a while?

MR. DICKS: No, I think it was set up fairly recently, 1988 I think, for some reason, 1988.

MR. SIMMS: Now, and the final part of my question was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ombudsman.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I do not know what is wrong with the Chairman, if he is getting steamed up or - oh, (Inaudible) just communicating with the other Member. Sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but I just would want to remind the hon. Member, he has a very - I know he does not do it with any thought of trying to rob time from other Committee Members.

MR. SIMMS: Oh no. There is lots of time, isn't there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: But he asks very sharp questions and everything. But of course the Minister gives solid replies. I know the Minister wants to give the hon. Member all the details associated with the questions -

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Which he is doing.

Sure we can come back Monday, it does not matter to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess we could, yes.

MR. SIMMS: What I was about to say, Mr. Chairman, is I wonder is he going to answer my question regarding the relationship with respect to the Ombudsman's office. If it is going to cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars for a police - citizens - whatever it is called, police commission, for criticisms and all that from the public or whatever against the police. If it is going to cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars, did you consider at all beefing up the Ombudsman's office as I mentioned, and maybe saving all of this hassle of new legislation or amendments to the legislation as he talked about? He does not know which way they might do it. Maybe beefed up the Ombudsman's Act, and the cost was already there. I think the Ombudsman's cost was somewhere in that area, $200,000 or $300,000.

MR. DICKS: Yes, I think $240,000, $250,000. No, actually the argument worked the other way when we sorted it out. What we decided we should do - and I am speaking about considerations of Treasury Board and so on when these things came up - it was felt that the Ombudsman's office was ineffective because it had the power to hear complaints about the police and did not do so. The other thing being the comment was made with respect to the Freedom of Information Act.

MR. SIMMS: What do you mean, it did not do so?

MR. DICKS: Well, it really was not acting effectively as a police complaints enquiry area. And what we felt in reviewing the role of the Ombudsman's office and the potential need for a police complaints commission was that if we were going to spend that sum of money it would be better to spend it by establishing a police complaints commission as opposed to continuing the Ombudsman's office. It was felt that that money would be at this point better allocated to the commission as opposed to the Ombudsman's office. So the decision and the consideration were there but the reverse of what you have suggested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. SIMMS: I am afraid to ask any more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Victims Assistance programme that is outlined - well, the programme is not outlined, the salaries are there for coordination. I have a concern here, as having some experience in seeing how victims are involved with, and the emotional trauma that they experience in going through criminal trials in particular. And your answer to the previous question of Mr. Simms seems to indicate that what you are really going to do is tell people where they can get these services and that sort of thing. That assumes that the services are available and that the kind of people who would be made available or could do this work will be able to do it at no cost.

I am not aware of any such services that can provide what is necessary, particularly in a trial basis, during a criminal trial. The kind of consultation, in some cases actual presence of people at the trial setting. Some of this work is being done now by certain Crown prosecutors who have a particular sensitivity to the victims in a criminal situation, I would suggest above and beyond the call of duty, and it would depend on who the person was.

I wonder if the Minister can say: is this a pullback from a previous position which would have provided or paid for certain services? Or how does the Minister think that individual victims are going to be assisted by his programme?

MR. DICKS: Well, I think you have to recognize that victim services cover a broad spectrum of things; where a victim sustains initial trauma is at the point where the injury is incurred or the crime committed, so I envisage victim services and victim witness programmes as not simply having someone there in the courtroom when the person is going to testify and if you talk to people who are victims, you hear a lot of things.

I have had quite a bit of lobbying; I have had quite a number of meetings with groups who have particular interest in this area and they have been very instructive to me; part of the concerns they express are things you cannot alleviate and they have to deal with the nature of our criminal justice system, but the victim service thing is broad based, so to start with, one thing we are doing and has been done successfully over the last number of years is to start with the police who, first of all come in contact with victims, to make sure the police are well trained in how to deal with domestic situations where there is the most extensive demand for victim services in that type of domestic violence and also sexual abuse.

