Volume XLI Friday Province of Newfoundland FORTY- FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session PRELIMINARY REPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush Number 93 7 December 1990

The House met at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): Order, please! Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Humber Valley. Mr. Woodford: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. A number of my colleagues on this side of the House, including. myself, have received copies of letters to the Minister and to the Premier expressing concern that the Royal Commission on Education lacks the mandate, the time and adequate funding to undertake a comprehensive study of the Provincial education system. These concerns are being expressed by school boards, teachers and parents.

What response has the Minister given individuals and agencies who have written them with those concerns? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education. hon. the Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have responded to these letters. l might preface my direct answer with the statement that the public generally feel that this is a very important initiative for the Government. It is ~ widely supported throughout the Province. Everybody says the time has come for a major review of the system. They have indicated, too, that perhaps the time line is short. We have told the agency, Mr.

Speaker, if there is a need for additional time, we will consider it in due course. But I must be direct. We do not want Ll December 7, 1990 Vol XLI the Commission going on years and --years, we want to get it done in as short a time as pass ible. But in the apring, if we find that the time is too short, we wi 11 review the time, the mandate, and perhaps additional funding will be necessary. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley. Mr. Woodford: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Although the terms of reference of the Commission do not specifically address the issue of denominational education, many people in the Province have taken various comments of the Minister to mean that the primary purpose of the Commission is to review and propose alternatives to the denominational system. Will the Minister clarify the role of the Commission relative to the denominational system? And does he expect the Commission to undertake a comprehensive atudy of denominational education and propose either the abolition or consolidation of the system? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education. han. the Dr.

Warren: Mr . Speaker, the Commission was asked to examine all aspects of the delivery of education in the Province. An Hon. Member: All aspects. Dr. Warren: All aspects, including, for example, the use of media and technology in the future. Included in its terms of reference was an examination the system, the organization the system. Twenty years ago, commission at that point in studied the organization education in the Province and No. 93 of of the time of made Rl

recommendations. This is asked, among other study the duplication cost some aspects denominational system. Commmission things, to and try to of the Now with respect to its recommendations we must leave it entirely to the Commission. It is premature for me or any Member of Government to even speculate about what the Commission might recommend. It ·is given the autonomy to study all aspects of the delivery of education. We are looking forward to the report with great interest and when the report comes, the Government will examine the recommendations, as it should. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Humber Valley.

Mr. Woodford: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We all welcome the appointment of the Commission and have confidence in the Commissioners. But this is a very important study and must be done thoroughly in order to gain public support for whatever changes are recommended. Will the Minister listen to the concerns being expressed and unshackle the Royal Commission so that they and those who wish to make presentations to the Committee have the time and resources to do a comprehensive study?

I remind the minister that the Task Force on Agriculture has been given almost twice the time and the Budget of the Royal Commission on Education. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Minister of Education. Dr . Wa rren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member is asking these questions, because we want to ensure that people throughout the L2 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Province know about this Commission and they will be given I have seeing the list of hearings every opportunity to appear at formal hearings, but at informal meetings throughout the Province.

This is an opportunity for the people of the Province to address the future of education as we move into the twenty-first century. So the Commission is not shackled, Mr. Speaker. And I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the one year time limit may have been too restrictive, it may be that we need additional money, but we want to avoid spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even the millions of dollars that some commissions have cost in this country in the past. So we are trying to balance the important role of this Commission with the financial situation we find ourselves in.

If there is a need for additional money, Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleagues to provide that. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also to the Minister of Education. I wonder, is the minister in a position yet to admit that his slashing of the substitute teacher budget has been horrendous to the professional development of teachers generally and to improvements in the educational system overall? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Minister of Education. Mr. Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the substitute teacher funding has not been slashed and destroyed.

There is still some in-service education going on. I will admit that it No. 93 R2

has, in some areas, had a negative impact. We have been reviewing the impact of the reduction, the average for the Province. One day for each teacher in the Province we reduced on the average. There were some problems with implementation, and we are going to address these problems in due course. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for admitting he was wrong.

Specifically I would like to, ask him, in relation to certain developments each year the minister will know that above and beyond regular leaves there was always ministerial leave, where the minister had to bend rules, perhaps, to make substitutes available and to allow teachers to get off, and I ask him specifically, in relation to events such as the upcoming Winter Games, will the minister assure that teachers who give of their time and effort to participate in coaching "such activities will not be held back because of a lack of substitutes in their areas? Mr. Tobin: That ls a good question. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren:. That is a good question yes, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend says. Mr. Speaker, tribute, and I paid tribute to who contributed I want to pay have in the past the many teachers their time and their energies in the community at large. I will assure the member that we will review each L3 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI application on its own merits. The minister this year has been vigilant, more vigilant than, perhaps, past ministers in the granting of ministerial leave. And there is substantial support for this position. An Hon. Member: Which Minister of Education?

Dr. Warren: This minister. An Hon. Member: Which one? , Dr. Warren: The Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, has been vigilant - Mr. Simms: Vigilant? Dr. Warren: - very careful in the awarding of extra ministerial leave, and I intend to do that. Certainly, however, Mr. Speaker, we will review each individual application, each recommendation by . a school board for special leave. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not talk to the Minister about the leave given Presidents of the Liberal Associations to attend meetings, but I will ask him if he will assure teachers who are out there preparing teams that they will be able to take those teams to participate in the Winter Games, that the Minister will not hold back their endeavors? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education. hon. the Dr. Warren: Mr . Speaker, when school boards make these No. 93 R3

recommendations, school boards have certain flexibility and I understand that they are granting leaves; they have a number of days that they can grant. When they run out of school board leave, they then recommend to the Minister. I can assure the han. Member that when the recommendations come in, we will review them and deal with them in the best interests of teachers in the Province. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Development I will address my question to the President of Treasury Board, if I may.

Could the President of Treasury Board explain the reporting relationship now between the. Premier, the Minister of Development, the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Speaker: The han. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to do that. First of all, the Economic Recovery Commission, the Chairman and three commissioners, have a direct reporting relationship to the Premier. Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador reports through the Minister of Development.

The Board of Directors of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, which, I might point out, includes the members of the ERC, report through the Minister and then from the Minister to Cabinet and ultimately to the Premier. So there is a reporting relationship of the whole structure of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador through L4 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI the Minister of Development and so to Cabinet and the Premier,

whereas the Chairman and three commissioners off to the side have a direct reporting relationship to the Premier. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Mr. Speaker, could the President of Treasury Board tell us then what ,parts of the Department of Development have now been transferred to the Commission and/or Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Speaker: The han. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because I am not directly involved with that Department I cannot specifically pick out the parts of the Department, but I will sa~ to the han. member that all parts of the Department which have to do with the development and encouragement of small business in the Province have been taken and made part of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, in combination with the previous NLDC. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Mr. Speaker, if I may be even more specific, could the President tell us who now is responsible for local preference policy?

First I should ask, is the local reference policy still in effect? If so, who now is responsible for administering the local preference policy of this Province? Mr. Speaker: The han. the President of Treasury Board. No. 93 R4

Mr. Baker: Speaker. I out and get member. Thank you, will certainly back to the Mr. flnd han. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I can appreciate that the President of Treasury Board may not have details on the Department, but perhaps he would know whether or not local preference is applying to projects relating to Hibernia, and specifically to construction projects at Bull Arm. Mr . Speaker: The han. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hibernia agreement, first of · all, contains work that is captive to Newfoundland.

In that sense, there is an absolute Newfoundland preference in terms of that segment of the work - it is captive to Newfoundland. Then there is a segment that is Canada with best efforts Newfoundland; then there is a segment that is Canada, and then there is a segment that is worldwide. But ln spite of all . this, there is a Committee in place which oversees and tries to guarantee that in the process as much local work is done as possible.

This Committee examines contracts, examines the awarding of the contracts and so on, to ensure that as much Newfoundland work as possible, and as many Newfoundland companies as possible get work on the Hibernia project. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The President did not LS December 7, 1990 Vol XLI ~ -~ answer the question, who was responsible now for the provincial preference policy? He may not be aware.

I am advised, and I tell the President, that the responsibility now has been broken up and that there is no group in the Department of Development now responsible, and some of that has been transferred to the Department of Public Works. The question I would like to ask him, and I can appreciate the President may not know, but maybe the Minister of Public Works would tell me, who now is responsible for local preference?

And what role does the Department of Public Works play in a project outside of Government Purchasing, as I understand that local preference to some degree has now been combined with the local Government Purchasing Agency? Now that may work flne for Government Purchasing, but who is now Administering provincial preference as it relates to other construction projects in the Province and other industries in the Province? Does somebody want to answer that? Mr. Gilbert: answer it? Do you want me to Mr. Windsor: If you like. If you have the answer. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, thank you my friend. Sometime ago, the local preference facility was broken up between the Departments. Originally it was in the Department of Development and then, because of the problems which were occurring, particularly with small local companies, they would apply for jobs and would not No. 93 RS

have a P.cr.A. number, then someone else would get them and there would be great problems and concerns out in the community. Now, some· of the people who were administering the programme in the Department of Development have just been transferred to my Department and are in the process of setting up.

So they will now monitor the public tenders which come in; they will be monitored for the local preference number and if there is not one there, there is now a five day grace period which is going to be put in place so that we will do away with some of the problems which were there when the previous Government administered the programme. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. · Windsor: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am not getting a great deal of information this way. Let me ask the President of Treasury Board this more general question.

The President of Treasury Board confirmed that the primary responsibility now for economic development in Newfoundland is that of the Chairman of the Economic Recovery Commission, and that the Minister of Development has been informed that Dr. House is in fact the primary spokesman for Government on economic matters rather than the Minister of Development? Mr. Matthews: is so true. Mr. Speaker: Hear, hear! The hon. President of Treasury Board. Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! That the The hon. the President of Treasury L6 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI oC" Board. Mr. Baker: Thank Speaker.

What utter What nonsense! you, Mr. balderdash! Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl and former Minister of Development can be assured that the primary responsibility for development in this Province remains with the Minister of Development. He has not been told any such thing. The whole structure of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador reports through the Minister: he is responsible for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Minister of Development is the individual who answers in this House, who answers to Cabinet, who answers to the Premier for development in this Province. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Speaker. The nothing left because all Thank you, problem is he to answer his Mr. responsibilities out. have has for, primary been farmed Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Windsor: Let me ask one more final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the President of Treasury Board confirm that the Minister of Development has expressed grave concerns over the fact that his role has been reduced, that he has expressed such concerns in Cabinet over the fact that his responsibilities have been given to an unaccountable and unelected bureaucrat? Mr.

