Manitoba Committee Hansard — 19 May 1981 (Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 26, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-sro26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COM MITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 Time - 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN - Mr. Warren Steen (Crescentwood) MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee come to order, please. We have some nine bills before us tonight, to members of the committee, and people from the public. BILL NO. 19 - THE VETERINARY MEDICAL ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 19,

An Act to amend The Veterinary Medical Act was dealt with the other night and public representation was made Thursday night last at the Agriculture Committee and members of that committee, I am told, because I am not a member of that committee, insisted that it be dealt with here and because representation has been concluded from various persons interested in that bill, I have been asked if we could deal with that bill first and then we'll go back and we'll hear from persons wanting to make representation on the other bills. Can we deal with Bill 1 9 first. Mr. Cherniack. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK (St. Johns): Mr.

Chairman, some of us did not have the benefit of . . . I looked in my desk and I found it just now tha t the Agriculture Committee Hansard is in my desk, but I haven't read it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I am told that the parties that did make representation, Mr. Cherniack, did so the other night and are not present tonight and they were informed at tha t time that publi c representations were concluded. Now, Mr. Uruski, I believe, was a part of that committee; I know Mr. Ferguson was and Mr. Downey, so perhaps one of the three could shed some light on the situation. Mr. Cherniack. MR.

CHERNIACK: I'm sure you didn't want to stop me from concluding my remarks. Since there are no further representat ions, wouldn't it make sense that we have time to read the Hansard as to what went on and then deal with it, and what's the rush to deal with it if indeed there is not going to be any representations given, but all the people present, surely they should be heard anyway before we start considering bills. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm of the opinion that the bill should go through fairly quickly and the sponsor of the bill is not a member of the committee and asked me if I would consider it first and I said yes, I would. Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, you may have said yes you would and that's fine. If the majority of the 487 committee decides we will, then of course we will, but I must tell you, Mr.

Chairman, not having seen it or heard the representations, but being a member of this committee, I would certainly feel that - if you want t proceed with it now, okay, but I will want to go into it in some detail to understand what is being done. The fact that the Mover of the bill happens to be here and is not a member of the committee doesn't mean he can't come back at a time when we do deal with it. Look at all the people we have here waiting to make representations. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEV, Minister of Agriculture (Arthur): Mr.

Chairman, the purpose for not passing it clause-by-clause in Agriculture Committee, there was a concern by the members of the Opposition at that particular committee that there was a matter of a principle on the collection that could be dealt with collectively on the professional bills that was agreed to by the committee to hear the presentation which was really not a formal presentation. The questions were asked of the individual and there appeared to be very little concern by the committee on content of the bill, plus the fact that this bill, Mr.

Chairman, was before the Members of the Legislative Assembly last year, and was withdrawn by the sponsoring member, so it isn't brand new to the members of any committee or the House and I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we proceed with the bill and then we could get to the people who are waiting to make their presentations and I think we could move fairly quickly with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uruski. MR. BILLIE URUSKI (St. George): Mr.

Chairman, during the committee, the presentations that were agreed to by members of the Agriculture Committee to hear the representations on Bill 19, The Veterinary Medical Act, there were a number of questions that were raised by myself during Debate, they were addressed, they were spoken to by the representative from the Veterinary Medical Association. Some of the differences still occur in terms of principles that are annunciatied in other Acts and my colleagues have not had a chance to look at the transcripts.

I believe that some of those principles will come out as well in other bills that we will be looking at and I would suggest, although I asked questions of the representatives who came there, there was still disagreement on some of the points tha t were made and it may be to our advantage to hear representations on all the other bills and then go into all the bills, clause-by-clause, as would normally would be undertaken; if I could suggest that, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: I suggested that perhaps we could deal with this bill first. Is it agreed to by the members of the committee? Mr. Cherniack. MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand what is behind this effort to get this done

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 immediately. Last year, we had a large number of professional bills presented to us and it was obvious that we'd be well into August or September if we dealt with them all and we dealt by the choice of the government with three bills, all Nursing bills, and the procedure followed there, I thought, worked fairly well. We heard all the representations by all three. We tried to see whether there was a possibility of a uniformity amongst the three. We found that it was not only possible but desirable.

We then dealt with each separately but in the presence of representatives from each of the three organizations and consulted with them as we went along so that we had an understanding with them of what they were aiming at and what we as a committee were aiming at. We ended up with, I think, fairly good legislation. Now the benefit that we could have as mentioned by Mr. Uruski, is that if we hear them all and consider them all they're in effect all similar.

The tact that one deals with agricultural society doesn't make it different from other professional societies in principle and I suggest that it would be much better. Now I would like to know just what is this desire to, may I use the expression "railroad" it through, what's the urgency? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think anyone said "railroad" it through. I said out of courtesy to the sponsor of the bill who asked me, it's in his opinion a fairly simple bill, and asked could it be dealt with first since public representation had concluded. I said, yes, I would bring it to the attention of the committee.

I asked committee members if we could proceed under those bases. Can we proceed under those bases? MR. CHERNIACK: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. MR. CHERNIA CK: Mr. Ch airman, I th ink it's peculiar. I don't know what the need is. As I say, look at all the people that are here that came to make their presentation, and what you are going to do is make them all wait while we plod through this bill, and just because Mr.

Ferguson has asked it be dealt with now doesn't really mean that he won't be here tomorrow or the next day to be able to deal with it, and it seems to me that it should be in the best interests of good legislation to deal with them all in a sensible manner. I would suggest very strongly that it makes more sense to hear all the briefs, discuss it all with them, and give some of us - I don't know how many of us on this committee have had an opportunity to either be present at the agricultural committee or to read Hansard, but I assure, Mr.

Chairman, I for one have not read Hansard. lt apparently arrived late this afternoon. (Interjection)- Well it's in my desk, I have one copy in my desk. I assume that's the one that dealt with it. I for one will want to read it and I think it is poor practise to proceed without even reading what went on in the committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FEAGUSON: Mr. Chairman, I think we would have to iook at the fact that this bill was introduced last year in the same form that it's introduced now 488 with no exception or maybe one very small one.

At that time it was withdrawn because we had too many bills on the Order Paper and some of the Private Members' bills were withdrawn. We went through this bill the other night in committee, clause-by-clause, and I would quote from the Hansard: "Thank you, Dr. Thompson. Are there any other members of the committee who wish to question Dr. Thompson? There appears to be none. Thank you for your presentations, Dr. Thompson." To you, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest if there are other presentations to be presented on Bill 19, as it is number one, let them be heard; otherwise we would move this bill along. lt has been on the Order Paper for two years. I cannot understand the Member for St. Johns saying that he hasn't had an opportunity to peruse it. As I say, it was on the Order Paper last year. lt came under some limited discussion, so I don't think that there's any great problem and this bill has gone through clause-by clause through the Agricultural Committee of the Opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. D. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, it seems there are two points here. One of them, the fact that many members of the committee did not hear the presentation at a different committee and so far, we have not yet had time to read Hansard to consider the points that were raised. The second matter here .. . Can I proceed, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Walding has the floor. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, the second point has to do with the convenience of people that are here. Mr. Ferguson is asking that we accommodate his convenience and deal with this matter now.

If we were to proceed with it, it could easily take us an hour or two hours and we have perhaps 50 people sitting here. If it becomes a choice between Mr. Ferguson's convenience and the convenience of the 50 people that are here this evening, I personally would rather accommodate the 50 people that are here. MR. LEN DOMINO (St. Matthews): Mr. Chairman, we seem to have a difference of opinion as to how we should proceed. Mr. Cherniack, Mr. Ferguson, and Mr. Downey have repeated themselves already and I know they've tried not to but in their arguments they have. We've got a difference of opinion.

I suggest we bring it to a vote. We decide how we're going to proceed and then we proceed. Because if we are indeed concerned about all the people who are here tonight, then we should get .down to the business of considering the bills because they'v e come to consider the bills, not to hear us wrangle over some procedural matter and not to have us display our foolishness this evening. So I would suggest we bring it to a vote. We decide how we're going to proceed and we proceed. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the committee.

The reason that the delegations were agreed to hear the delegations that were there on - -

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 Bill 19 at the other committee, it was certainly not our understanding that the professional bill on Veterinary Medical Act would be brought to the Agricultural Committee. lt was; representations came. There was a discussion at that committee at the time as to whether or not the representations should or should not be heard. The committee agreed that those representations should be heard primarily because the people who were sponsoring the bill, to speak on the concerns that were raised in the Legislature, came from a long way.

So those representations were heard and the Hansard now is out in terms of the questions that were raised. There was still disagreement, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, there's sti ll disagreement on some of the matters in the legislation that is brought forward as it relates to other professional bills that have been passed by this Legislature.

The reason that it may be beneficial for this committee to hear all those presentations, because there will be a number of points made with respect to this legislation which may take some discussion as some points that may be brought out by the other groups that are here to speak on the other profess ional bill s, same matters of principle questions will be raised. So, Mr. Chairman, if you wish to go into a bill, clause-by-clause now, without even hearing having the benefit of representations and questions on other bills where similar principles are being questioned or may be questioned then, Mr.

Chairman, you're really going to have your audience and the people who are here tonight will really be caught in a dilemma, Mr. Chairman, because they'll be here waiting to make a representation on their own bills while we will be debating clau se-by-clause legislation of the Veterinary Medical Act, which we would do collectively once all the questions are raised and all the presentations are heard, Mr. Chairman. That would be normal procedure. MR. CHERNIACK: Just to answer Mr.

Ferguson in regard to the fact that the bill has been in a similar form on the Legislative Order Paper for two years, is just the fact that it's been on the Order Paper. lt was not discussed last year. lt was moved in committee - I'm not even sure that it was carried. (Interjection)- 1t wasn't carried on Second Reading, then. No, you see, Mr. Chairman. I have here a copy of last year's Hansard. On July 11th, 1980, Mr.

Ferguson moved Second Reading and I guess I am correct, it was carried, but it never moved to committee, it was not discussed and as far as I am concerned I have no feeling of any responsibility for the fact that I am not familiar with the terms of the bill because of the fact that it was brought in last year doesn't help. I still say that it would be much more orderly and make good sense to do it in with the others, together. Now, I don't want to repeat the argument.

If that doesn't persuade anyone, then you can force us to deal with this bill now, at a time when some of us feel ill-prepared, because we haven't even had an opportunity to read Hansard and that means we'l; have to rehash the whole thing and I think it's foolish, but, Mr. Chairman, I guess you're going to take it to a vote and we'll see whether the government majority carries, in which case I will ask 489 that the Clerk be instructed to bring copies of Hansard, Agriculture Committee Hansard, so we'll have it before us and plod our way through it, all because Mr. Ferguson is present and would like it dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, don't let it be left on the record that there was any forcing done by anyone. If we were going to have forced this bill through any committee, it would have been done the other night at Agriculture Committee when it should have been dealt with, when it was on that Order Paper. We, Mr. Chairman, have to keep reminding the honourable member that it was in fact the majority government who backed away from putting any force.