What we have done is, we have tried to isolate within the police department, those officers who are best suited by way of temperament and interest to be able to handle those particular types of situations, we also have training for the officers, so that is-

MR. HARRIS: How is all that happening though? Is this being done by the victim services group or is this just happening by osmosis in the system?

MR. DICKS: Well, if you are asking me for an explanation of the victim services programme, no. What I am suggesting to you is that the victim services as we see it, because of the nature of our system of justice has to be an integrated service and there has in our own minds, to be a particular approach to it.

I do not think it is sufficient to say we are going to put a victim court-worker in a courtroom to be there in case someone tramps in the courtroom and needs some help on that particular day; I think that would be defeating the purpose as I see it at providing an adequate support system for victims and witnesses and it has to start with the police, and we have started that training.

The other thing you have to recognize is that the Department of Justice is not the best entity, nor in the best position to provide counselling nor are we in the best position to provide psychiatric help as is sometimes necessary, so what we have to do as I see it, is to be able to guide people through those services because, do not forget people do not always recognize those services are available, so you take a woman who is kicked out of her home at three in the morning and has no place to go and she calls the police -

MR. HARRIS: May I interrupt for one moment? I understand that victim services involves all sorts of things from the commission of the crime to the final result and I understand this integrated approach, but I am looking at vote no. 4206, Victim Services and under this heading, these individuals here, they are not going to be able to provide the services that are necessary, and what services are they going to be able to provide and who is going to provide the other services that are necessary, at the court stage, perhaps plugging people into existing counselling facilities if they are available along the way, advising them of the criminal injuries compensation and all of those sorts of things would be a help, but, what are these people going to do, and is there going to be any support during the trial process that this sub-head is going to be able to provide in some way or another, or, should there be some money there, not to stand in court and wait around for someone to come, but in case of a necessity, can you find some money to do that, at least?

MR. DICKS: Well, you asked: what would these people be doing, and I was trying to explain that before you interrupted. The point about this is that I do not see the Department of Justice sitting down counselling people; the whole point of it is that we have psychiatrists who are available in different locations of the Province and our people are not equipped to do it and I think we have to be very careful in talking about victim assistance and recognise the needs that are out there and how we service them.

We do not have people, and it is a function of the Department of Health, to provide those services and the first thing you have to recognize is that a lot of people who end up being victims of crime do not always know the services that are available and it is part of our jobs as I see it to, first of all, guide people to existing services before we try to create new ones for them or to duplicate what already exists.

Let us not forget that we have a very rural Province and victims not only exist in our urban areas such as St. John's, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Port aux Basques, Grand Falls and so on, but there are also places like Port au Choix and Plum Point where people also get assaulted, and it is very easy to say to have someone there in court, but when these things occur, the police are the first people on the scene, there has to be someone there. A large part of the solution in these smaller communities is having someone there who may be helpful. It may be a high school guidance counsellor who may be prepared to help out, and we may be able to fund it on that basis and maybe perform a service for the people. What I am saying is not let us have a very narrow view of this. In terms of what these people will do, is they will be acting on a regional basis to identify services and how we can get them to people. For instance, Holyrood in this area, we are going to have to identify the services that are here. Part of the function will be that when we go to court we will have a degree of support there to help them at that particular time. We will have educational pamphlets and work with people so that they are aware of what the court process is because a lot of the complaints I hear in victim services, when I speak to people who are victims, is they end up in court and they were not told the trial was postponed to another day, and that is the fault of our system. It is not only that people need emotional support but just basic communication and a basic lack of awareness of what facilities are out there and what services are there to help them. The job of these co-ordinators is to make sure that if people are victims, and if they are going to be witnesses, that they are educated and they know what is already available. We will offer in addition to that a service at, and through the courts, to assist them through the process.

MR. HARRIS: I notice there is no permanent staff under the detailed salary units and you have $100,000 for salaries. How many people is that?