Speaker: The han. the President of Treasury Board. No. 93 R6

M~. Bake~: No, M~. Speake~. I can not confi~m any such nonsense. The Ministe~ of Development himself has been a key playe~ in the development of the st~ctu~e of .Ente~~ise Newfoundland and Lab~ado~, a key playe~ in the development of the st~uctu~e of the ERC, and is the pe~son in this P~ovince who has the ~esponsibility fo~ what is happening in Ente~~ise Newfoundland and Lab~ado~, as well as in his own Depa~tmen't .. As a matte~ of fact, M~.

Speake~, he has tt·emendous ~esponsibilities and I am pleased to ~epo~t that he handles them in an exempla~y manne~, in a manne~ that has not been seen befo~e in this P~ovince. M~. Speake~: The hon. the Membe~ fo~ Kilbride. M~. R. Aylwa~d: Thank you ve~y much, M~. Speake~. I haye a question fo~ the Minister of Wo~ks, Se~vices and T~anspo~tation. M~. Speake~. I must say to the Ministe~ that last night, in my a~ea at least, the ~oads we~e sanded by the Depa~tment of Highways ve~y quickly. M~.

Speake~, can the Ministe~ confi~ that the Cu~~iculum Division of the Depa~tment of Education has been relocated from Atlantic Place to the Remax Building, and could he give us a reason fo~ this ~elocation? Mr. Speake~: The Minister of Works, Services and Transpo~tation. Mr. Gilbert: Depa~tment of M~. Speake~, Government every somehow or another comes under my Department. There was one Division of the Department of Education I saw in the exceptions L7 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI to The Public Tendering Act that was tabled in the House, that was moved.

I do not know what division it was, but I know one was moved out of Atlantic Place recently. I do not know to where it moved, but it moved to some building here in St. John's. Mr. Speake~: The Membe~ for Kilbride. Mr. R. Aylward: M~. Speake~. will the Minister confi~ - I will conf i~ that they have moved. I kn,ow they have moved - that they have moved somewhere in the vicinity of September 14, 1990. Will he confirm that this division moved around September 14, 1990 into the Remax building? M~. Speake~: The. hon. the Ministe~ of Wo~ks, Se~vices and T~anspo~tation. Mr. Gilbert: M~.

Speake~. the Ministe~ tells me they have moved into the Remax building. As ·to confitrning it and the date, I think that is a question that should be put on the Order Paper and I will be able to give him a written answer to it. But it is a detailed question which T really cannot confi~ at this time. M~. Speake~: for Kilbride. The hon. the Member M~. R. Aylward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. M~. Speaker, his department officials are not informing him. I have been three days trying to get some info~ation out of his department on this. I guess they a~e not keeping him informed. I will confi~. M~.

Speaker, that they did move on September 14. Would the Ministe~ tell me if the~e we~e public tenders called when this space was taken up? No. 93 R7

Mr. Gilbert: I answer would be listed in the - Mr. Speaker: Order, please! would say the no if it was Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: I have to go through that again, Mr. Speaker? I would say no. Because .if it was listed in the exceptions- to The Public Tendering Act, no it obviously was not. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. Mr. R. Aylward: Mr. Speaker, this move occurred about September of this year and the Minister is saying that it was listed in the exceptions to Public Tender. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, those exceptions, which are supposed to ~e tabled in this House of Assembly within thirty days of the move, have not been tabled in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister explain to this House why he has not tabled that in the House, which goes against the legislation which he is duty bound to enforce in this House of Assembly? Mr. Speaker : The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gi lbert: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and I will check to f lnd out if it was not listed in the public I assumed it was and I think it was.

If not, I will check it, get back, and table it for the hon. gentleman. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member L8 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI for Kilbride . Mr. R. Aylward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would one of the reasons the Minister has decided not to table this information until after the House closes be that one of the owners of this building is Mr . Tom Hickman, a well known Liberal supporter in this Province? Mr . Efford: You mean to say Dr . Collins does not own it? Mr. Matthews: The old bagman, eh? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gi lbert: Mr .

Speaker, I think it again reflects the mud raking of that side over there. And as my colleague, the Minister of Social services says, it. is one that John Collins does not own, if it is rented by them. An Hon. Member: Maybe he changed his (inaudible) for the brown bags he brought in, eh? Mr. Woodford: Christmas gifts. Christmas gifts . An Hon. Member: What brown bags? Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! I again notice this morning much bantering between both sides. I would ask hon. members if they would please leave the main performance to those recognized by the Chair. Mr .

Sp ea ker: The hon. the Member No. 93 R8

.c - for Burin - Placentia West. Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I believe all my colleagues are excited because it is getting close to Christmas. My question is to the President of Treasury Board in the absence of the Minister of Development and the Premier. Today there are seventy-two more walking through the gates of the Marystown Shipyard, with nothing in the future, to join the hundreds of others from the Marystown Shipyard who are now working on the Mainland since this Government has taken over. There is 70 per cent of the work force of the Marystown Shipyard unemployed.

What is this Government going to do to help them? Will they construct barges for the Hibernia development on speculation, as we did with supply vessels? Will they please do something to help out these families that are basically being driven from the work force because of the inaction of this Government? Mr. Speaker: The han . the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: I feel sorry for people who do not have a job in this Province, and there are a lot of them. However, I would like to take exception with the statement that they are being driven from their jobs by the inaction of· this Government.

I would like to turn that around and say that the Marystown Shipyard has been operating for the last year and a half because of the actions of this Government. Mr. Baker: Now, Mr. Speaker - Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Tobin: (Inaudible) government vessels (inaudible), four Federal L9 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Government vessels. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I again remind han. members the question has been asked, and I would ask han. members to extend the courtesy to the Minister so that he can answer it. If hon. members want to ask supplementaries, they have the time to do it.

The han. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Marystown Shipyard has been operating to the · extent it has is because this is a facility that can take full advantage, we hope, of the Hibernia development. And as the contracts are called and as decisions are made in terms of construction for Hibernia, we fully expect that the Cow Head facility, that the Marystown Shipyard, that the whole area will be booming and will be a beehive of activity, Mr. Speaker. So this is the reason the previous Government as well as this Government kept the Marystown Shipyard going.

It was not because of their competitive position in the world market, it was because we can now see a use for the Marystown Shipyard and we hope trat this will be one of the areas of the Province that will experience' a tremendous boom over the next two or three years. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education, and this is certainly a district question. On November 20 I asked the Minister about busing arrangements for schoolchildren from the Woodlands No. 93 R9

~ ._______ housing development. He will recall that children from the area had been denied use of the Wedgewood Park bus because -of overcrowding. The Minister told me on November 20 that the Department had approved an extra run for one of the buses as soon as he heard of the problem. My question to the Minister is this. Will the Minister confirm that parents in the area have now been notified that the extra run will be discontinued from December 10, and wi 11 he explain why that action has been taken? Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education. hon. the Dr. Warren: Mr.

Speaker, when the parents came to to us we did arrange an extra run, and it was on for a period of time. It is my understanding that it has been discontinued already. Maybe I am wrong on that, but I thought it was discontinued already, instead of December 10. The extra run was not used and we are at a loss to know precisely why it was not. In fact, it went for a week and very few if any students used it. So what we have done is gone back to the board, and my officials are now discussing revisiting the whole question with the board.

And I have talked with the parents, I have talked-with the chairperson of the parents' committee, and we are examining it and we will hopefully resolve it in the next few days. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister said is quite true, that this new run was placed in the s~ne area as the other two runs, one in conjunction with the LlO December 7, 1990 Vol XLI other. What happened was very simple. There are 125 children in Wedgewood Park, and there are 129 outside. Some of them are not using the buses.

Because it was the same route, where it came up Carrick Drive and went out to Newfoundland Drive, it covered the same area. They asked that t~e buses go to Woodlands, and people from your Department said that that was not feasible, or it was not allowable under the present legislation. But on last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice ruled that anyone not serviced by metro bus had a legal right to transportation. Because the people down · there are all confused, this is why I ask the Minister now would he re-instate the bus just for another month or two to see what will transpire in the interim? Mr.

Speaker: The han. the Minister of Education. Dr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I think the han. Member is right in much of what he said, but the Department does not run the bus system. The Department authorizes the use of buses by school boards, they do the contracting, and we are working very closely with the school board to try to address this problem. We have had ~eetings with them, I think our officials have met the parents, and hopefully within the next few days we can resolve this issue. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Tobin: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Health. A couple days ago, the President of the Council announced that starting April 1 government buildings will No. 93 RlO

be smoke free. I think it is a good move for the health of the people in our Province. I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question. Would he agree that now would be an appropriate time to place labels on all containers which contain alcoholic beverages, so that people would be aware that the consumption of alcohol could also be dangerous to their health? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr. Speaker, it is a timely question.

A few months ago, the health Ministers from across Canada met and the health Ministers from the western provinces, from British Columbia had that proposal, that item on the agenda. We gave it a very thorough discussion, and there are talks going on at this•very moment between the Ministers of Health of all the provinces and the federal Minister of Health, because. there is some federal jurisdiction involved here as well. I would tell the hon. Member that this is already being done in some of the American states, where there are warning labels on alcohol.

It is not a matter have total control, but it is a timely the hon. Member will hear that indeed discussed by all over which I Mr. Speaker, question and be pleased to it has been the health Ministers in the nation, as well as with the federal Minister. Mr. Speaker: expired. Question Pedoa has Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Simms: I wanted to ask the Minister of Forestry is he aware that the GATT (inaudible) over now in Brussels - Lll December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island. Mr.

Walsh: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I stand to present the Report of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures for the House of Assembly. Although, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting the report today, I will serve, I suppose, Notice of Motion as well, in the same context, ·that we will on tomorr-ow accept the report. The reason for presenting the report today, Mr.

Speaker, is to­ allow copies to be tcanscribed so that hon. members over the Christmas break will have an opportunity to take one last look at the rules and procedures as being presented, and also allow the Committee to take a final look at the last draft. that has been prepared to ensure - Mr. Simms: Is your family in the gallery today, or what? Mr.

Walsh: Not today, no that the report does meet the various items that we have discussed over the last number of months, and, in actual fact, over the last number of years, because an excellent committee was put in place some years ago to begin this procedure, and our Committee have had the opportunity over the last twelve months to tcy to deal, not only with their recommendations, but with some current practices which have been brought into effect recently. No. 93 Rll

I am going to touch on the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee has met so far a total of fifteen times and we anticipate a couple more meetings just to smooth out some of the rough edges. And, as I said, on tomorrow I will ask leave of the House to adopt the report. To touch on some of the i terns we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, I think would probably be inappropriate at this point in time.

The report itself is going to be far-reaching, and it affects a lot of the day-to-day activities of the House of Assembly, and I think to even touch on the headings would probably be inappropriate, as I am not moving adoption of the report today. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I hereby pc-esent the report and, at the same time, serve notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave of the House to adopt the Standing Committee's recommendations on Rules and Procedures for the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Hearn: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly for the financial year ending Mac-ch 31, 1988, and also an Appendix Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the financial year ending March 31, 1987 - that would be the former Public Accounts Curnmittee. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given L12 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride just' asked some questions about a lease with the Department of Education.