We accommodated them by coming to this committee tonight and I think the public should know that we have accommodated them not only last year, but again this year and if you are talking about giving them an opportunity, we didn't put it through last year, Mr. Chairman. lt was available to them. Mr. Chairman, I am saying we have accommodated - we haven't forced. The Member for St. George was at the committee the other night and if there was anything that was alarming to him, he could have talked to his colleague in caucus and come forward with their position. I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, we go ahead with Bill 19 and if the members have their concerns, that they register them. We'll get to the other bills and the people that are here with their presentations can make them. We have got the evening ahead of us; let us proceed to deal with them and if there . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we put the question now? Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the word "accommodate" just doesn't belong in the context of what this committee is doing.

I'm not aware that there is a great important political philosophy that separates Conservatives from members of the Opp osition in terms of what is wanted in professional legislati on. The fact last year that the bill wasn't dealt with is only because of the way the government handled its Order Paper and by the end of July there were some eight bills, I think, presented by the government which just couldn't be dealt with, and they dropped it. Now any accommodation there is a ridiculous suggestion.

There was no need to accommodate the Opp osition because we were there, we had to be there. it's the government that fell out; fell short of time and just couldn't manage it and withdrew it, sensibly, and they were sensible last year and they are not being very sensible right now if they insist on dealing with a bill that has had a brief presented, which was heard by some members.

I'm not sure how many members of this committee present today are familiar with the brief. lt may be that several or just a few and therefore it still sounds as if we are being forced to deal with a bill whilst keeping other people waiting. If the Conservative majority wants to do it, let them vote it in, and then as I say, I would like that we get copies of Hansard of the Agricultural Committee and then we'll deal with it. (Interjection)- Now look, they arrived late this afternoon ...

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Mr. Cherniack, are you through addressing yourself through the Chair? Mr. Cherniack are you finished addressing yourself through the Chair? MR. CHERNIACK: I have finished addressing myself to the Chair . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read off the names of the Agricultural Committee from the Op position: Mr. Adam, Mr. Uruski and Mr. Uskiw. All the three were present the other night when we went through Bill 19; reviewed the whole bill; we spent considerable time in discussion.

At the conclusion of that we felt that the bill had been discussed. This is not a matter of forcing anything. If we were not going to discuss it, accommodate it, or whatever word we may use - I won't use the word accommodating. The Honourable Member for St. Johns doesn't like that word but we did go through the bill completely with the members of their Agricultural Committee. Let it be known, Mr.

Chairman, that in my knowledge and my time in this House when we have held committee meetings, those that are responsible for either government or opposition have been there to present their views; to bring down their amendments or whatever the case may be. We did not receive one amendment the other night. We did have ample discussion as we went through the bill. Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this bill be moved along.

We certainly have no inclination at all to hold up the people that are here to represent other people and other bills that are on the Order Paper or before this committee, but it would seem to me that the exercise that we went through the other night then would be in vain. If we are not going to move that bill along, why did we go through it the other night, and why is there such a hang-up about it now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uruski. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, it just seems that we would have wasted our time the other night in terms of this legislation if we do not hear the presentations on the other professional bills. The whole argument that was made prior to hearing the representations from Dr. Thompson on Bill 19 the other night was so that we could have the benefit of those representations with respect and in tandem to the representations we hear tonight to the other professional bills. That was the whole discussion prior to hearing the representation. When we realized that Dr.

Thompson was from Morden, he was from out of town; we said, look, fine, we will hear the presentations but we would like this bill moved to this committee primarily so it could be dealt with in this committee so that the principles that we had questioned in the legislation could be raised and could be also discussed and dealt with other people who were presenting their views and their representations on their own professional bills.

Now to deal with this piece of legislation before we've even heard from the other groups, we actually should have by the arguments that are being made 490 here tonight, should have passed the bill clause-by clause in that committee. We felt that the members of committee were accommodating to the group so that we could bring this bill here, and we agreed.

In effect, if we go clause-by-clause now and not hear the other presentations in the other bills, we'd have done exactly what the committee members the other night wanted to do, is to go through it holus-bolus without having the benefit of -( Interjection)- Well, of course, that's really what it's all about. I mean we can go into it but then we're back into the same points that I've raised and we will not have the benefit of the discussions of the same matters of principle or some of them which may be the same in the other bills that we wish to raise, some of the questions that I've raised at that time.

And, we'll be getting into the whole hassle and the whole question of matters of hearings; of matters where there was some disagreement between Dr. Thompson and ourselves; and they will come up, they may come up in the other bills. That's the very point I'm making. Hear the presentations and then those matters that we differ on then we discuss when we deal with all the bills and get them through the committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion. Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman, on those same concerns.

There aren't any people to hear from on this particular bill; those same concerns can be brought forward at this particular time. I don't believe that the people that are here making their presentations would be held up at any length. If the members Oppo site don't feel comfortable they can vote against the particular item in the bill and we can proceed onto the next hearing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Domino. MR. DOMINO: Mr. Chairman, I'm repeating myself but nothing much has been said in the last five minutes. I don 't take away from any of the arguments that have been presented .,but we've heard them.

I don't perceive that there'll be a lot of persuading taking place at the table. We now seem to be wasting time. There seems to be an agreement that we should proceed so, Mr. Chairman, I move that we now proceed to deal with Bill 19 immediately. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 5; Nays, 3. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion is carried. Let's deal with Bill 19. I am told, to members of the Committee, that there are no amendments to the bill. Page by page? -( Interjection)- Well, I meant the sponsor of the bill has no amendments to the bill.

What is the rule of the Committee, to deal with it clause-by-clause or page by page? Okay. Clause 1 - Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: I'd like the Mover of the bill to explain why it is that the definition is deleted, Definition of gross negligence. I see reference to gross negligence in proposed 14(7) but I don't see a definition of it. Why are they deleting the definition?

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to ask the sponsor of the bill or legal counsel? Mr. Tallin. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, the sponsor of the bill? it's his bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're going to finish these tonight then. MR. CHERNIACK: If he can't deal with it, that's different. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin, then. MR. RAE TALLIN: I haven't been asked yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson, do you want Mr. Tallin, the draftsman. MR. FERGUSON: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, and the sponsor of the bill, of course, I went through it with the veterinary people, through legal counsel and I would ask legal counsel to carry on from there. MR. T ALLIN: lt was on my suggestion that they deleted their Definition of gross negligence and incompetence because the definition doesn't fit normally either the expression "gross negligence" or "incompetence" in the normal sense of the language. I've suggested to the organization that they would be better off to have the normal meaning of gross negligence and incompetence apply. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR.

CHERNIACK: The normal one then is not expressed in the Act at all. it's the one that . MR. T ALLIN: Not in definition, no. MR. CHERNIACK: . . . the common law definition or do you mean just a dictionary definition. MR. TALLIN: No, the common law, the common law. MR. CHERNIACK: The common one. MR. TALLIN: ·T hey're both defined in the same way and obviously gross negligence and incompetence are not the same thing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1 - pass; Clause 2 - Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I see that there's removal of an annual election. What is now proposed?

Is it that there's a continuity desired here where you cannot have a new board elected? Why is it that they are not prepared to have a new change; that is, to alternate the members in such a way that you cannot change the board on one occasion? I think that's somewhat unusual and I'm wondering why it is that in this case they are not prepared to hold an election for the entire association or the council at one time. Wouldn't it be desirable that if the organization wants to change the council, for whatever reason, that they should have a right to do 491 so?

The proposal here does not give them that right; it said, well you're going to be tied to half the council living for an extra year. Frankly I don't agree with it and I'm wondering why they want to do it in particular. MR. TALLIN: This has got nothing to do with the board. This was just the wish of the organization, presumably the question was asked of them the other night. MR. CHAIRMAN: Cl ause 2 - pass - Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. We were not given an opportunity to read Hansard. I'm now told the question was asked; I didn't know it was asked but I'd like to hear the answer. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the desire of the organization. MR. CHERNIACK: I want to make the point that The Veterinary Medical Act, if it were just a private organization, wouldn't have to go through the Legislature, it could be incorporated like any other corporate entity. The reason it has this kind of legislation is that it is given certain powers. The powers that are given to it are those which, I believe, must reflect the public good and that means not what is good for the veterinarians but rather what is good for the public to be served by the veterinarians.

So the fact that they want it does not necessarily make it right. I see they had something like that before but I am questioning why that is done now. I frankly don't know any other professional organization which does have that kind of provision and I'm wondering what is the justification in the eyes of the public protection to do it that way. -( Interjection)- Now I'm told that this question was not asked. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we pass Clause 2? Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I asked why it is desirable in the public interest to make it impossible for the association to elect a new council on the assumption that they feel the old council didn't serve well. Since I believe it's a matter that we are here to protect the public interest - that's the only reason we are here - that we should have an answer to that.

I give you my own reaction and I think it would be better to have a possibility of a new election to elect an entirely new board if the association so wants and I believe - well, I don't know of any other association that has this kind of a provision which only elects half the board at any time - I am asking, why is it in the public good for this to be different from the others? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the approach would be that it affects the elected people or those people who are directing the association from within and does not have a direct

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 impli cation or effect on the public at large, would be my aflswer for that. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the point I made was the only reason that they are before us to obtain

an Act of their own is because they're asking for certain powers which they could not achieve through incorporating under The Corporations Act, and if those powers are granted to them by the Legislature it's the Legislature's obligation to ensure that not only are they fair but that they are in the public interest.

I think one of the important features in the public interest is to make sure that people who want to be admitted to the association, who have qualifications and want to become members, should have that opportunity. it is also necessary for people who may be later disciplin ed - and we'll be coming to that later - by the organization, even kicked out, that they have protection. One of the protections I think they should have is just like any government which is subject to submitting their record to the electorate, is to say this is what we have done; we ask now that you re elect us or elect another council.

I believe it's in the interest of democratic principle that an election should be held for the entire council. As I say, I don't know any other professional body which has this kind of provision - it may be so - but I don't understand the justification. The fact that they want it does not mean that it's in the public interest; it only means that they want it and maybe one reason they want it is to perpetuate themselves and that's not a good idea. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2. pass - Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the sponsor of the bill about the matter of lay representation on their council.

