-..... Volume XLI Tuesday Province of Newfoundland FORTY- FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND Second Session PRELIMINARY REPORT {Hansard} Spea.ker: Honourable Thoma.s Lush Number 90 4 December 1990

The House ,met at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker (Lush): Order, please! Before proceeding to the routine business, on behalf of han. Members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today, twenty children from the Janeway Hospital accompanied by their te.ac.hers : Pat Small , Ben Dalton, Jerry Barbour, and nurses: Ann Chaplin, Janette Noel, Hazel Alpuerto and Anna Marie Gibbons. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Statements by Ministers The han. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Thank you, Mr . Speaker . Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to inform this han.

House of my Department's plans to call tenders over the next few months for highway improvement and construction projects. These projects are covered by two agreements, namely the Canada/Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement on highway transportation development and The Trans-Canada Highway portion of the Newfoundland transportation initiative. The Canada/Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement is cost-shared 62.5/37.5 with the federal Government, under the agreement, a total of $57 million is being spent during the current fiscal year and we have proposed to spend a further $3 7. 2 million in the 1991-1992 fiscal year.

Ll December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker, included in the $37.2 million, is $17.8 million to be spent in 1991 to complete projects already tendered in 1990, which require two .construction seasons to complete. With respect to the Trans-Canada Highway Agreement, this provides for $405 ~illion to be spent between 1990 and 2003, and is 100 per cent federally funded. $31 million will be spent in the fiscal year 1991-1992 and included in the $31 million is $5 million to be spent l.n 1991 to complete projects tendered in 1990.

The agreement is designed to provide improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway and the Argentia access road - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Gilbert: - and these improvements are of the ulmost importance as the Trans-Canada Highway alone carries 80 per cent of the annual ten million tons of intra-provincial freight. Mr. Speaker, the practice of early tendering gives successful contractors ample opportunity to carry out advanced planning and to upgrade their equipment during the winter months, so that they can be ready to start work as soon as the weather permits in the spring.

Given our short construction season, early tendering allows for the maximum amount of work to be done. Mr. Speaker, the work contracted season will be which as already comprised of $45.4 No. 90 total value of for the 1991 $68.2 million, indicated, is million for new Rl

proj~cts and $22.8 million for carry overs from projects awarded in 1990. An appendix to this statement lists in more detail the various projects to which I have referred, Mr. Speaker. So just for the benefit of members I will give you the benefit of them. The ERDA Agreements, projects for the fiscal year 1991-1992, placement of surface course asphalt from Butterpot Park to Witless Bay line, approximately four kilometres; hydroseeding Trans-Canada Highway from Butterpot Park to Witless Bay line; paving approximately fourteen kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway from Gander towards Gamba; - Some Han.

Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Gilbert: - hydroseeding the Trans-Canada Highway, Gander towards Gamba; hydroseeding the interchange on the Trans-Canada Highway at the west entrance to Bishop's Falls and the Grand Falls Industrial Access Road; hydro seeding Trans-Canada Highway, Red Cliff to Badger; - An Han . Member: I would not do it. Mr.

Gilbert: Hydroseeding Trans-Canada Highway from eight kilometres east of Howley to Deer Lake, paving route 362 and 363 from Harbour Breton towards Coombs Cove, approximately forty kilometres; paving the Mouse Island to Grand Bay east access road; construction of the remaining six kilometres to the Petit Forte Road together with the terminal at Southeast Bight; grading work on Curling Waterfront; access to the L2 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Southside St. John's Harbour: New projects sub-total is 19.4 million and the carryover commitment is 17.8 million for a total of 3 7. 2 million ..

Under the $ 405 million Trans-Canada Agreement, the projects for the fiscal year 1991-1992: Resurfacing the Argentla Access Road from the ends of this year's resurfacing towards Dunville, approximately thirteen kilometres; grading the Trans-Canada Highway Holyrood to Salmonier Line, approximately eight kilometres; paving Trans-Canada Highway Witless Bay to Holyrood approximately four kilometres; re-alignment of the Trans-Canada Highway at Tompkins together with the construction of a new bridge across Little Codroy River, approximately · 2.5 kilometres; construction of a new weigh scales - An Hon.

Member: Too much for the Tories. Mr.