I will now give him the information. I have just clarified the details with my deputy minister. I point out, of course, that in my Department there are many tc-ansactions like this which go through every month, so I would not be aware of the details. I would not want to give the impression that I was misleading the House, so I wanted to ·have the full details before I gave him the information. The Department of Education, Mr. Speaker, occupied space in Atlantic Place since May of 1989, I think, or sometime back in 1989, and the lease expired.

At the time the Department was then deciding if they were going to require more space, or if they would move to a new facility.

Atlantic Place had lots of space at that time, there was no hurry, so they went into a month-to-month arrangement which continued on until July of this year, at which time Atlantic Place, with the hype that was created with the Hibernia signing, and the rental space in St • John I 5 tightening Up t the people who owned Atlantic Place gave the Department of Education notice and said, we want you out by the end of September, which meant there was no opportunity for the Department to come to my Department 1 who would then go ouc­ for public tender. So they went out for a proposal - An Hon.

Member: 1989, you are No. 93 Rl2

talking about. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. been 1989. Gilbert: 1989. They renting month-to-month Now, Mr. Speaker - Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! have since Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard in silence. Mr. Speaker: The Chair has called for order on a number of occasions while the minister has been addressing. Hon. members know they are not supposed to interrupt a member, and . they also ought to know the consequences when they do.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Department of Education has at least had space in Atlantic Place since 1989 on a month-to-month basis, because at the time the Department did not kno~ if they were going to require more space or if they were going to move to new facilities. This went on, and it was an arrangement which they were quite satisfied with. Atlantic Place, the landlord, was satisfied with it, because at the time they did not have anyone who wanted to rent this space.

With the event of the impending signing of the Hibernia agreement, all of a sudden there was pressure put on for rental space in St. John's, and Atlantic Place was one of the places people Ll3 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI ·, wanted to rent. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Gilbert: Now, Mr. Speaker, do we start again? Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I would please, want to ask the hon. Minister, not to start again. We get to the substance of the answer now. I believe he is in repetition now, so could the hon. Minister please speed up the answer? Mr. Gilbert: Alright, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, in July of this year the landlords at Atlantic Place came to the Department of Education and told them that they were giving them notice and they wanted them out of the premises by the end of September, which meant they would not have had time for the department to move if it had gone through the regular tender process. So the people in my department went out and called for proposals. They obtained three proposals, and the lowest one was Remax. They named a good Liberal.

They said a good Liberal was one of the owners of that, but I might point out that a good Tory was the other owner; a man by the name of Mr. Ted Rowe is the other one with Mr. Hickman. So there is a mixture in that one, if we are going to impute motive, Mr. Speaker. Now, the reason why it has not been reported in the exception - An Hon. Member: They Liberals. Now you have worse. Mr. Woodford: When baptized? No. 93 are both made it was he Rl3

Mr. Gilbert: The reason it was not reported, Mr. Speaker, is that those things are not reported under The Public Tendering Act until such tlme as a lease is signed, and to this date the lease has not been signed on that. It will be signed and reported, and I can assure bon. Members that as soon as the documentation is done, we will be only too happy to report it under The Public Tendering Act. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Gilbert: Premier is building. Actually the former renting in the same Mr. Peckford has a place there, too. Mr. Speaker: Questions for been Given.

Further Answers to Which Notice has The hon. the Member for Exploits. Mr. Grimes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide two answers on behalf of the hon. the Premier, the first in relation to a question on the Order Paper of October 26 from the han. the Leader of the Opposition, l1r. Tom Rideout, to ask the han. the Premier to lay upon the table of the House information regarding number of trips, who accompanied him and so on. It took a while, Mr. Speaker, because it covered th.e period from August 1st, 1989 to October 15, 1990. On behalf of the han. the Premier I am pleased to table the information, Mr.

Speaker, because it demonstrates clearly that the responsible approach taken by this administration regarding travel is certainly refreshing for the people of this Province compared to the extravagant approach taken by the previous administration. L14 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI The Premier asked me to indicate to the House in tabling the answer, Mr. Speaker, that he hopes that the same question is asked next year, so he can again show the responsible manner in which he handles travel. I would like to table the answer to the first one .

The second one is from yesterday, the bon. the Member for Port au Port asking a question regarding the cost of french lessons. The information, Mr. Speaker, is that from the date of the very first lesson up to and including today, the total cost to the treasury has been $1,200. Some Han. Members: What! Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I remind bon. Members that we are passed question period and that I am trying to get on to the Orders of the Day with great difficulty, as hon. Members are shouting f l"om both sides. Mr. Sp eaker: Petitions. Mr . Simms: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order. Mr. Simms: Yes, Mr. Speaker, under Answers to Questions. I wonder if - the Minister of Health has left. The President of Treasury Board might be able to respond. The Minister of Health is gone at the moment. But a couple of days ago we asked if the Minister of Health would table for us - it should be a simple request to respond to - a list of hospitals in the Province and the No. 93 Rl4

occupancy rates of each. I ·believe he indicated he would do it. I cannot understand why he would not. So I wonder is it possible that the President of Treasury Board could have a ·talk to the Minister of Health and see if he can get that for us before the House closes today, and that it be tabled before the day is over? I do not think there is much to it. Orders of the Day Mr. Baker: Order 10, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order 10. of the Whole, "An Act Anomalies And Errors Statute Law". (Bill No. Committee To Remove In The 71).

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider said bill, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. · Committee of the Whole Mr. Chairman: Order, please! A Bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 71). Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. Mr. Baker: Order 9, Mr. Chairman. A Bill, "An Chiropractors". Act Respecting (Bill No. 60). Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

Ms Verge: Chairperson, I would like to say that very regrettably L15 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI this long awaited and overdue bill is being rushed through the House of Assembly. The bill was not even printed or distributed until a couple of days ago, and yesterday afternoon I was frankly shocked to realize that the Minister of Health and the staff of the Department of Health had not even notified the chiropractors.

This legislation is designed primarily to provide a legal framework · for chiropractic in the Province, yet the Department of Health did not even give this .bill to the Provincial Chiropractors Association, or notify chiropractors or patients or other interested groups in the Province that the bill was going to be coming forward now.

An earlier version of the bill was vetted by the Social Legislation Review Committee back in September and early October and, as I said when I spoke yesterday, and as the Chairperson, the Member for Carbonear~ indicated in his remarks and in the written report of the Committee that he presented, there was a tremendous response to the Committee's request for input. Obviously a great number of people in the Province are vitally interested in this legislation.

The preliminary steps were done and done well; there was consultation through an advisory committee appointed by the previous government, continued by this Government. -~he Legislation Review Committee did a thorough job of reviewing, but the Legislation Review Committee unanimously requested several amendments to the bill and not all of those amendments were accepted. The final bill has been rushed into the House, suggesting that the Government was trying to hide No. 93 RlS

something, actually. I mean, it is leaving chiropractorss doubting the Government's motives and suspecting the whole process. Chairperson, there are three amendments to the Bill that I would like to propose. I gave the Minister of Health notice of these amendments earlier this morning. Mr. Simms: Do not do that yet. wait until we get to the appropriate clauses. Ms Verge: The Opposition House Leader is suggesting to me that I wait until we get to the appropriate clauses before making the amendments.

But I would like "to express now my concern about the way this has been handled by the full House, and to express my disappointment that the Minister of Health did not circulate this bill, the final version of the proposed legislation to the people affected before it was put to the House. The chiropractors and others interested were left with the impression that Government was going to delay introducing this in the full House until next spring and what happened yesterday took them completely by surprise.

When I was speaking yesterday I was expressing regret that the people interested did not know what was happening in the House yesterday and therefore none of them were in the visitors' gallery. I think that is a real shame, because the earlier stages of the process were done in a consultative way and the end has been extremely disappointing. Thank you, Chairperson. Mr.

Chairman: Before I recognize the hon. the President of Treasury Board, on behalf of han. members I would like to welcome to the House today seven basic education students from Avalon Community Ll6 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI College, accompanied by their instructor Adele Sharpe. --It is my understanding that these students were former employees of Natfonal Sea. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chairman: The han. the President of the Council. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. -I agree with the Member for Humber East in that I feel sad, but we feel sad about different things.

This Chiropractors Bill was developed in the legislative system and was given to a Legislation Review Committee. The Legislation review Committee sent copies to all interested parties and held hearings. I do not know how many witnesses they listened to, but they had hearings and there was a lot of input into this Bill. The Member for Humber East is trying to -give the impression that somehow we are- doing what she did so well when she was in Government, and that is brought bills in at the last minute, whipped them through whipped thirty-five or forty bills through in a day.

Nobody ever saw them and nobody knew what was in them. She is trying to give the impression that that is what we are doing. It is not what we are doing. The process of developing this Bill has been totally open, there has been a full public discussion, and there has been discussion in this House. We are not trying to hide anything, and we are not trying to rush it through at the last minute. Nothing is being hidden. It is totally aboveboard. I am very proud of the system of Legislation Review Committees which allows for such open discuss ion. I think i l is a giant leap forward in terms No. 93 Rl6

of democracy, the structure of those Committees. Let us go one step further. The Legislation Review Committee examines the Bill and then they come back. In this case, it so happened that the Legislation Review Committee had its report ready before the bill was even brought into the House, discussed in the House.

So the suggestions were given to the Minister of Health who had a look at the suggestions and again brought the bill through the Cabinet process, and made changes upon the recommendation of the Legislation Review Commit tee, so that changes were made even before this bill, which you see in front of you, was printed. So the changes are already incorporated into this bill.

Now in the ordinary course of events perhaps what would happen is that the bill itself, in its unamended form, would appear before the House and then, during the Committee stage, the amendments as suggested by the Legislation Review Committee would be proposed and then Government would decide whether to support or reject. The point I want to make is that because there has been a full and open discussion, because everybody has had a chance to examine Government's intent, because there have been a lot of suggestions as to changes, this does not mean that Government has to accept all the changes.

This is Government's bill, a bill proposed by Government. Its purpose is for the better service of the people of the Province. It is not a bill for chiropractors, it is a bill for the people of the Province. There has never been a bill before Ll7 December 7, 1990 Vol XLl respecting chiropractors. We believe this is an excellent bill, and we believe, as with any piece of legislation, that once it becomes enacted and we see how i l works over the years and we see the problems that may be with it, there are amendments and there may be amendments which will come up from time to time.

But as Government, obviously, we have the responsibility to support the legislation in the form that we believe is the best form for the time, and in this particular case, it meant not accepting all the suggestions of the Legislation Review Committee. And I do not see anything wrong with that. As I say, what I do see wrong is the concept that this is the first time in a matter of hours - the impression is that this is the first time this bill has been available and open for discussion. That is the impression the hon. Member is creating, and I think it ls really unfortunale, Mr.