I'm sure the member is aware from other professional bills and probably we'll hear more about that later this evening, that more provision is being made; it's a trend in professional associations. I see no provision for it to be made in this bill and there is no

section of a definition

section which would define what a lay person is. Perhaps Mr. Ferguson can tell the committee why that has been left out of this change. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps for the benefit of members of the committee, this is a bill to amend a bill that was brought in in 1974 and sponsored by an NDP Member of the Legislature. So this is a bill amending one. MR. WALDING: That does invalidate the question and I would still like an answer to it MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Mr. Chairman, here again of course I would have to say we did have a member of the Veterinary Association in to discuss the bill.

I am quite aware of what our friends in the Opp osition are trying to get at; I certainly am not a legal person. I certainly do know what the veterinary people are trying to accomplish. As the Chairman has already stated, this is not a new bilL it's amendments to some of The Veterinary Medical Act so consequently I would think that, on 492 behalf of the Veterinary Association, we would carry on.

I don't think this is anything of any great magnitude with the exception that possibly there is an attempt on the part of the Op position to embarrass myself and the fact that we had a bit of an assurance the other night from members of their committee when the Veterinary Association were 11 represented, to ask their questions with the understanding that the bill would probably move quickly through this committee. I don't mind admitting that I am not, as I say, a legal person. I am sponsoring the bill on behalf of the veterinarians in the province.

I am an agricultural person; I am certainly not a lawyer of the calibre of the Member for St. Johns. So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would move along and what advice we can get from legal counsel as to what amendments are to the existing Act; I would hope they would be able to supply the answers. If they cannot and if this becomes such a big issue that we have to bring the Veterinary Association back in again, I guess we would have to be prepared to do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not a legal type either, as the Member for Gladstone says and it's not an attempt to embarrass him that I asked the question. Now he may not be able to speak for the government but surely the government does have a policy on this matter. If the Member for Gladstone is not able to speak for the government I see three members of the Treasury Bench here who ought to - be able to do so.

I look particularly to the Minister of Health who, as it has been explained before, piloted three nursing bills through the session last time and surely what went into those bills and the common thread that went through them must have been government policy. They obviously wouldn't have gone through in contravention with government policy.

Now if it was the policy of the government as of a year ago to have lay representation on the council of p1<0fessional bodies - and it would seem to be in just looking over the other professional bills that we will be discussing later - in fact we will probably be learning more about this matter once we hear representation from the various associations before us this evening.

So if the Member for Gladstone is not able to give us government policy and it's not a matter of legal opinion advising the Member for Gladstone what government policy is, we have three members of the Treasury Bench and perhaps they can tell us the government's policy on this matter, and really that's what the question is about, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, on the point that the honourable member makes, whether there should be lay representation on the Board of the Veterinary Medical Association, is one which I am not aware of.

Any other associations that have lay persons who are on it -( Interject ion)- Well, Mr. Chairman, the member says read my bills. He at this particular point hasn't made a case why there should be. If in fact the member proceeds with the argument that

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 there should be, I think this committee and members of this, particularly as far as I'm concerned, would be prepared to consider it. The Minister of Health, I see is here, and if he was involved in the committee that had this particular principle introduced into it, that there be a lay person on the association, then possibly he would like to speak to it. I haven't got, Mr. Chairman, a particularly strong opp osition to that particular appr oach.

If that principle applies to the other professional bills and there is room for a lay person to be selected, maybe the member could indicate how those particular selections are made or representations are made from the public at large to the association. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. SYDNEY GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to indicate that ordinarily I am not wanting to interfere with a body that wants to set up and even get a special act if they are only getting to themselves the power that any organization wants and not taking upon themselves state powers; therefore it would be of complete irrelevance to me as to how they are elected and whether they use a secret ballot, that every organization as far as I'm concerned can have their own laws in that respect and I don't want to pretend to force laws on them. But I want to indicate, Mr.

Chairman, that is not what we are dealing with. that seems to be a problem and I don't lay the problem at the feet of the Member for Gladstone. I certa inly don't ask him to start explaining the sections. I am quite aware that's not the way legislation is drawn and that members of the New Democratic party Cabinet were just as sometimes, incapable - and I admit myself of explaining my legislation and it needed legal advice to deal with it - so I don't want you to be intimidated to thinking somebody is trying to make something out of it. But, Mr.

Chairman, that's not what this legislation deals with and that's not what the professional legislation deals with. This legislation gives the people the power to ruin a man for life, to ruin a man, to fine him, to virtually wipe him out finan cially and if we took those provisions out I would not be concerned with the other provisions, but those provisions are in here; that's the only thing that is vital to the legislation. Otherwise they could sit around and create a Constitution, like any organization and they wouldn't even have to become registered.

The fact is that this could be done, that it has been done, and that is the way organizations have existed in the past. But we are getting to my knowledge, input from anybody. Nobody has asked me as an MLA to do some of the things that are for instance wanted in the College of Physicians and Surgeons legislation.

The only ones who have asked for it is the college and they are asking for things ·and you people, the veterinaries are asking for things, the other professional associations are asking for things that could wipe a person out for life on the basis of the opinion of the committee, therefore I think it should be stated here what Mr.

Boyce was stating this afternoon in the Legislature, that we are looking at these bills from the point of view as to where is the public desirous of having· these things done - that the association wants them done, I know very well - but what impetus has there been from the public that 493 these things are necessary in order that they are properly served and that's the way we will regard the bilL I am not concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the way in which they elect their members or things of that nature.

I am concerned as to whether I am making them an exclusive organization which requires a fee as to what their requirements for admittance are, what they can do to somebody who has been admitted and who the peers happen to think is close, in their opinion unfit to practise veterinary medicine - because maybe they don't like the colour of his hair, maybe they don't like the way he bills people - that's veterinary medicine? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. MR. T ALLIN: think there must be a misunderstanding about this somewhere. The association does not discipline its members in the same way as other societies do.

There is a publicly appointed Veterinary Board under the Act which does the discipline and it's appo inted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-CounciL So that doesn't give it reason why there should be a lay member on the board, therefore, because it's not the same kind of an association board as other professional boards. MR. GREEN: Well, I thank the Legislative Council for bringing that to my attention. lt still doesn't change the reasons for discipline but I'm glad to know that it's not the association itself and maybe that's a good leaf, Mr. Chairman, to put into some of the other legislation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to also inform the committee that last year, of three of the professional Acts or bills that were put through, two of them did not make provisions for lay persons on the particular councils. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad Mr. Sherman is here because we can have the benefit of his experience of last year. I'm a little surprised to hear Mr.

Downey's statement that two out of the three, my impression was that one out of three did not have lay representation and two did; but that's not as important as the fact I believe that last year in steering those three bills through we did set a sort of a standard.

We did arrive at an understanding of what was expected in the legislation and I would have thought that it would have been the advantage, as it will appear to be in the other bills that will come before us, but some of the people in drawing their bills used - it's pretty obvious in the number of cases - that they used that legislation that was passed last year as a guide to what they drafted this year and that's the reason why I have and some of us had thought it would be better to deal with all of them at the same time.

But since the committee has decided to deal with this right away then maybe we can get the benefit of Mr. Sherman to indicate how it is that we arrived at certain provisions in The Nurses Bill which would be applicable. Now it's important of course, as Mr. Tallin

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 pointed out, that the Board which he says I gather, has all the powers as appointed and not elected and it would appear therefore, that there is a difference of attitude here. I'm not sure now just what powers the association or the council has. If they have powers as to admission into the association then that is a factor. Possibly we can get clarification on what are the powers of the council as compared to the powers of the board? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: I would thank Legislative Counsel for giving me a copy of the Act.

I believe it's not exactly as I would have understood it from his response because the Act says that "the Association submit the names of 12 persons to the Minister who shall recommend six of those 12 to the Lieutenant Governor -in-Council. So the vets still appoint the 12 people. -(I nterjection)- Excuse me, but what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the Association is submitting 12 names; the Minister shall recommend six so it's not far removed from the members of the Assoc iatio n appoin ting their own Discipline Committee, which is what I referred to before.

I would be much happier - and perhaps that's the direction I would like to go - if these people, who have the right to fine and destroy the livelihood of a person, are appoin ted by the public rather than appointed by the members of the Association. I'll deal with specifica lly why when we get to the sections which deal with what they can do and on what evidence. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr.

Chairman, the question has come up as to where the Minister of Health stands on this issue and also where the professional bills in the health field took us in terms of approach and principle last year. Let me answer the second question first. I believe there is a double misunderstanding as to what the professional health bills provided last year. it's my understanding that we made provision in all three of them, The R.N.'s Act, The R. P.N.'s Act and The L.P.N.'s Act for lay representation on the Council.

Certainly it's our intention to pursue that principle with respect to health bills, human health bills that will be before this Committee and other components of this Legislature this session. With respect to the first part of the question, where does the Minister of Health stand on this principle vis-a-vis Bill 19, I can say that I stand with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. I have no particular position as to whether the principle that we've embodied and are attempting to pursue in our health legislation should be applied in this case.

I think the point raised by Legislative Counsel is the salient point; it's not an interesting point, that's an understatement, Mr. Chairman, it's the salient point; it's the point of differentiation between the kind of legislation that is being dealt with under The Veterinary Medical Act and the kind of legislation that is being dealt with under our health Acts. But if the Minister of Agriculture has no objection to lay representation on Council, in this case, certainly I can col'lfirm that has been the principle pursued in the health bills. 494 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Chairman, the Member for lnkster raises an interesting approach to control of the Association and the members who make up the Committee who govern and may be able to make a decision on the rights and the future of a person. I think it would be well advised and I'm not critical of him for it, this bill was brought in when he was a member of government in 1974 so it was the New Democratic party who, in principle, introduced the princi ple of not having a lay person, or a representative of the lay person at large, on the particular committee representing an association.

I appreciate that he does not belong to the New Democratic party any longer and maybe it is a change in direction, he's introducing a new line of thought with his new political party. I think he's to be commended for it because he's leaving some of those old ideas behind and that's why I suggest that I would have no great difficulty if a majority of the members were to decide to introduce an amendment but I haven't heard a case being made for it, particularly when the members of the Committee last year had two; The Registered Nurses Act did not, in their

interpretations or

definitions, define a lay person or include a lay person, as well as, The Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act did not, Mr. Chairman. There was one that did define a lay person; that was the Licensed Practical Nurses, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey, are you finished for now? MR. DOWNEV: I'll have to relook at this , Mr. Chairman. The information I had provided to me was that there were two that didn't, but possibly - I'm sorry, I didn't clearly understand it. They didn't define a lay person in the Acts. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, without in any way trying to ignore the fact that everybody learns something as tim e goes by and I bope the honourable member will learn something, I'm not pushing for lay people on this Board; I never said that. The set-up, I've indicated, I'm not really that concerned with; that wasn't my problem. I was concerned with what they then can do. The fact is that what they can do is, first of all, considerably amplified under the

Section 14(7) of the Act; secondly, I become more fearful of what they can do by what I have learned. I have learned, for instance, yesterday that the government of the Province of Manitoba, through the Minister of Health, says that he wants the medical profession to be able to try people for criminal offences and he will not exclude from their powers the power to discipline somebody for having committed an offence, even though he has never been found guilty of that offence. I am concerned with that. The reason he says he is going to let them do it is because the College wants that right.