MR. DICKS: There is a block allocation there. There will be four permanent staff, one in Labrador, one on the West Coast, one in Central Newfoundland, and one in St. John's. In addition to that in St. John's we will call for proposals for an organization to supply services as well. What I want to emphasize is, because of the nature of this I think it has to be a co-ordination effort to start with because there are a lot of services out there that people are not aware of and do not always have regard to, and access to.

MR. HARRIS: What qualifications do you anticipate these four people having? What would be their professional background and experience?

MR. DICKS: I would hope we will be able to recruit people who have university degrees in an appropriate field such as, perhaps, social work, and psychology. I would expect, and I am not going to throw out job descriptions, but I think you need someone who has sensitivity to individuals, and who has some knowledge. We can train people for knowledge of the law and the court process but I think primarily you want to identify people who have the right mind-set and character traits to assist people who are in often extremely difficult emotional and personal circumstances. As well I think you would need someone with some degree of understanding, education in human nature and aiding people to manage under difficult situations. It could be a combination of things. It could be someone who may have an educational background, educational psychology, social work primarily, psychology, sort of social sciences if you will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: The office of the Consumer Advocate: We did talk about that a little bit before and some of the questions of Mr. Simms were of interest to me. I note that in the Consumer Advocate if you have that $85,000 or some portion of that for a salary unit there does not seem to be any money for what in my experience has been somewhat considerable expenses in obtaining expert witnesses, whether they be Canadian or other sources, to assist in the preparation and presentation of challenges to these pubic utilities commissions, public utilities boards, or CRTC type commissions. They are rather expensive and in fact very discretionary, and big lumps of money sometimes. Decisions have to be made as to whether they should be engaged or not and I wonder if the Minister can advise us, we did talk about it privately briefly for a while but for the public record what decisions will he be making as to how a consumer advocate employed by the Government can make those kinds of decisions which may be sort of maverick type of decisions in a way to take on a challenge which may not have been tried before? Can the Minister suggest ways that might be done independently of Government and although funded by it?

MR. DICKS: First of all, I am not sure it should be done independently of Government. This is partly in reply or, I guess, enlarging on the point I made to Mr. Simms earlier. My concern about funding anyone independently of Government is they also assume an independent authority to go out and contract for any service they want. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure an individual is subject to appropriate direction. As I said earlier, that is a primary concern of the Division of Consumer Affairs. One of my big fears in setting up an office of a consumer advocate is that I do not want someone running off to Washington and getting, as I mentioned earlier, some person come in on a peripheral aspect to an application and spend $500,000 of taxpayers dollars. I want to control that and I am going to do it through the Division of Consumer Affairs, and until I am proven wrong I would not change that.

Just on the particular point that any thing the consumer advocate would want to do in engaging professional services outside Government would be subject to the approval of the Division of Consumer Affairs and ultimately to myself as Minister. That will be subject to close scrutiny. That is not to say we will not do it, we have not budgeted any significant sum of money to do it nor would I want to. When you give a person the expectation they can go out and hire people at will or willy-nilly as the case may be, but at the same time we will bear in mind the fact often these costs are recoverable on the application that is being heard by the agency and we will bear that in mind. I would not preclude it but at the same time I am not prepared to encourage it in all cases. It is something that we will do if necessary but we will not necessarily do.

MR. HARRIS: I shall suggest to you that you will have a fairly tame consumer advocate if he has to go to the Minister through the bureaucracy in order to get permission to engage these experts. Would the Minister consider giving a body such as the Consumers Association of Newfoundland or some other public interest group some role in either advising the consumer advocate or perhaps even giving direction within some sort of budgetary framework on a particular case on a particular issue, would the Minister consider that sort of an approach?