Chairman, I just want to expt;ess my support for the system, my pleasure with the work of the Legislation Review Committee, and to state the fact that this is not

an Act for chiropractors, it is

an Act for the Province, it is

an Act for the people of the Province. That is the way we view it, and that is the way we will proceed with the bill. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, just a few brief remarks with respect to this particular issue and this particular debate. I do not think it was appropriate for the Government House Leader to assail the Member for Humber East for the approach she took in the matter. No. 93 Rl7

Her point was not the fact that it went to Legislative hearings, or any of that kind of thing. In fact, up until a week ago, as far as we are concerned, the process worked fine. In fact, I think she commended the process, in the sense that there were a number of presentations made at the public hearings and the Advisory Committee which, in fact, had been set up by the previous Administration in the first place to advise the Department of Health and so on.

I do not think it was fair of the Government House Leader to assail the Member for Humber East in that respect, and besides, it is irrelevant, it is all irrelevant to the issue, the issue that has surfaced here today. The Government House Leader himself made the point that the proce$S is you have public hearings, the Legislation Review Committee has public hearings, people can attend and make suggestions, and the Committee makes recommendations for amendments. What the Committee was dealing with at the time and what the public saw was a draft bill - it was a draft bill.

And as the Minister said a moment ago, 'we then as Government or Cabinet will decide whether we accept the amendments of the Committee and make changes to the bill. So until the bill was printed, we in this House, members of the Chiropractic Association and others, the public, had no idea if any of these amendments proposed by the Committee were, in fact, being accepted by the Government until most of them were, and they werP. incorporated into the final draft.

But I guess the point the Member for Humber East was making was that we did not know that Ll8 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI until a couple of days ago, when the bill was actually pdnted and tabled. So I think shf! made a very valid point in that respect. But, again, that is almost irrelevant, because there is one major issue that has surfaced here in the last day or so, and that is a request from the Association, I understand, made by a member of the executive, Dr. Goyeche, I think, on behalf of the Association's Executive, Dr.

Bryans and others, who made a request in writing - handwritten I understand, but in writing - to the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Health - Mr. Baker: Just a few minutes ago. Mr. Simms: Just a few minutes ago? I realize that. But that is because they . were not aware that this process was taking place today. And that is not unusual. Most people do not follow the activities and intr-icacies· of the House of Assembly; it is a job for most of us to keep on top of it. But, anyway, he does have a written request.

Now in that request, I understand, and they have made a simple request, they asked that the legislation at this stage, Committee stage, be held over until we reopen the House in January or February, or whenever we reopen again. And if there is no emergency associated with it, and we understand the whole purpose here is to try to bring in legislation that will benefit the people of the Province we understand that, so does the Association, I am certain if there is no emergency and if the Association has asked that it be held in Committee stage of the bill until next January or No. 93 Rl8

February, I presume so that they can have further consultations or discussions with the Minister and Department of Health officials to see if, in fact, they cannot improve upon what we already have now started, why does the Government not consider that? We, on this side, would have no problem with that, waiting until January or February, if it is not that big an e~ergency - right?

Now maybe the Government House Leader will get up and say no, not a chance, not in the world, we are ramming it through and that is it, or maybe he might considered, as he usually is I might add, he is usually considered of these points when they are made, and he might want to have a chat with the Minister of Health before the morning is out and decide to accede to that very request.

And if that is what he might want to do, just in case he might want to do that, perhaps I could suggest to him simply that he would stop the debate at this stage on this bill and move on to the next bill to give him a chance to have· a little discussion on it. If he comes back a little later in the morning or something and says no, final, that is it, we are going through with it, well, then, that is about all we can do with it, other than raise the issue here. So maybe the Government House Leader would consider that. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Baker: First of all I want to comment, Mr.

Chairman, on one aspect of the logic of the process that I tried to get at in my previous speech but failed obviously, failed miserably. We have a process in place. Whether the bill was a draft bill or not L19 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI makes little difference. The process was followed, all groups had input, and they have had a long time to consider it.

Now I am wondering in terms of the process if the Opposition House Leader is suggesting that after we get the Committee report - there are two ways we can get it: we can either get it in the House, if we are already in the process of discussing the bill and the amendments can be suggested, or we can get it direct if the House is closed, or if we have not considered the bill yet, and the minister then takes it and makes the changes that Government is willing to accept.

But is he suggesting that once Government has decided on which amendments they are willing to accept that then it should go back through the whole process again? I mean, that i~ what I am getting from the hon. Member. Because the Member for Humber East indicated, oh, well, this is a real surprise

now, therefore, we should go back to the process. And Members opposite are suggesting that therP. is something wrong with Government taking the suggested amendments, deciding which ones we want to officially support, and putting them in the bill and then stopping the process. Because we have to stop somewhere. If ever·y time an amendment is not acceptable to a group - Mr. Simms: You misunderstood the (inaudible). Mr. Baker: If at some point in time an amendment is not acceptable to a group, then we do not have to go through the process again. I mean, obviously we cannot do all amendments acceptable to all groups. Mr. Simms: Nobody is suggesting No. 93 Rl9

that. Mr. Baker: The real point _here is that the objections the han. Members have are objections which have been expressed and have been dealt with. What you are asking is that we deal with them a second time now and delay the passage of the legislation, when the Minister of Health feels it is important for him . to have that legislation. Mr. Chairman, that is our position. On motion, Clause 1 carried. Mr. Chairman: Shall Clause 2 carry? The hon. Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: I would like to propose an amendment to Clause 2 (b). I propose that the word 'usually' be deleted. Clause 2 (

b) is a definition of chiropractic. It now reads: "'chiropractic' means a professional service usually performed ·by a chiropractor directed towards the diagnosis, examination and tC'eatment, principally by hand, and without use of drugs or surgery, of the spinal column, pelvis, extremities and associated tissues." Now, Chairperson, the word 'usually' does not seem to serve a function in this definition. It is ambiguous. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

One poss~Ele interpC'etation is that the professional service which is outlined is only sometimes performed by chiropractoC's and other times is performed by other pC'ofessionals or other people. I do not think that is what was intended, so I would suggest, I am in fact formally proposing, that the word 'usually' be removed.

That will leave the clause reading as L20 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI follows: "'chiropractic' means a professional service performed by a chiropractor directed towards the diagnosis, examination and treatment, principally by hand, and without use of drugs or surgery, of the spinal column, pelvis, extremities and associated tissues. Mr. Chairman: Shall clause 2(

b) as amended, carry? Some Han. Members: Nay. Some Han. Members: Carried. Mr. Simms: Nay? The Government said "nay"? Any reason why? Ms Verge: Why? On motion, Clauses 4 carried. Mr. Chairman: carry? Shall thC'ough 15, Clause 16 Ms Verge: The han. Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Chairperson. Clause 16 details with the vital issues of diagnostic tools available to chiropractors. I propose one of two amendments to subclause (1).

The flrst suggestion is that the words 'No chiC'opractor shall' be deleted and the words, 'Chiropractors may' be substituted therefore, so that the subclause will read: "Chiropractors may prescribe a laboratory test or maintain, use or have access to hospital or other laboratoC'y services." If that suggestion is not - Mr. Baker: (inaudible). This is subsection Ms Verge: Yes, this is

Section 16 No. 93 R20

(1) on page 11 of the bill. Just to give the Government House Leader a few minutes to find the right page and to think about what I am proposing, I believe the Minister of Health understands the point I am making because I discussed my idea with him early this morning, plus I made the point in debate yesterday. The issue is whether or not chiropractors in diagnosing and treating their patients should be able to prescribe lab services provided by hospitals, whether they should be able to prescribe lab tests that are done in hospitals, and have direct access to hospital laboratory tests.

All the evidence that was presented ·to the Legislation Review Committee was in support of this proposition. The information indicated that it is in the interest of public safety and patient good for chiropractors to be able to access directly and easil~ lab tests that are do~e in hospitals. The alternative is problematic. The alternative would require chiropractors who need lab tests to do proper diagnosings to have to refer their patients to a physician who is a general practitioner and have the patient request the GP to prescribe and order the hospital lab tests.

The patient would then, if successful, go to the hospital and have the tests done; the results would be sent to the intermediary general practitioner, necessitating a second visit to the general practitioner on the part of a patient to get the lab test results and then a resumption in the contact between the patient and the chiropractor. Now I would argue, Chairperson, that this involves delay, it involves uncertainty, and it involves jeopardy to the health of the L21 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI patient.

Finally, it involves extra 'cost for the Government -- it necessitates two visits to the intermediary physician, which MCP has to pay for, just to get a hospital lab test for the chiropractor to make the diagnosis. It just does not make any sense. Now the Committee heard from a great number of groups and individuals. We were given internationally recognized studies, and all the evidence supported allowing chiropractors easy and direct access to laboratory testing that is done in public hospitals.

The only presenter who objected to chiropractors having direct access to hospital lab and x-ray services was the Association of Hospitals and Nursing Homes, and they did not advance any reason of substance. They indicated that there is bad blood between chiropractors and physicians and therefore you cannot have them talking to each other. It is necessary for the hospital radiologists and lab technologists, they said, to have a buffer to talk to a general practitioner who, in turn, will relay the results to the patients who can carry them to the chiropractor.

The Newfoundland Medical Association, the professional association of physicians appeared before our Committee and I asked them, I asked the President of the Newfoundland Medical Association the physician's view on allowing chiropractors to access directly hospital lab and x-ray services and he said he had no opinion on the subject. So it seems very strange that the Government would include this measure in the bill. No. 93 R21

The Legislation Review Committee which, as Members here realize, comprises three Liberal Government Members, including the Member for Carbonear who serves as Chairperson, along with two Opposition PC Members, unanimously recommended that the legislation provide for chiropractors having direct access to hospital lab and x-ray services. The Minister of Social Services is doubting what I say. Now I find that surprising, because in his discussions with chiropractors he has indicated support for their cause.

Now I would refer the Minister of Social Services to the report of the Social Legislation Review Committee, Arthur Reid MHA, Chair, page -the pages are not numbered, but it is the same page of the text of the report -the same page that bears the signature of Arthur Reid, MHA, Chairperson, which ·indicates that the Committee's unanimous recommendation to is the insertion of a provision to grant chiropractors direct access to hospital x-ray and laboratory facilities. Here it is. It was distributed in the House yesterday as part of the rush process.

Now, Chairperson, the Minister of Health will probably get up and echo the views of his physician advisors and the physicians who failed to indicate directly to the Review Committee in their presentation any objection to chiropractors having direct access; he will probably relay their view that this is not provided for in legislation elsewhere in Canada and since we have lagged behind the country in terms of a legal ft"amework for chiropractic for so long, why now should we go ahead of the rest of the country? Well, that is not an argument. Newfoundland and L22 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Labrador can lead.