He didn't come in and say the public needs that right. He said, in answer to our bill - which by the way I discussed with the College and they told me there was nothing really serious about it - they didn't like the idea of the three practitioners. But the first

section of the bill which said that the College should

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 not have the right to discipline for something which does not involve the practice of medicine and which constitutes a criminal offence, unless a person has been found guilty of that offence; he says no, the college needs that, they want it, they can't operate without it. Well, I don't want to give it to them. I don't know what they need it for. And if I am told these professional associations need that kind of rights, then I am much more jealous; I am much more concerned; I have learned something and I want to have protection against that kind of abuse because I think it is an abuse.

When I look at 14(7) and I've not made any complaint about whether they rotate elections or whether there should be lay members; that's not my problem. I am starting to think these things should not be done by the representatives themselves but by appointed people, people who are responsible to the state, not to the doctors. I'm going to deal with that when we get to what they can do, not to how the Board is composed. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister will now find that the Minister of Health was correct about lay representation on the boards.

I have here a copy of The Registered Nurses Act which he thought did not provide for lay people.

Section 3(1) clearly provides that "25 percent of the board shall be persons who are not members of the association and of the 25 percent who are not members one-h alf shall be appo inted by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council". So you've got 25 percent -(In terjection)- They're not members of the association so they are not veterinarians in this case; they're not registered nurses in the other. We can quibble about it, Mr. Chairman, but there's a principle involved and the Minister indicated that he's prepared to accept the principle. Now I don't know whether he is going to make the decision or Mr.

Ferguson or if they have to refer it elsewhere, that's for them. But I think the principle is important. Now more important to me is Mr.

Tallin's pointing out that the board is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council and apparently all six members of the board are appointed from a list of 12 people submitted by the association, four of whom are members and two of whom are "reputable citizens of familiar experience" - I'm not sure I know what that means, I hope we'll get an expl anation of what familiar means - but the powers of the association, not the council but the association are to prescribe the requirements for membership and registration, to prescribe the standards of practice, to prescribe a code of ethics, to institute and provide the means of increasing knowledge and skill of the members and of maintaining a high standard, to prescribe the conditions under which students may work, to prescribe standards of employment of technicians, all these are the kinds of powers · that Mr.

Green has already referred to. They are powers that deal with admission into the association. I'm not yet clear on how that differs from the board but the board has powers to -(In terjection)- That's the proposed new 14(7) which deal with I believe disciplinary measures and - now I mislaid it for the moment - so it might be helpful if we have an understanding of the difference between the board's powers and the association's powers to better understand what they're asking for, but yes the board has power to 495 suspend, to cancel and to look into the conduct of members.

So I'm not quite sure why there's that difference. lt may well be a matter of a useful separation of powers as between the body that may subsequently be the investigating and prosecuting body and the judicial body like we now have in The Law Society Act where there is a difference. The investigators and prosecutors do not sit on the Judicial Committee. I think the medical profession is going in the same direction, I'm not sure now, but possibly that could be clarified as to the direction in which they want to go.

I go back to saying I still believe that there ought to be an opportunity for a new election so that the members can substitute a council entirely if they so choose. I do believe the powers of the association are such that give a great deal of control over who shall be members and who shall continue to be members; therefore I think we have to protect the rights not only of the public but of the members who may be adversely dealt with. So since we have not yet passed on this I'd like to know whether the Minister is prepared to reconsider the manner in which the council is appointed and who is represented on it MR.

DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, we would proceed with it as it is right at this particular point unless they have an amendment that they would like us to consider, otherwise I would suggest you put the question on this particular section. MR. CHAIRMAN: Cl ause (2) - pass - Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: If the Minister insists on having amendments I would like to provide one. Looking at proposed 3(4), I would move to delete the words "one-half of" in the first line. That's all I guess. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. MR. TALLIN: If you're going to make an amendment I think you have to redo the whole thing. Do you want a biennial?

MR. CHERNIACK: I agree, Mr. Chairman, but the Minster is not giving us much time. I would by all means like to have Mr. Tallin draw the proper amendment which would provide for the entire council to be elected at the meeting. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: lt would appear that it's not a major difficulty with the members of the committee and the Op position are not prepared. I would suggest in this particular case it is not going to affect anyone in any great sense of the word and put the question on the clause as it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack is prepared to move an amendment? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I moved an amendment and Mr. Tallin pointed out quite rightly that it ought to be extended in order to be balanced,

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 I want to do that and we have the right to ask Legislative Counsel to do it. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's why I'm turning back to you. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, and I would like to do it but Mr. Downey is now in such a hurry he won't even permit that to be done. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood what the purpose was. I understood that the member introduced the removal of "one-half". He was told by legal counsel that was not correct. I didn't think that it was an acceptable amendment to the bill.

Now if he's prepared to stay with that "one-half" then we can deal with it, the removal of the "one-half". MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin, please. MR. TALLIN: In preparing the amendment, Mr. Cherniack, could I ask you whether you had in mind that there be a two-year term or annual elections? Because as it is now there's annual elections with a two-year term and that's why I said that the two won't fit. MR. CHERNIACK: I would not quibble about a one year term or a two-year term. I would like to see that the council is elected afresh at every election.

Whether it be one year or two year I would be glad to accede to the Minister's suggestion as to the length of the term but I think that it should be one election for the entire council at one time. I would appreciate having the proper amendment prepared with Mr. Tallin's ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you give Mr. Tallin some direction as to one or two year? MR. CHERNIACK: He's just received it. MR. TALLIN: That's okay.

Would you suggest then that it be changed to read: "The elected members of council shall be elected each year at the Annual General Meeting of the Association and shall hold office until the next General Meeting thereafter". That would be an annual thing. MR. CHERNIACK: Then what Mr. Tallin is suggesting is deletion of the words "one-half of" in the first line and the words "second annual" in the third line and replace the words second annual with the word "next". I'll move that. MR. TALLIN: All right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you right it out though for the Clerks' purposes.

Is everybody who is a voting member of the Committee aware of Mr. Cherniack's amendment? Are you ready for the question? MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sorry, do you want me to write it out? I'd better write it out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin is writing it out for you. MR. CHERNIACK: That's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Can I put the question, Mr. Cherniack? Is it understood by members of the Committee? 496 A DELEGATE: Would you read the amendment being passed? MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, you will have to wait a minute. All right, Members of the Committee, Legal Counsel has written out what he believes is Mr. Cherniack's amendment.

Would you listen to him, please? MR. TALLIN: That the proposed subsection 3(4) of The Veterinary Medical Act set out in

Section 2 of Bill 19 be amended by striking out "one-half of" in the first line and (b), by striking out "2nd" in the third line thereof and substituting therefor the word "next". MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that clear? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 3; Nays, 5. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is defeated. Clause 2 - Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: I'd like to go back to the matter that I raised a few minutes ago on the matter of lay representation on the council of The VMA and ask Mr.

Tallin if he would draw up an amendment for me that would permit the present wording plus two lay persons to be named by the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council. In 3(1). MR. CHAIRMAN: At the end of 3(1)? MR. WALDING: 3(1) of B-30. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Walding, can we deal with

Section No. 2? Your amendment is in Clause 3, is it not? MR. TALLIN: lt would be

Section 1.1, actually. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walding, Legal Counsel suggests that your amendment would go in after 1 and before Clause 2. MR. WALDING: Is that 19? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, your amendment. So therefore we will hold that in abeyance. Can we deal with

Section 2 as it is now? 2 - pass. We will deal with

Section 3 - pass;

Section 4 - pass;

Section 5. Can we proceed to Clause 5 now, Mr. Cherniack? Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, we were just having a discussion, looking at

Section 4(1)(

a) of the Act where it provides that counsel shall pass by-laws respecting a number of things. lt is the aims and objectives of the association - we're wondering whether that's available and if it has to do with the membership, as such, or the purpose from the standpoint of the public or of the consuming public. I wonder if that's available. it's not available? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey.

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 MR. DOWNEY: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. That is the Act which was passed when he was a member of the government and when it was passed, he may be able to recall or have some notes on that from when he was a member in 1974, when they passed it but I don't have a copy of their objectives or by-laws. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Minister that if he wants to play games we can do it all he likes. The fact is we have a professional bill before us; we are trying to deal with it sensibly.

Whenever it was passed it's before us now and if members present can assist in this Committee to improve legislation they should do without making irritable comments or to pick nitty thoughts as to who should know what. If we don't know we don't know, that suffices. MR. DOWNEY: Well, that's exactly what I said. If the member would have listened, Mr. Chairman, I suggested we did not have the copy of them, that possibly he may have in his notes. I wasn't nitty picking; I don't know what his skin is so thin about. We want to proceed on this bill.

I indicated to him that we didn't have a copy of them, that he may have in his records and that's what I said. - (Interjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, that is what I said and if he wants to pick it up and play his little game, let him go ahead; I can sit here all night too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack, can we finish with Clause 4 and then we'll revert back to Mr. Walding's amendment? Are you satisfied with 4? MR. CHERNIACK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 4 - pass. All right, Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 19 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after

Section 1 thereof, the following sections. Subsection 3(1) amended. 1.1, Subsection 3(1) of the Act is amended by adding thereto at the end thereof the words and figures "and 2 persons who are not members of the association appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council". ' MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on Mr. Walding's amendment? Do you all understand it? Are you ready for the question? MR. WALDING: it's modelled, Mr. Chairman, very much on a number of other professionals bills, both existing and proposed to the Committee. The proportion to 2 out of 9 would seem reasonable in our opinion.

A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 3; Nays, 4. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, it's 4 to 3; it's defeated. (Clauses 5 to 9 were each read and passed.) Clause 10, Mr. Uruski. 497 MR. URUSKI: We raise the question: the intent is the same and I ask Legal Counsel that as of the same 12(5) yet it's the same section. Could he explain why, is it just drafting style that has been changed here? The intent seems to be the same but yet it's a new amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. MR.

TALLIN: I think the only difference is that under this they may order that it be witheld subject to terms, upon certain terms and as soon as the terms are met then he would be allowed to grant it. I think that's the only new addition. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the clauses, the nature of which I'm concerned with, I don't care if the Minister will remind me that perhaps this is the kind of thing that happened in the past. That is of no consequence to me and I'm certain that it was never argued in the past.