MR. DICKS: I would consider the advisory role and we welcome advice, comments and input from any Member of the Association. I have met with that particular Association on an occasion myself. The difficulty I have with funding organizations outside Government is that you do not have control over them. For instance, if we were to fund an outside group or give them the right to intervene on behalf of consumers you are thereby taking on the responsibility for whatever they see fit to do, which you may or not agree with, and the danger is that an association or group may go out, hire legal counsel themselves who in turn will hire experts and so on like that. So you may have the same problem. We welcome input and we are prepared in certain circumstances to consider if they have an appropriate intervention to make to do it in conjunction with the consumer advocate. But I am very concerned about funding any outside agency and giving them in some sense an implicit direction or understanding that they can go ahead and hire people and thereby incur a cost to the Government.

MR. HARRIS: I was thinking more of your own consumer advocate having perhaps some direction from a consumer group. I would put it this way, if you do not do that you are going to have the consumer's interest as defined by the Minister of Justice as opposed to the consumer's interest as defined by the consumer representative. Is the Government prepared to say that it will define what the consumer interest is; or is it prepared to allow the consumers' organizations to play a more direct role, perhaps in assisting and instructing the consumer advocate on a particular application?

MR. DICKS: Well, the consumer advocate first of all should be a person who is well versed in these areas and would be able to identify what the appropriate consumer interest is in each case. I do not see it as a matter of me directly instructing him or her in any particular application, nor do I think that by default that direction should go to any consumer association of Canada or whichever other group you care to mention. I think that the advocate is in an intellectually independent position and should have the education and powers of mind to be able to focus on what issues are at stake and what is necessary to address them.

I do not think that I would have the time to be able to devote to give a specific direction in each case, although there may be a degree of consultation. That would apply equally to any other interest group such as the Consumer Association of Canada that may care to meet with the advocate and discuss it. But the power of direction would not be to an outside group, and I think the position is largely self-directing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Mr. Oldford.

MR. OLDFORD: Yes, Mr. Minister, I just have one question and that relates to consumer and related services. 5.1.06, there is a division called Commercial Relations. And I wonder if you could tell me what that division is mandated to do, what its role is within the Department, in Consumer Affairs?

MR. DICKS: What does Commercial Relations do? Commercial Relations has the responsibility to supervise various statutes, including the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loans Companies Act. That is essentially companies that sell insurance and underwrite insurance, and as well companies that... say trust companies, loan companies, that sort of thing. Really what it is is they regulate financial institutions and financial intermediaries to protect the public interest. That is essentially it.

It is an important responsibility. We do not have a lot of indigenous agencies but we have a liability to an extent for agencies such as this that carry on business in the Province. So that they essentially look after the insurance companies and regulate them and make sure that they are on the up-and-up. And last fall we had some very particular problems in the marine insurance field and those people were directly involved with it, had companies that were fly-by-night outfits here underwriting insurance and people suffered significant losses.

MR. OLDFORD: Okay, Mr. Chairman. Being that it is close to 10:00 p.m. I would like to move that the estimates of the Department of Justice from subhead 1.1.01 up to 5.1.10 inclusive be adopted.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.10, carried.

On motion, Department of Justice, total heads, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I want to thank the Minister and his staff for what has been a very interesting evening with what I would suggest has been very precise and concise answers. And I want to thank again you and your staff. I want to thank the Committee Members for being very precise and honest with their questions. So in saying that I would ask that we have a motion to adjourn.

MR. RAMSAY: So moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moved by Mr. Ramsay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, this is adjournment. We just moved it while you and your colleague were having a little chitchat there.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you rammed them through (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we did not ram anything through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Chair had entertained the motion, it was moved by Mr. Oldford, and seconded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Oldford's a Liberal. (Inaudible)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ramsay.

MR. SIMMS: Another Liberal. (Inaudible) directed by the Chairman, another Liberal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. No, the Chair called the question and the hon. Members did not respond. Now, I am very sorry. If you want to talk about something else then the Chair cannot -

MR. SIMMS: We were talking about the Committee meeting tomorrow (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Well, the Committee will probably meet tomorrow but not to entertain Estimates from the Department of Justice (inaudible).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. There was a motion, the meeting is adjourned. If the hon. Member has a problem he can take it up in the House tomorrow.

Thank you.

This meeting now stands adjourned.