But the premise is false in any case, because in other parts of Canada chiropractors are accessing directly hospital lab services, and for our Act to have an explicit clause banning chiropractors having direct access would be contrary to all the evidence presented to the Committee, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, the recommendation of the Liberal Member for Carbonear, the Liberal Member for St. George's, and the Libera] Member for Harbour Grace.

Additionally, it would be contraey to the Department of Health Advisory Committee which included physicians: it included medical doctors, it included specialists or general practitioners.

So, Chairperson, I am proposing an amendment that is consistent with the unanimous recommendation of the Review Committee, consistent with the weight of evidence presented by members·of the public to the Social Legislation Review Committee during our several hearings in September and October, and consistent with the advice of the Department of Health Advisory Committee, which included physicians, that chiropractors by law be able to access directly hospital laboratory services. Thank you, Chairperson. Mr. Decker: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to believe what. I am hearing here this morning.

For seventeen years the previous Government refused to even recognize as a chiropractic for seventeen to take any yeacs action profession, they refused with this legitimate profession practicing in this I sat in this House fot" when the mouthpiece fot" administt"atlon, John which is Province. flve yeat"s the Toey No. 93 R22

Carter, used to get up and I remember him saying specifically that there is no bigger fraud, there is no bigger scam, he said, perpetrated on the people of this Province than that which is being perpetrated by chiropractors. That is a direct quote from John Carter, and every member over there, except possibly the Member for Grand Bank and maybe one or two others, agreed with their mouthpiece. So I am having a difficult time understanding this kind of hypocrisy. For seventeen years they treated those people as if they were somehow not professional people. Mr. Simms: It is scandalous, that is what it is.

It is scandalous. It is the typical political garbage that comes from the likes of that minister every day. He · cannot deal with (inaudible). Mr. Decker: Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing here this morning is nothing but political grandstanding, and the hon. the Opposition House Leader knows it. For years and years they would not recognize those people as professionals. I came into this Department and I did it, Mr. Chairman, and the Act which I am putting here today I am proud of. I am proud to put this Act forward. Now, let me tell hon. members what this Act is for.

This Act which is before us today is for chiropractors. But this Act is not only for chiropractors. The role of Government is to make sure that we look after all our people, whether they be chiropractors, whether they be ordinary citizens, whatever they be, Mr. Chairman. This Act is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This Act is to ensure that any person who sees a sign stating L23 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI / ~ """' 'Chiropractor' and goes to visit that person, the citizen knows he is going to a person who is qualified to perform the duties of a chiropractor, that that person, that chiropractor would have had five or six years of formal training, he will have had some experience and he is certified, he is a member of a profession, a valiant profession, Mr. Chairman, which is just as valuable to this Province as the medical profession, as the nursing profession, as any other profession.

But this Act was not in place before and it is going to be here. Now, Mr. Chairman, when I put this Act in place I did not sit down one night and dream up all the rules and regulations. I do not have the ability to write a Chiropractor's Act, I have to get information, I have to take advice, I have to consult. And that consultation process, Mr. Chairman, has been going on now for nearly twenty months. I consulted with the chiropractors. They asked for some things I was not prepared to grant, and they asked for other things I was prepared to grant.

I met with groups of people of certain professions who said we should outlaw the chiropractors. That has been suggested to me, Mr. Chairman. I had to listen to what they were saying, I had to listen to their arguments. Some of their arguments I did not accept, and some of their other arguments I did accept. I had to listen to every one all the legal advice I could get, all the professional advice I could get, and I got it from both extremes. One extreme was personified by The John Carter approach, the other extreme was No. 93 R23

approached by men like John Efford, who is a full-fledged supporter of this profession and when he was in Opposition spoke highly of the profession; the hon. Member for St. John • s East Extern is another full supporter who made no effort to cover up his feelings when the Government was in a different manner here in this House, Mr. Chairman. Now I consul ted with everyone in this Province, and I went outside the Province.

I looked at other jurisdictions, down through the States and across Canada, and as far as I can determine, it is not the norm at this tlme in Canada to grant the rights to chiropractors to prescribe lab tests. Some of the western provinces are indeed looking into doing it. I understand it is possible that one or two of the western provinces might have gone that far, but the vast majority of Canadian provinces, at this time, have not gone that far, to allow chiropractors to prescribe lab tests. That might indeed come. Yesterday there was no Chiropractors Act in this Province. These things evolve.

And as long as we have a listening, open Government, then this could well evolve some day. Tf I, as Minister, am convinced that this is the proper thing to do and there at"e no questions and there are no doubts, then I will bi"ing an amendment to this. But I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that at this point in tlme the advice r am getting and the recommendations which I am receiving do not warrant giving access to labs.

The Act, as far as I am concerned, considering whet"e we are in our state of evolution, considering L24 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI -c -~ what has gone on in the past, considering the divisions which are alive within this Province, because there are just as many people who are anti-chiropractor as there are people who are pro-chiropractor, as a Government we have to listen to all views and after we have listened to all views, we have to come forward with

an Act which is satisfactory for the chiropractors, but more importantly, Mr. Chairman, for the people of this Province. Mr. Chairman: carry? Shall the amendment Ms Verge: Chairperson? Mr. Chairman: Clause 16? Ms Verge: Clause 16. I would like to propose another amendment? Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Chairperson, the Minister of Health just made a speech praising chiropractors and talking about how well qualified they are, saying that they are as valuable as other health care professionals, including doc tors and nurses.

Well, if the Minister of Health believes that, why in heaven's name is he, by law, going to block their access to hospiti;ll labs tests? I m~an, how does the Minister of Health propose that chiropractors diagnose their patients if they are not going to be able to have lab tests done and analyzed? What is the minister's alternative? How are chiropractors going to have the diagnostic tools they need to do their jobs and serve their patients? The Minister of acknowledged that No. 93 Health has chiropractors R24

are accessing directly hospital lab· services in other parts of Canada. He seems extremely conservative in his approach; he seems to want to have everyone else in North America doing something before we entertain it. But if the evidence is there that chiropractors need lab tests to diagnose properly, why put roadblocks in their way? And why reject the advice the minister has received from the Advisory Committee to his department, that included doctors as well as chiropractors? Why reject the advice of his own Liberal colleagues, the Member for Carbonear, the Member for Harbour Grace, and the Member for St.

George's? He might not like me, and he may be an extremely partisan individual and he may on principle reject anything that any PC says. Well, forget what I am saying, but please listen to what his own Advisory Committee and his own Liberal colleagues have recommended. Now, Chairperson, I would like the minister when he gets up in response to my second amendment proposal to explain how he envisages chiropractors diagnosing their patients. I mean, does he realize that chiropractors need lab tests? Does the minister realize that?

And if he do_es, how does he imagine chiropractors are going to get the lab tests and get the results so they can treat their patients? Now, Chairperson, my second amendment proposal is that clause 16 ( 1) be deleted altogether. If there cannot be an explicit, positive statement that chiropractors may prescribe laboratory tests or maintain use or have access to hospital or other laboratory services, well L25 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI let us take it out altogether and effectively we will have the status quo on that score.

That is better than having an explicit negative prohibiting chiropractors from prescribing and accessing laboratory tests. Let us just take out the subclause, and then, perhaps, the minister can take more time to consult and watch what they are doing in the rest of the country. And if enough provinces bring in positive legislation, then maybe he can follow suit. Do not lead, but at least follow. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for Carbonear . Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I have to apologize, but I was out of the House for about a half hour earlier this morning.

I just got back and I have been listening to my han. colleague for Humber East. I really do not know what is going on here this morning. I am at a loss. Yesterday afternoon I crossed this floor during Question Period and I asked the han. member if she was satisfied with the report that was delivered to her yesterday morning. The comment the han. member made to me was yes, it is all right, Art, but I have not had a chance to look at it. Now I am really surprised. What is happening here this morning is certainly not fair to the Committee, and it is certainly not fair to me as a Chairman.

Yesterday afternoon in this House my han. colleague stood and she spoke for, I think, almost forty minutes, and every member in this House at the tail end of it got up and tried to encourage the lady to finish up, including her own colleagues. She did mention laboratory tests, but without any No. 93 R25

equivocation whatsoever, Mr. Chairman, I can admit to you right now that my han. colleague across the way knew that the minister had refused access to labor-atory tests even long befor-e yesterday. She knew that. She knew that we made five particular recommendations to the minister, asking the minister to look at these recommendations, and the Minister agreed with four of the five. And this is not being fair, Mr. Chairman, to this House. It is not being fair. An Han. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Reid: I am not arguing the question of what would be wrong or what would be right about it.

But all of a sudden because yesterday afternoon - and if you remember, Mr. Chairman, on a number of occasions yesterday when the lady was speaking she mentioned the fact that there was nobody here from the Chiropractic Association to hear the debate, and conveniently this -morning ther-e is one per-son sitting in this House fr-om the Chiropractic Association who has met with Ms. Ver-ge and has met with other- Members. Now all of a sudden the issue of laboratory tests comes to the floor this morning, and I am confused.

Because I am of the belief that my hon. colleague accepted the report as it was presented to her yesterday and that report stood. Now to turn around and try to place some blame on me as Chairman or on the Minister, trying to slough through a piece of legislation, as far as I am concerned that is wrong. The other point that I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is this - I will be quite honest, and my han. colleague from Humber East realizes this as well - that both herself and myself felt that this L26 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI piece of legislation had to go through this House before we closed this session.

I wanted it through because I am an advocate of chiropractic medic ine, as well as a number of · my other colleagues. And she also knew that it was through the Clerk's desk and through the efforts of myself and her and Ms. Murphy that we put a rush on this so that we could convince the Minister and this Government to push this through right now, because chiropractors wanted this piece of legislation. And that is the reason why it was rushed. And I take exception, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that we are being accused of rushing a piece of legislation through, because we are not.

We are doing it because my han. colleague and I agreed, and we convinced the Minister to table this piece of legislation right now. And if it had not been tabled, we would be looking at maybe next fall before this piece of legislation could come through and the chiropractor-s of Newfoundland would still be out there with absolutely nothing. I do not think it is fair of Ms. Verge, my han . colleague. 1 do not think it is fair. I think what you are doing here today is putting on a show for somebody for some r-eason. I do not know what it is! This is a good piece of legislation.

This is a perfect legislation, considering we never had any legislation until now. Thank God we have a Minister who has enough guts to br-ing it ln. Thank you very much. Mr-. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader-. Mr-. Simms : Mr-. Chairman, it is No. 93 R26

-""' --'---._ rather unfortunate that Members opposite have decided to take a political approach in this debate. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Simms: Well, I mean it seriously. The Minister of Health got up and spent most of his time commenting on what happened in the past and attacked ... the President of Treasury Board got up and assailed the Member for Humber East. And now the Member for Carbonear has got up and done exactly the same thing, attacked the Member for Humber East. But none of them have the political courage to address the issue. And I want to quote what the Member for Carbonear just said.