Now, as I understand this, a member is practising veterinary medicine; he has not had an inquiry; he has not been disciplined; he has not been struck rolls but the next year when his certificate comes up the association says, no certificate; you're deficient Unless you do the following things you are not going to get your certificate now. If I'm wrong I'd be delighted to be told so but that's the way I read it; "R efusal to renew. Notwithstanding subsection (4) where the board has reason to believe the registered member is professionally deficient".

Now, does that mean an annual renewal, a regular renewal or if it's somebody who has gone out of the profession and come back ten years later - I know that the society is worried about such a person because they don't regard his qualifications as being current. Let's say what the Law Society says. I had sort of good reason to be faced with this because when I came back in '72 when I resigned from the Cabinet, I came back and I applied and they said it has to go to a committee.

I thought, my God, maybe they'll say no and then they could because there is a break in your practice and they are entitled to say, does this person still have the qualifications? But is this a simple renewal like one year to the other? MR. TALLIN: I would think so; it would include any renewal whether it's the annual renewal or ... MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a horrendous power because now we don't have a trial; we don't have an enquiry; we don't even have the nebulous findin-gs that they find that he is unfit to practice.

He sends in his Certificate of Renewal and they say, no, we don't think that you could practise veterinary medicine; you are deficient and therefore unless you make up these deficiencies you don't have a licence to practice. Now, if it's in other Acts I'd be worried too but certainly this is a new section, is it not, this is being proposed? -(l nterjection) lt's in the Act and now it's merely being reworded somewhat. MR. T ALLIN: The addition is that they can fix terms. MR. GREEN: They can fix terms. MR. TALLI: Yes.

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 MR. GREEN: Well, notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman; and I acknowledge that perhaps it slipped by last time, I don't see why a person should be, on a renewal, be put in a position which is tantamount to a suspension because it is tantamount. Can he practice without this certificate? No. Well, if they don't like what a guy is doing the way this is going they don't have to hold an enquiry. They wait two months till the end of the year, then they don't reissue the certificate and that's it; he's finished. Or they say to him that you are deficient - and I don't even know that that is appealable.

At least this other business, 15(1) makes it appealable - "has made an order under

section 12 or 14 in respect of a member, the member may appeal to the order". Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a person should not be removed from the rolls unless he is being disciplined and had an enquiry under 14(7) because that takes care of deficiency as well. If you look at 14(7) it says, "has committed any act or omitted to do anything which, in the opinion of the board constitutes incompetence or gross negligence in the practice of veterinary medicine; or is unfit to practise veterinary medicine.

So, if they can say that he is unfit and they have an enquiry and he is entitled to at least give evidence why do they have this power to fail to renew a certificate if the y deem him to be professionally deficient, whatever that means. Now, I'm probably to be told that this has never been done. But if it has never been done and it's there why would one have the power to do that.

This is a public issuel this is now no longer an issue of the practitioners themselves; this is an issue as to whether the public is going to give somebody the power to cut off a person's licence at the end of the year because "the y regard him as being professionally deficient". I can't, since I'm not a member of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I can't move, but I don't see what the necessity of the

section is and I say that they've got more than enough power under 14(7) rather than tell a guy at the end of the year that his licence will not be renewed. I can't move anything, Mr. Chairman. If it bothers nobody else then . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson was indicating, did you wish to speak to this matter? Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Well, just for a moment, Mr.

Chairman, and I guess I'd have to say to the Honourable Member for lnkster that professional deficiency would mean, in the veterinary business, that if you went out to a feed lot 12 times and 12 animals died you would be proved, as by the board, that you were professionally deficient; but if you lost 12 cases of law no one would ever know about it. So that would be the difference. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I would be very pleased to put that in just the way the member said it, "where the board has reason to believe that a man has attended 12 times and the cow died 12 times, tha t he not be given renewal of the licen ce". Provided it was a healthy cow before he went there, that's right. MR. DOWNEV: Mr. Ch airman, I think we'v e indicated that there is within the Act the right of the 498 individual who is being judged to appeal to the courts of the land and I think we should proceed with this section. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, here we have a principle which is in the old legislation, which provides that a person may be convicted in his absence without a hearing, without an investigation. He is convicted and he is suspended or he is just put out of business and then he has a right to go to the court and to appeal and he doesn't even necessarily have to know the reason or the argument or anything.

If anything is really contrary to the entire principle of justice, as we have learned it, it is a conviction without a hearing, without an investigation, without a charge being laid, without an opportunity to object to the charge, to give answers. The fact that it was there it's only valuable to know that we have an opportunity to correct these things. You will find in almost any of the legislation that has been dealt with recently that there has to be an investigation; that the investigating authority has certain powers to obtain information, to make inquiries.

But in the end there has to be a hearing with representation by counsel; with a right to cross examine; with a right to know the charge; with all the basic principles and this is the time when

an Act is opened up and we find a deficiency in the Act; this is the time that we have to correct the deficiency. To say that a person has the right to appeal means that you convict first and you sentence and then you say, well you can appeal it and go through the court process. That is not the way it ought to be done. Now, as I recall it, the medical bills have a provision that under exceptional circumstances a person may be suspended for a very brief period of time. If it is found that a professional is drunk and he is about to operate with a knife in his hand he's got to be stopped.

But this isn't the case here at all. Here it is an arbitrary decision by the board when, in its wisdom, it believes that the registered owner is professionally deficient it may order the registrar to withhold renewal and then they proceed to give them the power to appeal. This is a very serious provision which really must be changed and that's the whole purpose of legislative review is to find out what it is. Now, it so happens that this particular

section is before us. it's not just the Act that's before us, this

section is before us, and to vote it out is really not sufficient, Mr. Chairman. There is an occasion, as Mr. Ferguson points out, when a person should not have a licence. Now whether it should just be refused on the renewal opportunity or withdrawn after a proper hearing is a matter I think we ought to be discussing. I don't think anybody should arbitrarily, as Mr. Green said, they wait until the renewal period comes and then they don't renew.

When there is a complaint which is registered with the board then the board should have a proper inquiry, with proper notice, proper representation and then it can make its decision - subject to appeal. But this is wrong, Mr. Chairman, it's just wrong and the proper way, I think, is to revamp this entire

section to deal with a manner in which the Board may conduct an investigation and arrive at a decision. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I think that other than in an emergency,

Section 14(7) covers everything.

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 This 12(5) is not intended to deal with an emergency. it's almost like exactly the opposite, is that you wait till the licence lapses and then you fail to renew it. it's the same thing as striking a person off the rolls. So I think 12(5) should come out and that 14(7) looks after all of the problems that can be embodied within the term "professionally deficient". There is no doubt about that, because unfit to practice veterinary medicine would constitute professional deficiency.

If there was a need for a section, that if the board is aware of circumstances whereby the continuance of a member on the rolls would be an imm ediate hazard or danger to the consuming public, they may make a suspension imm ediately without an inquiry, pending an inquiry and subject to appeal. The Medical Association has the right to do that and I wouldn't say there was anything wrong with putting it in here but this

section has nothing to do with that. I asked the Legislative Counsel whether the Law Society has this right too, he says no. I don't know whether the college has the right but the Legislative Counsel is again shaking his head. I don't think they need this; I don't think they want this; I don't think they'd use this but I am now becoming oversensitive, Mr. Chairman, to what I see in legislation and I say, if it's not needed, take it out of there; you don't need it. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Downey has The Registered Nurses Act in front of him.

Part 5, Page 322 provides for an investigation chairman; provides for a reference with an investigation; an ex parte order for production of docum ents; further investigation; action by the person conducting the preliminary investigation; appeal to the Discipline Committee and it does have a

section for suspension of member, which says, "Notwithstanding any other provision herein the investigation chairman ma y, at her discretion, direct the Registrar to suspend a member from practice pending or following completion of the preliminary investigation and thereupon the member is suspended from practice until the suspension is lifted, superseded or annulled by the Board of the Court of Queen's Bench". So there is an opportunity to suspend when there is immi nent danger of malpractice.

But that is referable to the court or to the Board itself which may reverse it, meanwhile the major hearing is conducted by a discipline committee after the investigation commi ttee has dealt with it. That's the point I was making, Mr. Chairman. We worked on this Registered Nurses Act, I think, in the hope that it would be used as a guide for others, not compulsory but suggestions. I would like to think we can still work in this Act to better it and improve it. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think the comments the Member for lnkster makes are quite legitimate. I think we should agree to remove that

section of the Act that could automatically allow the Board to not renew a licence and therefore remove someone from the ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey, Mr. Green isn't in the position to make such an amendment; would you do it? MR. DOWNEY: I wouldn't make an amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I am recommending that I agree we could do that if some member of our side would like to proceed to. 499 MR. CHAIRMAN: You're a voting member. MR. DOWNEY: I would proceed to have that

section deleted. MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be 12(5). MR. TALLIN: I think the motion would be that

Section 10 of Bill 19 be amended by striking out all the words therein after the word "repealed" in the first line thereof. MR. DOWNEY: Right. ? ? - MR. CHAIRMAN: Understood by all members? Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm just looking to see if there are other implications in the section. MR. CHAIRMAN: lt has to be written out anyway so we have half-a-moment. MR. CHERNIACK: All right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready to consider Mr. Down ey's amendmen t? Mr. Downey made the amendment; he's a member of the Commi ttee. Are you all familiar with the amendment? A COUNTED VOTE$ was taken, the results being as follows: Yeas, 8; Nays, 0. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment carries.

Section 10 as amended - pass; Clause 11. Mr. Uruski. MR. URUSKI: Clause 11 seems to be, at least my reading of it, as in the old Act but could we have a clarification on this? MR. TALLIN: Are you asking about the change? MR. URUSKI: Yes. MR. TALLIN: The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association has ceased to accredit colleges but they will approve them. They don't want to be in the accreditation business because they think that's a matter for other universities to give accreditation to schools so all they do is approve now; they don't accredit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comment? Clause 11 - pass; Clause 12. Mr.

Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, Clause 12 just on a superficial reading makes it appear as if the Board conducts the investigation of a complaint; the Board then decides whether or not it's frivolous. If it's not frivolous or vexatious then the Board proceeds to hold an inquiry; in which case, and contrary to the other Acts we have passed and contrary to some of the Acts we have yet to deal with, it is the Board that does both the investigating, the prosecuting and conducts the hearing and makes the decision.

I would like to suggest - I don't know the extent to which it can be done - that the other procedure is

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 much the fairer one, where there is an investigation made on a complaint; the investigation is either dropped as being frivolous or is proceeded with, but then another body hears the complaint and makes the adjudication. That is the principle the Law Society has; I think The Medical Association bill that's coming up will have it; certainly the nurses' bills have it. Again, it's a principle I would commend to members of the Committee as being the fair one. Then it should spell out the rights - I think it does - submit evidence, cross examine.