Gilbert: Trans-Canada Highway Port-aux- Basques area; replacement of the Cold Brook Bridge Trans-Canada Highway Codroy Valley area; resurfacing Trans-Canada Highway from Pasadena to Deer Lake approximately twenty kilometres; construe tion of two bridges across Steady Brook for Trans-Canada Highway four-laning; grading work for Trans-Canada Highway diversion Riverside to Massey Drive, approximately six kilometres; grading Trans-Canada Highway form Welkomin Inn towards Clarenville, approximately eight kilometres; grading Trans-Canada Highway from Glenwood towards Notre Dame Junction, approximately ten kilometres; resurfacing Trans-Canada Highway from Birchy Narrows towards Baie Verte Junction together with new passing No. 90 R2

lanes, approximately 15.0 kilometers. For new project $26 million and a carryover of $5 million for a total of $31 million. Thank you. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Gilbert: A lot better than you ever done for it. Mr. SEeaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. Mr. R. Aylward: Thank you very m~ch, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for providing me with an advance copy of his statement, Mr. Speaker. And it certainly is a great day for me, as a Tory in this Province, to see that we are going to have these great Tory projects announced. Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately they are announced by the wrong Minister. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R. Aylward: Mr. Speaker, particularly, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has been one to berate the Roads For Rails Agreement on every occasion that he can, but he has no problem in spending the money that is 100 per cent funded by the Federal Government. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R. Aylward: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on this agreement.

One of the roads that needs attention in this Province, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is going to continue to play politics with it as long as he L3 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI can, is the Outer Ring Road in St. John's, of which there is- not a mention in this agreement, Mr. Speaker, and it should be staried immediately, particularly with the proposed developments that we hope to have here with the Hibernia project. It is also noteworthy here that there is not one cent or one mention of the Trans-Labrador Highway - Mr. Warren: Shame! Mr. R.

Aylward: - which is a very important project to the people in Labrador. Mr. Warren: Where are the members for Labrador. Stand up and be counted. Mr. R. Aylward: It is going to be needed for any industrial development that may take place in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Member for Eagle River will have a few words with his Minister for ignoring the Labrador

section of our Province, Mr. Speaker. There is no upgrading whatsoever of the Burin Peninsula Highway, which is a very important road in our Province, Mr. Speaker, and that also should be given attention. But I this under am very_~ pleased to see in announcement, Mr. Speaker, the ERDA Agreement the completion of the six kilometers of road to Petit Forte, the road that the Minister never wanted to build, Mr. Speaker. And thank God for John Crosbie that he forced them into completing the road to Petit Forte. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! No. 90 RJ

Mr. R. Aylward: Mr. Speaker, it has to be said publicly, it has to be said throughout this Province that the Wells Government which campaigned on supporting rural Newfoundland were determined not to allow an isolated area of this Province to break their isolat .ion, Mr. Speaker, by giving them a basic service in this Province which is road access to the rest of the Province. And it was not a great deal of ~oney that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the Premier of this Province wanted to deny the people of Petit Forte their road, and, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition and the Federal Member for St.

John's West made sure that they could not get away with it . And Mr. Speaker, those two groups will also be making sure that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will live up to the commitment to provide funding for the Outer Ring Road, Mr. Speaket", before 'all of this money is spent. Mr. Speaker, this again, I am delighted this money is to be spent. I congratulate the Member for Harbout" Main for bt"inging in the early tendering process in this Province.

It is a good policy and it is only sensible that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation follow this very sensible early tendering programme or policy, MI.". Speaker, and I recommend it to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, that he do some eat"ly tendering on his capital works pt"ogrammes for the municipalities in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Early tendet"ing, as the Minister stated, is necessary in this Province because we have a short construction season and it is necessary for contractors and people who depend on this work for jobs - L4 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI An Han.

Member: (Inaudible). Mr. R. Aylward: - and surveyors, yes, sometimes surveyors, ~!though most of the surveyor's wot"k is done well in advance of the early tendering. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The han. Member's time is up . Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. Mr. R. Aylward: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I had some questions for the Premier but in his absence I will ask the President of the Council. The Premier has confirmed now that the Act tabled yesterday, the Act to abolish the Ombudsman's office, would go befot"e the Legislative Review Committee, Mr. Speaker.