He said, first of all, that the Member for Humber East accepted the report of the Legislation Review Committee. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me quote from that report. Number 2 recommendation. 'The insertion of a provision to grant chiropractors direct access to hospital x-ray and laboratory facilities.' Yes, the Member for Humber East accepted the report, and so do we. The problem is the Government has not accepted it. That is the problem. So what is the point of berating the Member for Humber East?

She is doing her duty as an Opposition Member and as a Member of the Legislation Review Commit tee, in pointing out - she does not disagree with his argument that she accepted the report. Of course she did. But the report, which included a majority of Liberals, Government Members, on that Committee, recommended that that be included and it is not accepted. So we have every right to argue it. L27 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Now the other most important point, though, is that he said that chiropractors want the legislation. That is what he said just then, about two minutes ago. Well, Mr.

Chairman, we are acting on the understanding that a representative of the Chiropractors Provincial Executive, the Association Executive - Secretary-Treasurer I believe is the position of the individual who made the representation this morning - she has authority to act on behalf of the executive of the Association, including Dr. Bryans, the President, as I understand it. Mr. Efford: I have spoken to them all this morning. Mr. Simms: As I - pardon me? Mr. Efford: I spoke to (inaudible) as early as seven o' cloc~ this morning. (Inaudible) is not coming through this House. Mr.

Simms: So is the Minister of Social Services saying that this is not a request from the Association executive to have this legislation delayed? 1s he saying that? Mr. Efford: They are satisfied to see an ame~dment made over the next year or so if they can prove they are professionals and their , ability to practice in this Province without any problem. They are not stuck. An Hon. Member: have to prove that? Why should you (Inaudible). Mr. Efford: (Inaudible) amendment could be made at any time. Mr. Doyle: So is the Minister of Social Services, I ask him again, saying that the request made this No. 93 R27

~ < morning by the Association to the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Health in writing - Mr. Efford: In writing? Mr. Simms: Yes, in writing. Handwritten, this morning. Mr. Effor-d: Dr. (inaudible) told me at 7:00 a.m. this mor-ning he is quite satisfied with this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Simms: Is he saying that the executive of the Association made a request this morning in writing and that that is not an accurate request of the Association executive? Mr. Efford: (inaudible). I am saying Dr. Mr. Simms: I am asking him. He is the one who is telling us. Mr.

Efford: I have not seen anything written. Mr. Simms: Well, may I suggest to the hon. Minister that he not say anything if he has not seen it? Mr-. Efford: Well I told you what Dr. Mallett said this morning. Mr. Simms: He should ask to see it. In any event, Mr. Chainnan, for Members opposite to get up and berate the Opposition for- r-aising these questions, I mean, it is a bit unfair and quite unusual to do so. We are acting on the under-standing that there is a request. The President of Treasury Board as a matter of fact, I say to the Minister of Social Services - An Han. Member: (Inaudible). Mr-.

Simms: Yes, l say to the L28 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI Minister of Social Services, the President of Treasur-y Board indicated alr-eady, confirmed earlier in this debate, that he had r-eceived a note· this morning from the Secr-etary-Treasurer of the Association on behalf of the executive, as I understand it, requesting that the legislation be held off. Now there is no reason for the legislation to be held off until next fall, as the Member for Carbonear said.

The legislation could be held off until the House r-esumes in January, or- whenever we resume, and at that time ther-e would be an extr-a bit of time for­ the Association to have further­ consultations with the Minister­ and see if they can work out their­ differences. If not, then it comes back into the House in January and then we finalize it, whatever- the r-esponse is. I will let the Minister- r-espond. Mr. Chairman: The han. the Minister- of Health. Mr. Decker-: With this Act, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of consultation with the chiropractor-s and with other­ groups of people, as the hon.

Opposition House Leader- can understand. Now if the Opposition wants to for-ce us to r-emove this Act, w~ will have to go back and go through all that pr-ocess again. And I can tell hon. Members that once I go back, then all the other groups who have a stake in this are going to have to be hear-d as well. And, Mr:-. Chairman, this could take a long, long time. Now the Opposition will have to make up their minds. If they want this Act scr-apped to go back through the process - it is a long, drawn-out pr-ocess - but if this is what they are insisting on, well this it. No. 93 R28

There was a note slipped to me this morning, there is a signature on it, saying that - and Dr. Bryans himself did not sign it, apparently he is away - Mr. Efford: I spoke to Dr. Bryans this morning. Mr. Decker: - so I am not sure what is going on. But I am just suggesting to hon. Members that maybe what we are doing here might not be in the best interests of the chiropractors or the people of the Province. Because if this is scrapped, it is not just a matter of going to the chiropractors and saying, if we do this are you satisfied? There will then be a hundred and - Mr.

Simms: Did you tell that to Bryans this morning? Mr. Decker: I did not talk to him this morning, I just received a note. If it was a matter of just delaying, going to the chiropractors and saying change this word, give us permission to do that, if that was all that was involved, it could be done. But, Mr. Chairman, there is more involved in this. Because there are so many people in the health care system that once you bring

an Act in for one group it impacts on every single other group in the whole system, Mr. Chairman. So with what we are doing we could end up losing the total chiropractors Act, and this is why I think it is important that it go through today. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. Mr. Tobin: Mr. like to have a comments on this, Speaker, I would ver"y few brief being a Member L29 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI -, of the Social Legislation Review Committee.

I do not think there is any need for my colleague, the Member for Carbonear, to get up and rant and roar in the House this morning, the way he just got on, and play politics. That does not solve anything. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Order, please! Mr. Tobin: The way the Chairman of that Committee got on this morning just does not solve anything. As a matter of fact, it was totally out of character for the Member, Mr. Chairman, and I do not know why he is putting himself that low in this Assembly, trying to defend the actions of the Minister of Health.

We all worked hard on that Committee and no one worked any harder,. Mr. Chairman, than the Member from Humber East. And the Chairman knows that. I take great exception to the personal attack he launched on her this morning. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, and I make no apologies for it, that I supported the piece of legislation yesterday. I thought it was better than nothing. I thought that was the beginning, and that an amendment would come in. That is exactly what I thought.

But this morning I was approached by a representative on behalf of the chiropractors who asked that rather than going that way, if they would delay it until February. I believe that is the request that was made by my colleagues. If I am right, I believe the request made by my colleague for Humber East was that it be delayed until February. No. 93 R29

They did not make a request for public hearings and all that, that is the Minister of Health, Mr. Chairman, trying to drag a red herring into this debate. That is what is taking place. There has been a legitimate request, a reasonable request made to the Minister of Health as it relates to this and I suggest that he deal with it. What is the urgency if the chiropractors are not ready to deal with it right now? Mr.

Chairman, I do not think it is going to take a great deal of foresight, a great deal of sacrifice, a great deal of commitment on anybody's part to meet the request that has been delivered to the Minister in writing this morning. I was on the Commit tee, Mr. Speaker, and I support the efforts of my colleague for Humber East, and I take exception to the personal attacks that have been launched on her this morning by various Members opposite. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: is very Mr.

Chairman, look, it evident that the Government is not going to respond to this request in a favorable manner. I mean, the Minister has already said no. Ms Verge: amendment. Not to this second Mr. Simms: Yes, he has. He has said no to the amendment. But, in any event, we will see if he says no or yes to the amendment, because our amendment is put and it will stand. We will vote on the amendment. But in terms of the rest of us getting up here and repeating exactly the same request over and over again, I do not L30 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI -..... think that gets us anywhere and it does not make any progress.

We can certainly tcy to delay this and stall it and all the rest of those kinds of tactics, but if the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment as proposed by Commit tee, then in the end they will have their say no matter what the process is. So I suggest that we call the question on the amendment, see what the response is in terms of a vote, and then we will move on from there. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

Ms Verge: Just so there will not be any- doubt, the proposal for amendment that is before the House now is to delete clause 16 (1), to leave out any reference to chiropractors prescribing laboratory tests or having access to hospital or other laboratory services.

That way, essentially chiropractors will operate the way they have up to now in terms of lab tests and diagnosis based on lab test results, that way the Government will have a chance to assess the situation, consult the chiropractors and the Chiropractic Association, examine in more detail international studies, look more closely at what is being done in other Canadian provinces, and then, when the House next sits in the winter or the spring, the Minister, if he wishes, may come back and bring in a bi 11 to amend the Chiropractors Act.

But let's not spoil a positive legislative measure which people have been waiting for a long time by crippling chiropractors by having an explicit clause prohibiting chiropractors from prescribing lab tests or accessing directly hospital or other laboratory services. So the amendment proposal is just to leave out No. 93 R30 --·

clause 16 (1). Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote against this amendment. If clause 16 (1) stays in, we can still do exactly the same thing as the hon. ·Member is pointing out - we can still consult and do this sort of thing. I am very much afraid, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to lose this Act. And if we lose this Act, it will be worse for the chiropractors and for the people of this Province than if we (inaudible). On motion, amendment defeated. On motion, Clauses 16 through 26, carried. Mr. Chairman: Shall clause 27 carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Chairperson, Clause 27 is a delayed proclamation provision. With this clause the Act, having been passed despite our efforts to amend it, will not come into force today, after the bill rec.eives Royal Assent, it will not come into force until some indefinite tlme in the future when the Cabinet makes a decision to proclaim it law. Now in the past these delayed proclamation provisions have led to unnecessary delays in the coming into force of laws.

The most recent example is the amendments to The Adoptions Act we passed here in June, amendments we passed on the understanding, from what social services officials told the Review Committee, that L31 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI they were urgently needed for the sake of some twenty-five applicants for adoptions information. Now instead of those reforms coming into force immediately, they did not take effect until the end of September.

So with this delayed proclamation provision, even though the Government majority has passed this bill, and even though the Lieutenant-Governor gives it Royal Assent today, it will not become law today. It will not become law until some uncertain tlme in the future when the minister gets around to asking Cabinet to make an order proclaming it law. So the chiropractors legislation, flawed as it is, may sit on the shelf, may be on the Statute books of the Province for months or for years without it being in force.

So I would suggest to the ~inister that unless there is a good reason for delaying the coming into force of this Act, that this delayed proclamation clause, Clause 27, be deleted. Mr. Hogan: Go take your pill. Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: Mr. Chairman, I am sorr-y, but I am going to have to vote against this amendment as well. There is no one in this Province who wants a Chiropractors Act proclaimed more than I do. I think I have proven that already. However, Mr. Chairman, the Act, hopefully, will be put in place as soon as we can. However, we have to formulate the regulations.