There's no reference here, as I see it, I may be wrong, as to the way the hearing shall be conducted, whether or not it is to be recorded, whether a transcript is made, I don't know I can't read it that quickly, whether there has been a transcript made of the hearings so it can be appealed based on what was heard. I'm just wondering whether the Committee would not consider the advisability of just picking up the legislation that was passed last year and adopting it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further comments, questions, concerns? Mr. Uruski. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, in this

section I questioned also the representation in Clause 14 (6), the Procedure in absentia, where I said I indicated I would want to move an amendment of the words "without adequate or justifiable reason" after the word "inquiry", so a member, in respect to whom an inquiry is being held, if he wanted to attend a hearing and could not make the hearing and if he had a justifiable reason and called the Board, that the hearing would be held off because he wanted to make it but it had to be an adequate or justifiable reason.

I raised that with the Association; they indicated they would have no objections to such an amendment. Their problem was the reverse; they indicated that members did not answer their mail when they wrote them there was an inquiry; members about whom an inquiry was being held were more or less delinquent. So, Mr. Chairman, before we pass that section, I would propose to move that amendment to 14(6) as well. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I point out that I made the point about the Board conducting the investigation, deciding to receive the complaint, to conduct an inquiry and then if you look at its powers - which are again where I would term capital punishment because they can throw out this person from being able to continue to practice and may "impose a fine of not more than $500 on the registered member to be paid to the Minister of Finance". Now we have a penalty involved. Then the point Mr.

Green has referred to in other legislation: " Expenses of the inquiry: The Board may order", that's 14 (8), "the member to pay all or any of the costs". Now I'm not objecting in principle to the feature of the costs, I'm objecting in principle now, to the Board conducting the prelim inary investigation, deciding to hold a hearing and then being able to make an order to such an extent.

I suggest very strongly, and I'm going to continue to suggest, there ought to be a separation between the investigation, prosecution and the judicial function and that is the principle we did establish only last year in The Nurses Acts which were the three presented. I see no reason why a nurse should have 500 greater protection than a veterinarian should have under this Act. The principle is the same; it's important and I think we ought to deal with it. I could make a suggestion and that is that we take the whole

section out of The Registered Nurses Act and have Mr. Tallin translate it into this Act. I really think it's very important. The nature of the hearings and all that. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's another item which I raised with the representative dealing with the hearings to be in private under The Nurses Act,

Section I believe, 36(6), the hearings of the Board or the Committee would be in private in terms of the membership; unless the person wants the hearing to be in public, the hearing would be in private. There was a difference of

interpretation as to Mr. Thompson and myself. He indicated the hearings would be in private but of course the Act did not spell that out so, Mr. Chairman, we would hope that same type of principle be carried on, as we passed last year in The Registered Nurses Act, be carried on in The Veterinary Medical Act unless there is some legal difference that the same principle could not be enshrined. I'd like to hear if there is some difference of opinion. MR. CHERNIACK: I'd like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture who is monitoring this bill, that we could just take the entire

section out of The Registered Nurses Act - I believe the other health Acts do have them as well, the ones we're going to deal with - just take out

Part 6 the Discipline Committee;

Part 7, the Appeals Provision. We debated at length; we didn't agree on everything last year but in the main we arrived at a consensus that was acceptable to the entire committee and I think that this is a basic right that should be recognized and would accept the principle. I'd like to suggest the whole thing can be just taken right out. Now it may be advisable to review it to see how it applies to this particular association but since this committee is not going to complete its hearings today possibly it would be in the best interests of the committee to set aside the Act now to give the Minister and Mr.

Ferguson an opportunity to talk to the people who would be affected by it - the Veterinary Association itself will have to be able to work with their own legislation - but to see whether there's any objection to what was accepted for the Health Services last year and incorporate the whole thing. lt seems to me it makes a lot of sense and I'd like to suggest that specifically. MR. DOWNEY: Not discrediting what the member suggested, Mr. Chairman, the Veterinary Medical Organization or representatives of that organization came before the Agriculture Committee. They were questioned.

I cannot find where they specifically agreed to any change. I don't think we would accomplish anything by further reviewing it and would like to proceed with the Act as it is prepared by the Veterinary Medical Association along with the Member for Gladstone who has prepared it because I do not know of any specific situations where there has been a difficulty with this

section of the Act. If the Veterinary Medical Association in the pursuing months want to review this particular part, I think that could be acco mpli shed when the

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 Legislature of this province sits again and everything doesn't stop at this committee meeting. lt has worked, I think it can continue to work where before a committee hearing, they did not want a change and I feel we could proceed, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the point that Mr. Downey makes is the one that I really can't agree with. He says it's up to the Veterinary Medical Association to decide how their legislation shall be and I say no, it's up to us to decide.

The only reason we're here to look at it is to protect the public and to protect the individual as against the association. All these people who are sitting and listening to what we're dealing with, who have similar bills coming up, should know that they are here because they're asking for extraordinary powers.

In our giving extraordinary powers we must make sure that we are protecting the public and the individual and therefore it's not the association that should have the final say - I think it should be consulted because they have to work with the legislation - but the final say should be on behalf of the people whom we represent, not the association that comes here to ask for legislation.

I hope the people who will be coming to present other bills will accept the fact that that is why they're coming and that our duty is to protect the public and to protect the individual member; that's the point I wanted to get across. MR. DOWNEY: I appreciate the point the member makes. The point that I want to continue putting before us is, we're not giving the association any more power than they already have in their current Act. We aren't adding any power as I understand it. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, they already have that power.

What he is sugg esting it's a possibility that it should be changed; it wasn't and I appreciate the work that was done on the other Act. The Member for Gladstone has agreed to proceed with the Act as it was presented at the last Agriculture Committee and I agree that the committee is a time for change in the Acts but, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't recommended by the last committee. The Member for St. George I believe did ask the member a question and I, because we are not giving any further power than the association already have, don't see any problem with us passing it at this particular time. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, it's not a question of giving them further power, it's a question of seeing that the power is too great and cutting back on the power because the power is extraordinary; it is exceptional. The fact they had it doesn't mean they should continue to have it, that's why the Act is reopened.

I think it would be a terrible precedent to accept the principle that just because they had it and they don't want to give it up they should be entitled to keep it up because we're going to deal with eight other bills - this Committee will - and I wouldn't like any of them, of the people that come along and say, we have that power, don't take it away from us because we want to continue to have it.

If it's an arbitrary power, an improper power, an unjust power we have an obligation to change it and I'm sorry but I really feel that we must deal with this 501 issue; not because it was in the Act and therefore we keep it up; not because they're not asking for more; we should cut back on their power if we think it's wrong.

I'd like to hear members of this committee say that they think the argument presented is wrong; that they think they should have these powers; that these arbitrary powers to refuse reregistration without a hearing, without a proper review, without notice but just by the snap of a finger to put them out of business and say, well you can always appeal, I'd like them to justify it if they're not going to accept the change because I think it needs a good deal of justification, not a historical one, not because it is there or was there but one on principle, is it right? Should they have that power?

I'm suggesting that it is an exceptional power that we do not grant to the police. We do not grant it in general legislation, arbitrary powers like that and we shouldn't continue it if it exists in private organizations which have power to control the livelihood of other people. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for the question on Clause 12? MR. CHERNIACK: No, Mr. Chairman, we're not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you an amendment, Mr. Cherniack? MR. CHERNIACK: I want to debate it first. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uruski. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, we get back to the same argument that we really posed with respect to discussing this piece of legislation at the beginning. We understood and asked the government members that this legislation be modelled on other professional bills that we passed last session and we felt that there was some agreement, Mr. Chairman; yet when we discussed there would be changes and differences of opinion in principle it appeared that there was no problem with the government.

My colleague has asked that consideration be given to bring in the area of discipline as it's been put forward in The Registered Nurses Act - the principles therein be transferred over into this Act - where there was a lot of debate last session and it was generally accepted although some of the areas of concern or difference of opinion that our members had were not included yet, Mr. Chairman, we're now not prepared to have a standard or a more standard feature. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't know. Are we now in the position that we're going to move the entire section?

If there is, I'd like to move an amendment to 14(6), Mr. Chairman, and the words after the word "inqui ry" in the second line thereof be added the words "without adequate or justifiable reason", Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tallin. MR. TALLIN: Might I suggest that if you're going to add the words put in, "communicated to the board before the time fixed for the inquiry", otherwise the board will never be able to proceed with the inquiry because they'll have to make investigation as to the . . . Might I suggest that the words be "without

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 reasonable excuse communicated to the board before the time fixed for the inquiry"? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable? MR. URUSKI: So moved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are all members of the committee aware of the amendment? it's been moved by Mr. Uruski that the proposed

Section 14(6) of The Veterinarian Medical Act as set out in

Section 12 of Bill 19 be amended by adding thereto immediately after the word inquiry in the second line the words "without reasonable excuse communicated to the board before the time fixed for the inquiry". Does everyone understand it? Moved by Mr. Uruski. All in favour of the Motion please indicate. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 8. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is passed. Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, we've not dealt with the major issue about the right of the board to investigate, to prosecute, to hear, to judge, to fine, to find the member liable for all the costs and expenses of the board in the inv estigation and inquiry. I feel that the persons who want to support the present bill before us and grant to the Board of Veterinarians, powers greatly in excess of those which the nursing association has, that we spent an awful lot of time last year - hours and hours, days - preparing that legislation and hammeri ng it out on the basis of what we thought was fair.

I think if members of this committee are not going to consider that procedure outlined in the Registered Nurses they ought to be prepared to justify the fact that they are now treating the people who deal with animials differently than they're treating people who deal with human beings, who are given greater protection than people under The Veterinarians Act. I really think it's important enough to hear a justification for refusal to take away from the board all these powers, to investigate, to prosecute, etc. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey, then Mr. Green. MR.

DOWNEY: Just in reference to the Act that the member is referring to - to The Registered Nurses' Act last year - are the investigating team, the indiv iduals who are doing the investigating, the individuals who are making the decisions not made up of the committee of Registered Nurses? MR. CHERNIACK: Not necessarily. MR. DOWNEY: Not necessarily. MR. CHERNIACK: 34(1) - the board establishes a Discipline Committee. lt goes on to say if I may answer, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOWNEY: I just asked the question. MR.

CHERNIACK: As I recall it, it goes on to say that those members who are on the Disci pline 502 Committee are not allowed to partici pate in the judicial side at all. Once they've acquired knowledge in their investigation then they no longer have anything to do with the judicial function but indeed the committee that does the hearing - I'm sorry, the investigating chairman is 20(5), it's from among the dir ectors - an investigating chairman who refuses it and then bring s it to the Disci pline Committee. The Discipline Committee is not part of the investigative process.

There is a lot of language in here, all of which was hammered out at great leng th and I think with unanimi ty. I think Mr. Sherman will support that although we had certain small differences, in the main, we arrived at this on the basis of what we thought was fair and we worked with the nurses and they agreed that it was a proper control on them. I wish Mr. Sherman would confirm that I'm not just talking but that indeed we acquired a great deal of understanding last year of the functions of the Complaints Committee, of the Investigating and the Discipline Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I take it we are dealing with 14(7). (Interjection)- Well, I thought that we had passed an amendment to 14(6). MR. CHAIRMAN: 14(6), yes. MR. GREEN: So that we have come up to, I gather, 14(7). MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we haven't passed anything within Clause 12. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I sort of have gathered that we are dealing generally with it but I'm going to wait until we deal specifically with 14(7). MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I think the principle that's in The Nu rses Act maybe should be considered by the Veterinary Medical Association - the members - and would suggest, in the best interests of the people that are here to present their briefs, that maybe we could delay this particular bill till the Committee sits again and hear the briefs so that we could get on with the other bills. I'm sure we would agree to it because we are into an area that -(Int erjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, if the member wants to make those kinds of comments we could have pushed this thing at Agriculture Committee and he's being smart.

We're trying to accommodate the public now and I don't take too kindly to those kind of snide remarks but I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, we could hold this till the principle of The Nurses Act was looked at by the the Veterinary Association. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, just one comment. Mr. Cherniack has said that he wishes that I would confirm that what he says about the nursi ng legislation last year did in fact take place. I do confirm that for the record; we reached eventual consensus and agreement; there's no question about that. I think that my collea gue, the Minis ter of

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 Agriculture, makes an eminently reasonable and responsible suggestion under the circumstances and I would like to see it adopted by the Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Downey has a suggestion that we stop dealing with this bill at this point and we'll deal with it after he and Mr. Ferguson have been able to consult with the Veterinarian Medical Association as to whether they would like that

section written into their bill. Is it agreed by Committee? Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Downey is now making a suggestion that this bill be put on one side until we have heard the representations from a number of associations, all of whom have concerns about professional bills. As I spoke, perhaps out of turn, this was exactly what we were saying two hours ago when the suggestion was first made to us. Now the Minister says that they could have rammed it through at Agricultural Committee a few days ago and that's true, they could have done, Mr. Chairman, and that would have been their second error.

The first error was sending it to Agricultural Committee in the first place because it is not an agricultural bill; this is a professional bill. The House Leader made that suggestion to send it there, obviously without realizing the content of the bill or the fact that there were other bills of a similar nature. So I will concur with Mr. Downey that we put aside this bill and we get on with the rest of the business of the Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we will lay the bill over until another meeting and go to public representation regarding a number of bills.

The bills that are before us are Bill 17, The Medical Act; Bill 18, The Pharmaceutical Act; Bill 20, The Registered Dietitians Act; Bill 21, The Physiotherapists Act; Bill 22,

An Act to amend The Architects Act; Bill 25, The Registered Respiratory Technologists Act; Bill 40, The Chartered Accountants Act; and Bill 47, The Interior Designers Act. The Clerk has, earlier in the evening, some two hours ago, obtained names of a number of persons who had indicated to her that they wished to make representation regarding various bills. We will go in order. BILL NO. 17 - THE MEDICAL ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: I have Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Could we get copies of the list so we will have them before us; we will know who will be speaking on whatever? MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

On Bill 17 there were four persons that had indicated via telephone to the Clerk's Office that they would like to be notified of the meeting. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Ewart, Dr. P. W. Aitchison; the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, Sybil Shack; the Manitoba Health Organization, Shirley Seidel. Then again the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. J. Morison. Dr. Ewart, you are first on my list. Would you like to address the Committee?

If there are other 503 persons in attendance that wish to speak regarding this bill, would you make your way to the front of the room and see the lady to my right and have your name added to the list but we will start with Dr. Ewart. Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, did you indicate in reading out those names that the college was making two presentations? MR. CHAIRMAN: There's one check mark here but there are two persons listed on the sheet but perhaps Dr. Ewart can clarify that. Dr. Ewart. DR. W. B.

EWART: Yes, as an elected representative, I was going to speak and then as a final rebuttal, if necessary or anything that's needed, somebody that could speak more for the administrative standpoint would be able to speak. This is merely to satisfy perhaps the questions that may arise that I am unable to answer, that's all. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, I don't object to one or two or any number of persons appearing for a particular association but the matter of appearing later down on the program in rebuttal is something that has been raised with the Committee before and has been refused by the Committee before, because if you give one person or one group the opportunity to rebut then why should not the second speaker have the opportunity to rebut again? You can go on with a dialogue or an argument or debate going on before the Committee.

So I would suggest if the college wishes to have one or more speakers on its behalf I have no objection to that; when it comes to rebuttal, I suggest that's a dangerous precedent to set, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the best way to get around it is to let Dr. Ewart go last and let the other persons go ahead of him and then we'll have one spokesman for the College of Physicians. Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the College is the one that brought the bill.

Surely they ought to be the first to make their presentation and then I suppose any member can call on them at a later date to deal with any issue that comes up. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Brown. MR. ARNOLD BROWN (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, I would say that we have a Dr. Ewart on our list as the first one to speak and I suggest that we go ahead and proceed the way that they are on the list. I don't have the list over here, so I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, are we ready to proceed with Dr. Ewart? MR. CHERNIACK: Can we have the spelling of that name? MR. CHAIRMAN: E-w-a-r-t. MR. CHERNIACK: Ju st for clarification, Mr.

Chairman, the list shows Dr. Brown and Dr. Aitchison. Are they also going to . . .

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Dr. Ewart is, on my list anyway, replacing Dr. Brown. MR. CHERNIACK: Oh, and Dr. Acheson is a separate ... MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a separate name. MR. CHERNIACK: And Dr. Morison, I'm sure he's here as a technical administrator help . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Are we ready to proceed or do we wish to continue to agree to disagree? Dr. Ewart, please proceed. DR. EWART: Mr. Chairman, and members of the Legislative Assembly, I will attempt to be very brief.

What the Act is that we're presenting to you is to really restructure the original Act that was brought in about about 1964, at least that the last revised portion of the Act.

What we have attempted to do basically are a number of things: one is to provide lay membership on the council, this is the governing body of the profession ; we have increased and emphasized the appeal provisions under the Act, broadening them to allow for repeals against refusal to register or against any decision of the Complaints Committee, almost anywhere in which we think that it will fit to assist the public good and also, justice in our particular areas; we've also, with the further involvement of medical students and interns, have them more involved and they are presently governed only by the rules passed by council and this is being moved to The Medical Act and regulations by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The present Act refers to registration and annual dues. Most doctors think of these annual dues as a current licence and this is a common usage. The new Act will provide for registration which indicates that the person is entitled to take out an annual licence if they wish to practice medicine. In cases of suspension only the licence is suspended . Membership would only be revoked as a decision of a formal inquiry indicating the person has committed an offence so serious that they should not continue to be registered as a member.

Now, as with the members of the Legislative Assembly here, one of the primary responsibilities of the college is to assure that the public, that the licensed practitioners practice in an ethical, honest and competent manner and a series of committees are established in this new Act to make this function we think even more effective.

Part VIII, we've now established - I'll forget the numbers for brevity - a Complaints Committee with lay membership which presently exists under Rules is established under the Act to attempt to informally resolve complaints from members of the public. The complainant has the right to appeal decisions of this Committee. This Committee now exists under the rules that we have today. We're recommending in this Act the establishment of a new officer of the college to be known as the Investigative Chairman.

This officer shall be appointed among the elected councillors and oversee the investigation of any matter referred to him from any source, including the Complaints Committee, and also including a matter referred by a complainant who has been unsatisfied with the decisions of the 504 Complaints Committee. This is appeals back and forth and at the same time attempting to separate this individual from the Investigative Committee and also from the rest of the council, trying to make him as independent as possible.

This officer would have the authority to seek subpoenas - I hope I have the right word there - to obtain pertinent data for the appropriate investigation of any complaints and, at the end of the investigation, the investigation chairman will make a recommendation in writing that either no further action be taken or that a formal inquiry be conducted. He may recommend the suspension of the member pending inquiry if it is so indicated.

There is no provision in the present Act for such an investigation and therefore the college is often hampered in the investigation of the complaints and often we believe there is not the protection to the individuals and the general public. Matters can only be subpoenaed after formal charges have been laid and frequently without opportunity to review this evidence. Now, the next part of this that we've established is the Standards Committee and this is an attempt to improve the standards of medicine in our province. This is a professional audit committee protected under

Section 2 of The Manitoba Evidence Act which presently exists under the Rules of the College. We believe it's absolutely essential that this Committee be completely separated from any investigative or disciplinary arm of the college. This Committee does have access to considerable information throughout the province and this information is for audit purposes only. lt may interview and recommend refresher training to doctors but does not have the power to enforce such actions. lt would not pass on any of its information or considerations to any other arm of the college.

I'm sorry if I'm reading this, gentlemen, I just want to be very specific on some of these legal determinations, if you wish. The Standards Committee could however, if the review warrants it, suggest that the practice of a specific doctor be investigated through the arm of the investigative Chairman who would carry out the review and then it would move into this other area and then back into discipline. We would be, at all times, attempting to keep these areas separate. Finally, the part of the new Act,

Part 10 provides tor formal enquiries and it is essentially the same as the present but adds a clause defining the composition of the committee, including lay membership - and by the way there is a definition of lay membership in the Act. The committee presently has such a composition but it is not required by legislation, we're trying to formalize it. This is the full legal due process which is required to enforce the decision of the college upon any member.

This has come about through a great deal of experience in attempting to build up, through legal advice and so on, the best type of investigative group that we can in order to continue or to even improve what we think are relatively high standards of medicine in this province. I'll be pleased to answer any questions, gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I think there's a great deal of work has gone into the preparation of this bill and I think it's rather exhaustive and 11

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 embodies very important principles. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether we should not follow - I may harken back to last year in the nurses' legislation but to me that was a benchmark way of dealing with legislation - that we could have the representatives of the council present, and any other delegation on this bill, to be present when we deal with the sections in detail; and have the opportunity to discuss any particular

section or provision with them in order to arrive at a better understanding of why it is worded that way and how it could be imp roved, if at all. I have a number of notes on almost every page but most of them are matters of detail and not of important principle, yet I wouldn't want to take Dr. Ewart's time or that of all the people present to deal with them all. I'm wondering if we could agree that when we come to deal with this bill itself that we will have representatives present to whom we can refer particular questions. I'm just throwing it out and I don't intend now to press each and every one of my questions. There is one which I think is rather important and that is

Section 19 (

c) which says that the council "may prescribe standards of continuing medical education". Dr. Ewart, I'm aware that there's a large body of opinion on professional continuing education which says that making it compulsory doesn't bring about a better education necessarily; that you can have a person attend lectures and sleep through them, you don't know whether they've absorbed or not unless you have examinations and I'm not sure that you're preparing to examine every doctor who attends some course on conti nuing medical education.