There are no regulations yet done, and these things will all have to be done. It is just. impossible for us to do it, the time is just not there. But I think the people No. 93 R31

of this Province realize by the action I have takeh that there is no desire on my part, certainly, to squash this,- and as soon as we get the regulations in place, we certainly will proclaim it. On motion, amendment defeated. The han. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: I have another amendment, a variation to propose. If the minister needs time to formulate and pass regulations, then let -us set a reasonable length of time, but set a date certain for the coming into force of the Act. If the minister needs three months, then let us have Clause 27 reading that the Act shall come into force on March 31, 1991.

If he needs six months, let us have a clause saying the Act shall come into force on June 30, 1991. Mr. Decker: No. Ms Verge: The Minister of Health is saying, no. I have the feeling, Chairperson, that no matter what I might say, becausP. I am PC and sit on the opposite side of the House from the Minister of Health, no matter what suggestion I might ever make, he will always vote against it. But that will not stop me from advancing positive ideas for reform and improvement in health care. Thank you, Chairperson. Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The han. the Minister of Health. Mr.

Decker: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to see the han. member who normally takes the highroad, get L32 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI down in the mud and accuse me of being political biased in this matter. Mr. Chairman, it is an extremely busy time in the Department of Health, as han. members of this House· will know. If there was no other single thing for the Department of Health to be involved in but The Chiropractors Act, I would be quite pleased to set a limit of fifteen days or twenty days, whatever the case might be.

However, I think the chiropractors I have met with and the people of the Province realize that we will get the regulations in place as soon as we can, and hopefully that will be sooner and not later, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Grimes: It will not take seventeen years. · On motion, amendment defeated. On motion, Clause 27 carried. Motion, that the Commit tee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. Mr. Baker: Order 8, Bill No. 42. A Bill, "An Act To Repeal The Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act". (Bill No. 42). Mr. Chairman: carry? The hon . the Leader. Shall Clause l Opposition House Mr.

Simms: Mr. Speaker, this is another piece of legislation and a great progressive move by this Government that unfortunately we have not been successful in having the Government change its mind on, and that is abolishing the Ombudsman's office. I am not sure again, other than trying to force closure, which is always an No. 93 R32

option, but I mean, I guess, the GoveLrument has already indicated to us that they are prepared to use closure on anything, so it almost does not work anymore, or there is not much point to it anymore. We have spoken at length on it. The Leader of the Opposition spoke for two hours, I spoke for an hour on the Bill, and the Member for Kilbride has been - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). It seemed like it, it was such a great speech .. The Member for Kilbride has doggedly Mr.

Simms: pursued questions, all, to referred the Premier with asking him, first of have public hearings to a Committee - the answer was no - asking to bring the Ombudsman before the Bar of the House since he is an employee of the House, and the Premier said, no. Mr. Grimes: Did he gentleman from Newfoundland (inaudible)? name the Central Mr. Simms: No, he did not name the gentleman. But if the member opposite would insist on it, I guess we could do it. I am not sure they would want to insist on it. Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr.

Simms: Let me just say to the Member for Exploits, speak to the Government House Leader. He knows. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, on this piece of legislation we have moved a six month hoist which the Government defeated, so I do not know what else we can do. We asked for a free vote on it in the House and no was the answer to that. I would not be at all surprised if L33 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI my colleague, the Member for Humber East, right at the end of· her few remarks made the point, that because it. is being proposed by the Opposition, no matter what they are not going to listen to it. Mr.

Hogan: (Inaudible), too. Mr. Simms: Well, why did members opposite not force the Government to have public hearings on the Ombudsman Act? Why did they not allow a free vote? Why did they not ask Government to bring the Parliamenta -ry Commissioner to the Bar of the House? Why did they not support the six month hoist? Why? Why? Why? The reason is because they are not going to buck the Government or buck the Premier. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, and there is lots of evidence for it.

Because I know members on that.side, I know there are members on that side of the House who feel very, very uncomfortable with this move. Enough said! Mr. Hogan: Name them. Mr. Tobin: You? You? Mr. Simms: No. I am not like the hon. member. I will not name them. Anyway, Mr.

Chairman, having said that, I do want to give notice that we will be moving an amendment - one last ditch effort, I suppose to the appropriate clause at the time it comes, and at that time we might have a few more words to say on the amendment with the hope that maybe, as a last ditch effort, as the last gasp comes h·om the Opposition, the Government House Leader, who is a democratic person I believe, might feel inclined to agree with the amendment and give them time to give it a little more thought. The purpose of the No. 93 R33

amendment will be reason. So when we appropriate clause, moving that amendment. On motion, carried. Clauses for get to I will that the be 1 and 2, Mr. Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry? Mr. Chairman: The han. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to move an amendment to .Clause 3, which presently says this Act comes into force January 1, 1991, so that it would not come into force until 1995, or something along those lines, but we did not expect there would be a lot of support for that on the Government side. However, we thought a more reasonable amendment they might very well accept.

In view of the fact that .the Government has already spent, or will have by the end of this month, nine-twelfths or three-quarters of the money required for the operation of the Ombudsman's office - there is only three months left in the fiscal year after the end of this month - and in view of the fact that there has been a lot of concern expressed by the public, by editorial writers, by people all around the Province and by world authorities, and in view of the fact that we did not have public hearings on it, just in case the Government might want to reconsider this whole issue - just in case - all we are asking is that the proclamation be delayed, or the date of the Act coming into force be delayed until the end of the fiscal year, March 31, just to give a bit more time to give it some real thought and consideration.

With that in mind, that is basically the reasoning L34 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI for the plea, our last ditch effort it appears. Maybe · the Government House Leader will take pity on us because of this last gasp and might accept this amendment, who knows? He is a fair, democratic person and he might very well do just that. I move the amendment which would delete clause 3 as it now exists · and the following substituted therefore: 'this Act comes into force on March 31, 1991.' That is the simple way of moving the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I do so. Mr. Chairman: The han. the Government House Leader. Mr.

Baker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one comment which . kind of sums up my attitude towards this. I say to the han. Member, if· t'were done, 'tis best t'were done now. On motion, amen~ent defeated. On motion, Clause 3, carried. Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried. Mr. Baker: Order 7. A Bill, "An Act Respecting The Creation Of Regional Service Boards Throughout The Province". (Bill No. 38) . On motion, carried. Clauses 1 and 2, Mr. Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry? Mr. Simms: No, Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman: The han. the Opposition House Leader. No. 93 R34

Mr. Simms: Mr. Chairman, we have numerous amendments to make to this legislation, as Members opposite might be aware. This is the first amendment. We propose to amend Clause 3 by adding the following as a new sub-section and that would therefore be sub-section 3. There are now 1 and 2, we want to add sub-section 3.

That new sub-section would read then, 'an order made under sub-section 1 may only be made on the request of the municipal authorities to be affected by the order.' So what we are suggesting there, obviously, is that this particular amendment would make an order to create a region and/or to establish a regional services board subject to a request from the municipalities that want to provide a service on a regional basis. It would not be done unless there was a request from the municipalities.

I think the amendment embodies the intention of Government as stated by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs when he introduced the legislation in the House on November 1, when he said and I quote from Hansard, page 25 - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: I only have one copy for the Table. You can have a look at lt and give it to the Table after - when the Minister said, 'The Act gives to tal authority to the municipal councils involved. Towns and cities wanting to provide a service on a regional basis ... ' I would like the Minister to hear this now.

This is the reason why we put forth the amendment, because we think it embodies what he intended to to. 'The Act gives total authority to the municipal councils involved.

Towns and L35 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI cities wanting to provide a service on a regional basis could ask the Province to set up a regional services board.' So it is there in his own words. 'Towns and cities wanting to provide a service on a regional basis could ask the Province to set up a regional services board. ' The intent was to have it driven and operated by the councils involved who had the responsibility for the delivery of that particular service on a re ·gional basis. 'I cannot imagine' the minister goes on to say 'that the Province, unless there is a peculiar reason for it, would want to be setting up regional services boards by way of · the Province initiating the set-up of these boards. ' That is from Hansard, page 27, of November 1.

So clearly the minister would agree with this amendment then, which simply says that any order to set up a regional services board may only be made on the request of the municipal authorities to be affected by the order. It fits in very well, and I move that amendment. On motion, amendment defeated. Mr. Simms: You are opposed to it? Mr. Chairman: Shall Clause 3 carry? Mr. Simms: No, Mr. Chairman, Clause 3 does not carry. Mr. Chairman: The han. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: amendment Chairman. to I must say I response of No. 93 -,. I have a Clause further 3, Mr. am shocked at the minister. the I R35

thought that was almost going to be an automatic approval. An Han. Member: Another deception. Mr. Simms: . clearly his November 1. it. I mean·, it reflects words in Hansard of I just cannot believe An Han. Member: selected (inaudible). (Inaudible) Mr. Simms: No, I read what the minister said. Did he say it, or did he not say it? Some Hon. Me mbe rs: Oh, oh! Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Mr. Simms: I read clearly what the minister said. It will be here for the media to see what he said, because I will make sure the press gets copies of everything he said, as well as a copy of the amendments.

We have an extra copy; my colleague the critic, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, has an extra copy of the amendments which we will also give to the press afterwards, along with the explanatory notes for every single amendment and we will let the press decide, I guess. I move in Clause 3 a further amendment, Mr. Chairman. There should be a Clause 3, and this would then become 3 or 4 I guess, depending on our previous amendment, but obviously the previous amendment was defeated. So it now would become under Clause 3, a new subsection 3 - I am sorry, an amendment to 3 (1) - okay? - to add 1, 2, 3.

The Clerk knows all about what I am talking about. Anyway, it would say 'the minister shall order the preparation of a feasibility report in the prescribed form L36 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI prior to his making a recommendation for an Order of the Lieutenant-Government in Council under

section 3, and shall appoint a person to prepare the report.' 2 of 3 (1) - 3 (1)(2) now it would be - 'the person conducting the feasibility report has all the powers of a commissioner under The Public Inquiries Act', and 3, 'the person conducting the feasibility report shall hold the public hearing in the proposed region.' And continuing on with an amendment would be 3 (2) (1) and 2 ~ okay? - and 3 (2)(1) will read, 'prior to the ordering of a feasibility report by the minister under

section 3 (1) the minister shall publish the notice of his intent to do so in a newspaper having general circulation in the area affected by the feasibility report, where there is such a newspaper, and by public notice posted up in the area.' And 2 would read, 'where a notice of intent is to be published by the minister under subsection 1 that directly affects a municipal authority the minister shall give a prior notification of his intent to so publish it to the council of that municipal authority.' Now, Mr.

Chairman, just as a brief explanation the amendment would require, therefore, the Minister of Municipal Affairs to commission a feasibility report prior lo making a recommendation to Cabinet for the creation of a region and the eGtablishrnent of a regional services board. It would r:equire a feasibility report, which is something that most presenters had asked for and that we support on this side. Under the current Municipalities Act, as we all know, a feasibility report is required before Cabinet can order an amalgamation or the No. 93 """ R36

establishment of a regional services council, which ·is provided for. A feasibility study is important because we all know the process is very broadly based, I suppose: you require consultation, or you require input, and we all know the reasons. And a feasibility study, of course, could only enhance the prospects, perhaps, for maximum municipal co-operation under a regional services board.

So clearly we think the Government wants to achieve the possible greatest degree of co-operation and would want municipalities which are considering any kind of regional co-ordination to have the findings of an objective study available to them before he goes to Cabinet. In fact, when he introduced the bill, from Hansard, November 1 again, he said 'it is important that we have co-operation between communities, so I am going to . raise the magic word, amalgamation. The best way to have co-operation is to be together. The second best way is to work on a co-operative basis and stay apart . Mr.

Speaker, if we can not achieve amalgamation the next thing, obviously, is regional co-operation.' So assuming from his comments on the day he introduced the bill, that he wanted co-operation and all the rest of it to work, then we understood, or we assumed that he would be very amenable to us proposing an amendment that would require a feasibil-ity study to be done before he then went to his Cabinet colleagues to establish a regional services board. So I hope the amendment is clear. It is to order the feasibility study to take place.

The rest of the amendments, basically, are L37 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI outlining the way that would be done: they would have the same power as a Commissioner, notice must be given, etc. I do not need to go through them all again. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Gullage: Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this amendment any more than we could the previous one, because they are both tied in.

In both cases the Member is asking that we provide for a feasibility study in one case, in the previous amendment, subject to the regional board being requested by a group of communities, two or more communities.

The Minister has to have in some circumstances the authqrity, and that is the reason why the bill reads as it does some circumstances - the authority to recommend to Government that a group of communities would come together, especially in a circumstance where we may have one or more communities objecting strictly for parochial self-interest, if you like, in the sense that they do not want to co-operate with a particular regional service. Most likely a board would be created in the first instance in any case, because of a regional service that is being contemplated or, in fact, may be in place.

So the Government and the Minister would want the authority to make sure that all those who would cost-share and be part of a regional service would in fact be obligated to take part. And that is the reason why I stated, as I was quoted in Hansard, that I cannot foresee any reason where a board might be created by the No. 93 R37

Province on a mandatory basis. But there may be circumstances. In fact, there may be several. But in the majority of cases, no question and I said that, boards would be initiated and requested and ultimately set up as a result of the initiative of a group of councils wanting those boards. But there are circumstances and will be circumstances, and we know there are, we have checked across the country - and regional service boards are not unique by any means - and indeed there are times when the Minister needs the authority to have boards come into place in circumstances where they are important and necessary.

And all players in a particular region, all councils, should be obligated to . pay their fair share. So we cannot support this amendment any more than the previous one. Mr. Chairman: The hon. Member for St. John's E~st Extern. Mr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly not going to beleaguer this debate, because the end result will be that this piece of legislation will pass. That is a foregone conclusion. But I want to go on record as saying to the han. Minister that this regional services board, although changed in name, is not something that is new to anyone out there in municipal government.

The record will show that past governments have tried on occasion to bring in regional g~vernment, which is basically the same thing. And the Minister may shake his head all he likes. But when this Government took office, the Minister of Municipal Affairs wanted to bring in amalgamation which was turned down absolutely and unequivocally by the people of the Province, in L38 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI many areas. Now the Minister had his tail shaved off, but he was not about to let go. He said, we are going to bring in regional services boards.

Now, let's talk for a couple of minutes - I am going to be brief - about what is happening as it pertains to regional services boards, if implemented. I am delighted that the Minister said he would very rarely, if ever, bring in those boards without a request from those councils involved. I am speaking specifically about my own area, where there is really no need for regional services. Everyone has his own water supply, everyone has his own garbage pickup everyone. All the services those councils need are individual services, which are performed well.

Again, if one body of water was supplying a number of towns, then perhaps, there might be room for some kind of negotiation, some kind of participation in that type of activity. But we do not have that. The only thing that scares me, perhaps, is that the Minister could bring it in as a regional services board for the entire Northeast Avalon, which could take place. Now, Mr. Chairman, if councils in a particular area did not want to participate in this regional services board, then the Minister could appoint the complete board - the Minister in his rights could appoint a complete board.

We would have a group of individuals out there, not elected individuals, not elected people, spending money without authorization, because money they will spend. It will snowball. I No. 93 R38

do not care what the Minister or what Government is in power states otherwise, it will snowball, it will become another expense, more money coming out of the poor people of this Province who can ill-afford it. When the Minister was elected, when I was elected, when each Member on either side of the House was elected, we were elected to perform a service to the people in governing this Province, and when you delete or get away from, you almost abdicate that responsibility.

The people out there cannot afford another expense; their taxes are as much as many of the people can afford right now; a regional services board will be taxation without representation in many respects. Although we are not going to be able to stop this legislation, Government is bringing it in, they outnumber us, so we will not be able to stop it, but I say to the Minister with all the sincerity I possess, that regional services boards, without a request from those particular areas, I really believe, Mr. Speaker, should be a no no. We heard some han.

Members here this morning talk about the Legislation Review Committees. I can see important bills before the House now, one of them The Regional Services Bill, the other The Crown Lands Act, on which meetings have been held right across this Province and people from every walk of life have told those Committees no, we do not want lt: no, we do not want regional services boards, no, we do not want changes in the Land Act. Mr. Murphy: That is not true. L39 Dece~er 7, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Parsons: changes in uniformity, saying. No, the we do not want Land Act.

No that is what they are Perhaps in certain instances, again, where it ls requested by councils, flne. I mean, if that is their prerogative and the people out there are satisfied, well, then, I see no problem with it, as long as the people are prepared to go along with it. Because I ~epeat and I repeat, and I will repeat while I am in the House, poor people in Newfoundland and Labrador can ill-afford another tier, another layer of taxation, and that is what we are introducing in this House today, that is what we are passing in this House today. And, Mr.

Chairman, I cannot be, never will be part of anything, any kind of legislation that will take more money from the poor people of this Province. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flight: (Inaudible) regional services (inaudible). Mr. Parsons: Ah, the councils will pay the taxes! Mr. Chairman: Shall Clause - Mr. Parsons: with the councils. Regional Services go tax (inaudible) the Mr. Chairman: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take a great deal of time, as I have already spoken in this debate on this piece of legislation, twice.

The points are made, I clearly as I can make recorded in Hansard, Minister is aware of the No. 93 think, as them and and the points I R39

made. I simply want to just emphasize once again that this is a highly undemoc~atic piece of legislation. It ~emoves public input and feasibility studies. That is all this legislation does. It does not p~ovide anything new as it ~elates to a fo~m of ~egional se~vices. The~e is nothing that the Ministe~ can do now that he could not do unde~ existing legislation, except that now he no lange~ ~equi~es public hea~ings and feasibility studies. It also give the Ministe~ fa~ too much powe~, M~. Chai~man, to appoint membe~s of the boa~d who a~e no lange~ answe~able.

My colleague just spoke of taxation without ~ep~esentation, and that is p~ecisely what this is. The boa~d is an appointed boa~d, appointed by the Ministe~. He will stand up and a~gue that they must be nominated by councils, but if they a~e not nominated by councils, the Ministe~ can appoint. He can impose a boa~d. If councils do not wish to have a ~egional council, do not wish to have a ~egional se~vices .board, then they are not about to make nominations to such a board. So I can see ve~y clea~ly situations that can a~ise.

The Minister may choose to impose a board, and I find no comfort in the Minister's statements in the House that he cannot foresee any situation where he would impose a board. If the Minister is so clear on that, then he should have agreed with the amendment proposed by my colleague from Grand Falls and put ·it in the Act. In fact, you do no need it. It is in the Act now. Mr. R. Aylward: (Inaudible) member down does that, want it. in Ounville because they when he do not Mr. Windsor: M~.

Speaker, there L40 ~December 7, 1990 Vol XLI is tremendous opposition to this ~egional services bill, but not against regional services. I do not think there is a council in the Province, or a member of a council, that really opposes the concept of regional services and regional co-operation. We have all kinds of regional services in this region done by co-operation between the municipalities and the Province, and working very, very well. There is no need to change it.

I fear that the Minister is proposing to change it; I fear that he is proposing to do by the backdoor what he knows he will not be allowed to do by the front doo~. which is amalgamation in this region. I think the Minister now realizes - I hope he does.

And if he does not, I beg him to get out talking to the people, talk to the people in his own district as I have been doing very, very, directly, particularly over the past three weeks, very deliberately speaking to hundreds of aonstituents, some of whom were mine and s.ome of whom were his, and there is a very, very stC"ong feeling against the concept of amalgamating with the city of st. John's. They aC"e very concerned that the Minister is proposing to do that.

I hope he is not going to do it, but I am also very concerned that the Minister is going to do by the backdoor what, hopefully, he will have sense enough to realize he cannot do by the front door. He will not get away with amalgamating against the wishes of the communities in this region. But he may well, under the power of this Act, give a regional se~vices board so many of the responsibilities of a council that there will be nothing left for them to do except collect taxes. And the weakness here is that No. 93 R40

those people who are now forced to impose taxation have no control over the expenditure. There is a built-in safeguard when a council which has to announce a tax rate also has control over the expenditures, because they know if their expenditures are out of hand, therefore, they have to answer when they impose taxation.

Now we can have regional councils that can provide any level of service, can be grossly inefficient, can provide a level of service that may not necessarily be desired by many of the people, if they had a choice of paying for it or doing without such services, and all the regional board has to do is send the bill once a year to the councils involved. That is all they have to do. They do not have to answer to the _people. The Minister shakes his head, no. Then show me in the legislation something different.

The legislation clearly gives the regional board the authority to impose a user fee on the municipalities that are using those services. They answer to no one except the Minister. They are not answerable to the people, they do not have to be elected, they do not have to come under public scrutiny, their budget does not have to come before this Legislature or a Public Chamber in a municipality; the budget of that regional council is done by appointed board members, not elected, answerable to no one except the minister.

They can provide services and send one bill to the municipalities and those municipalities have no recourse, the act gives the regional services board power over the municipalities. The regional services board can say to the municipalities here is what you L41 December 7, 1990 Vol XLI will pay this year, and the municipalities hav~ -- no choice. The only thing left for them to do then is sit down and ~et a tax rate that gives them the revenues necessary. That, Mr. Mr. Chairman, is very clearly taxation without representation. There is absolutely nothing that is democratic in it, Mr. Chairman.

Regional services boards can work very, very well if they are desired. And I can see many areas in this Province where pegional services are required, where there are economies of scale for municipalities combining services, where a higher level of service can be provided at a lower cost. But I warn the minister that he will not be successful if you impose it. Regional service boards will not work unless they are desired by the municipali