The memorandum that was prepared last year states that, although you're asking for the power you don't intend to use the power, you're going to make it voluntary. Is that correct? DR. EWART: Yes, that is correct and you're quite right in questioning this. This is a problem and I'm sure all professions right now are having this. We just believe that doctors, those of us on the council, believe that doctors need to keep up-to-date; though we don't have the final comment, as you know, as a person who went through medicine, it is easy to sleep throug h a class lecture and we're quite aware of this.

The final common pathway is what is the actual benefit to the patient or the citizen of Manitoba and that's really what we're after too. We will be pleased to talk to this later. This is - I don't know if I should use this word - enabling legislation, it may not be the same meaning that you have for it. This would still have to go, before anything was decided upon it would still have to go before the Cabinet or the Lieute nant-Governor-in-Council. We're quite aware of that.

The reason for putting it in is because otherwise it would have to go through a whole change in The Medical Act; there's a strong body that feels it should at least go this far and that's why it's there. MR. CHERNIACK: I think the Dental Association, as I recall it, is about the only one that has compulsory continuing education. What they do is get credits for time spent, one week or 10 lectures and that's all, they get credits for attendance and really it's 505 attendance records that are kept, I believe, with the dentists but there is that whole system which is not really used.

The lawyers, as I recall it, on competence will then order continuing education, once competence is challenged. But the continuing medical education, when you say it's enabling I, for one, don't like to see powers granted that it is not intended to use. When you say that you don't intend to use it then I would say if you don't intend to use it then don't ask for it until you know you intend to use it, then come back and ask for it and then it will be evaluated on the basis of a power that you want rather than a power that you may not want.

I'm just suggesting to you that, from my way of thinking, it would be better to withdraw that and come back when you're ready and not just say, well we want the power in case we later decide it's useful, because that's a strong power and it can be abused and it is not necessary. lt may lull people into a feeling that they are getting the advantage of continuing medical education when in reality you don't intend to do other than voluntary. I'm just throwing that out. We can discuss it in detail, I hope, later if the committee permits it. The principle of

Section 19 provides that, "The council may, subject to approval by the Lieut enant Governor, make regulations ". You 've made that point already, Dr. Ewart. I want to suggest to you that since you accept the principle that the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council shall have to approve the regulation before it is enacted, that the Lieu tenant-Governor- in-Council should also be given the authority to suggest, and even to press you, to change regulations or enact other regulations.

In other words, what you are saying is we want to do certain things; we can't do them without getting the approval of the Lieu tenant-Governor. Well then you may have obtained that approval and three years later the Lieutenant-Govern or-in-Council may come to the conclusion that the regulations are inadequate because of citizen complaints. There's nothing in the legislation that compels you to review, reconsider and that gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to withdraw certain appr ovals they've given before.

I'm wondering whether you see any basic objection to that being provided, that not only do they have to approve but they have the right to withdraw approval after notice and discussion. Do you understand my point? DR. EWART: Almost, I think I do. Mr. Chairman, may I answer? lt is a two-way street. There's a freedom here that the Cabinet has - if I may use that word - but at the same time it's a limitation on our part as well. I would like to think about that if you don't mind, Mr. Cherniack. MR. CHERNIACK: Let me just enlarge on that a little. it's not a two-way street once the approval is obtained.

Once you've obtained approval then that ends that, as I read it. I think the two-way street should mean that the Cabinet should be able to come back to you and say, after reconsideration on complaints we have received, we think that it ought to be changed. Under the legislation as I see it, you don't have to change it and then it would have to come back into the Legislature with a new bill in order to change it. I think if regulations are to be

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 dealt with, with the Cabinet, then it should be a two way street. That's what I'd like you to think about and I do have many questions but I don't want to burden the committee now with them. I wonder if we could understand that Dr. Ewart and his group will be invited back when we deal with the bill in order to raise various points with him, is that a fair assumption? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you assuming, Mr. Cherniack, that we're going to do as last year, lay all eight bills out on the table at one time and sit around the table and discuss them, the way you did the nursing bills? MR.

CHERNIACK: 1t would be pretty difficult dealing with eight but even dealing with one, look how much it would have helped if we had the veterinary people here when we were discussing it so that we could get immediate reactions. lt's just a suggestion I'm making. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, one question I would like to put to Dr. Ewart and one comment I would like to make with respect to the suggestion as to the procedure to be followed. I'd ask Dr.

Ewart to consider - and not necessarily respond at this time - a concern I have with respect to the provision establishing and enshrining in legislation, in the Act, the concept of the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee exists at the present time, is that not correct, Dr. Ewart? DR. EWART: Correct. MR. SHERMAN: lt exists under the rules of the council and the college and what the proposed legislation does is enshrine that institution in the Act, correct? DR. EWART: Correct. MR.

SHERMAN: Your supporting argument was careful to stipulate that the Standards Committee, although it has considerable information available to it from all across the province of a medical nature, gathered for audit purposes, that the Standards Committee would not pass on any of its information or considerations to any other arm of the college; but your supporting argument goes on to say that the committee could, if its reviews warrant it, suggest that the practices of a specific doctor be investigated through the arm of the investigation Chairman.

I understand that you would expect the investigation Chairman to carry out his or her review from the original basic data but there seems to me to be a somewhat perilous gap or gulf in those two positions. On the one hand you're saying the Standards Committee would not be permitted to pass on any information; on the other hand they can suggest that the practices of a specific doctor be investigated.

I would think that you would be asking for a supremely conscientious and responsible performance, and perhaps even an irresponsible performance, by the Standard Committee if you restricted the information that they were going to supply to back up that proposal for an investigation. 506 So I do see an inconsistency in that language and would ask Dr. Ewart and the college to think about that before we deal with the subject clause-by clause, Mr. Chairman.

The other point, as to how we should proceed, I think that it would certainly be agreeable to government members of the Committee that in the case of this bill, which is an extremely detailed, relatively complex and highly important piece of legislation that affects the conduct and the affairs of the whole medical profession that we probably would be well served by having available to us as we went through the clause-by-clause process, the expertise of a college representative similar to the practice we followed last year on the nursing bills, Mr. Chairman.

I would suggest that it is not necessary with respect to the health bills that are in front of us in general but I think that it would be very worthwhile to follow that procedure on this specific bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Dr. Ewart, I have some specific questions on several sections of the bill.

Section 12(1) permits you to erase from the register the name of a member who has been guilty of an endictable offence - I'm going to throw out some and the next one says that you don't have to do it. DR. EWART: That is correct, Sir. MR. GREEN: So I assume that if a member of the profession was so weak in character that perhaps he received stolen goods, was punished by the court for it and even sentenced to prison that the college, being a Judaic Christian organization wouldn't want that to ruin his life, he would have paid his penalty and he'd be entitled to practise medicine.

Or would you erase him from the registry? DR. EWART: No, we would deal with each case individually. MR. GREEN: Then why would you want to deal with such a person in such a way? DR. EW ART: Because there may be somebody that has been convicted of a crime which would make the practice of medicine. lt may have been a crime that involved numerous strangulations, if you would. There may be some sort of thing like this where we may wish to use this at that particular time.

That is the reason for that being in there - I can't think of one at the moment - but I'm sure that you are aware there are certain crimes that would. MR. GREEN: As a matter of fact, Dr. Ewart. that's exactly what I'm worried about. If he was convicted of several strangulations I hardly think that he'd be available to practise medicine. I am concerned that you would suspend a person from the register for receiving stolen goods. Why would you do that? DR. EWART: Excuse me, Sir, I don't believe that he said we would. MR. GREEN: But you are asking the power to do so. You're asking me as a member of the Legislature I

Tuesday, 19 May, 1981 of the Province of Manitoba to give you the power to do so. Why would you want that power? DR. EWART: Because in certain situations we may need to erase somebody who we believe would be a threat, as I mentioned previously though I may miss your argument, regarding such th ings as strangulation, or there could be a number of different charges that we would believe in that case this man may have been capable of doing certain things but we would not want him to drive an automo bile perhaps, or look after a sick patient, or operate on a brain tumour. MR. GREEN: Wouldn't that be covered, Dr. Ewart, in the

section that you have, which is available to you under Sect ion 57, "of having been guilty of professional mi sconduct, conduct unbecoming a member or of demonstrated incapacity or unfitness to practise medicine". DR. EWART: Yes. Excuse me, Sir. Could you give me that again if you don't mind? MR. GREEN: I'll read 57(1) to you, just turn to 57(1) and I'm reading to you what you say you're going to disc iplin e people for, "professional mis conduct conduct unbecoming a member, or to hav� demonstrated incapacity or unfitness to practise medici ne". The examples you gave me, wouldn't they fall under that category?

DR. EWART: Yes, I think they would. MR.

GREEN: Then you wouldn't need 12(1) and 12(2) because they're all covered, under the things that you have mentioned they're all covered under 57 and what you're doing - may I just pursue this a moment so I'll tell you what my concerns are and then perhaps you will be better able to deal with them I'm concerned with giving you a dis cretionary power to cancel a doctor's right to practise medicine for being convicted of, let us say, I'm not sure of the endictability - maybe there are lawyers here that could help me - there are certain income tax offenses which are endictable, are there not? Mr.

Cherniack is nodding up and down, I'll accept his, no ... I am concerned that there are certain - and Mr. Haig is nodding up and down - I'll take his suggestion. lt seems to me that the criminal law and the law of our land punishes those people, they have to pay a considerable offense for it and they have to sometimes go to prison for it. But they have a skill and that skill is not affected by the fact that they have made this terrible mistake or more correctly, that a court has found they have· made this terrible mistake because courts can be wrong.

But their capacity to practise medicine is· in no way related to the criminal offence. Why would you want me to give you the power to erase that person from the register, to give you a discretion, to erase that person from the register? Because he has done something which th�re, but for the grace of God go many people, wh1ch has not affected his ability to practise in any way, but the college in order to cleanse themselves just as this Legislature wanted to cleanse itself of a person that committed an endictable offence is going to strike that person from the register. Why? 507 DR. EWART: If I may answer, Sir.

MR. GREEN: Yes, please. DR. EWART: First of all this is a registration. This is under the registration of the individual . . . MR. GREEN: But it says, "m ay erase that registra tion". DR. EWART: Yes, that's true. They've already been registered and we may erase, that's if evidence comes forth that they have, if you wish, strangled four or five people but we don't want it for such th ings as you're talkin g about, Mr. Green. Furthermore, yo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-sro26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf sro26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3a44b9a29914943324e547694251315c1be13fdf

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).