And the Minister himself has stated in a press release that this legislation would go before the Parliamentary Review Committee. Will the Minister now confirm that the Parliamentary Review Committee will be allowed to hold at least a public hearing on this mattet", and call witnesses, and hear from witnesses who would have an interest in this Act, Mr. Speaker? Or is it the intention -~of Government now to do as the Premier said the other day, not to allow any public hearings, and that the commit tees wi lJ. have to act from now on on the whims of the Premier only? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Government House Leader. Mr. Baker: Yes, the question and No . 90 R4

a lot of the things that go along with the question are very confusing to me today, Mr. Speaker. He seems to be saying two or three different things in contradiction to each other; however, the situation is very straightforward. The bill was printed and was given to the Legislative Committee and was distdbuted to Members in the House and will be called in due course. As a matter of fact I intend to call second reading today on that particular bill and I have had, at this point in time, no indication from the Committee as to what they want to do with it. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Kilbride. Mr. R.

Aylward: Mr. Speaker, from what I know from the Committee or from our representative on the Committee, that the bill has not formally been presented to the Committee yet, we are going to have second reading on this very important bill today before it ever reaches the Committee. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Government has no intention of allowing this bill to go to public hearings, it was confirmed earlier by the Premier. Mr.

Speaker, now that the Government has decided not to have public hearings and they are going to dictate to the Legislative Review Committee that they cannot have public hearings, would the Minister agree to allow the Ombudsman to appear before the Bar of this House to defend his office and his own performance? And does he not agree that an officer of this House deserves that opportunity? An Hon. Member: Hear, hear! LS December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: The problem with the long

preambles, Mr. Speaker, is that they stimulate so many thoughts in one's mind before they get to the question. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the bill has not been formally presented to the Committee. Now, I do not know if there was any ceremony or any special arrangement or anything like that that was done when all the other bills were presented before the Committee. So, I suppose there has not been a formal presentation of any bill before the Committee and, Mr. Speaker, there never was any intent to have a formal presentation. So I do not really know what the member means by a formal presentation to the Committee.

The bill has been given to the Commit tee, every member in the House, and every member of the Committee is sitting in this House, therefore, every member of the Committee has a copy of the bill. So the bi 11 is available to the Committee. It has been given to the Committee in the normal process. And there has been no formal presentation, Mr. Speaker, obviously because there is no mechanism for any formal presentation. In answer to his question, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of doing so. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. Mr. R. Aylward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is th~ minister's response to Dr. Peter Boswell's column? I quote Dr. Boswell where he says, 'if this odious bill is ever passed, some future dictator in a distant land seeking to rid his political system of a fundamental citizen protection No. 90 RS

would surely raise his glass in a toast to Newfoundland Premier, Clyde Wells, the first leader in any Government anywhere to abolish an Ombudsman's office.' Mr. Speaker, what a way to be remembered. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, I read Dr. Boswell's column and generally he does a superb job in his column of analysis. I also have read the column to which the hon. gentleman has referred, and my response to it is that I would suggest that it was a little bit hysterical, and a full answer to Dr.

Boswell's column I will give in the twenty minutes I have allotted to me to introduce the bill. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbdde. Mr. R. Aylward: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has slipped already. He said twenty minutes to speak, so obviously he already intends to bring in closure and we have not even had the bill read a second time yet. Mr. Flight: How boring. An Hon. Member: Not as boring as your (inaudible). Mr. R. Aylward: If anyone heard your speech yesterday, they would not call me boring. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. R. Aylward: Mr.

Speaker, does it not concern the minister that distinguished political scientists, like Stephen Owen, Dr. Roland Rowat, and Dr. Peter Boswell, are all saying that this Government is completely wrong in L6 December- 4, 1990 Vol XL.I what they are doing? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Government House Leader. Mr. Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it obviously is of some concet"n and would be to anybody. However, I would like to infot"m the hon. member that the reasons for us eliminating or repealing The Parliamentary Commissioner's Act will be obvious as we go throug)'l the bill.

All I can say is that we do not have time to give a full explanation in Question Period, but we will avail of the opportunity in debate to fully explain the t"easons why. To the the other question I thought he had thet"e - again, I sometimes get confused in his

preambles something about already deciding to bring in closure, the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily closure, but it is something that we do not rule out in extreme circumstances of provocation and filibuster and obstruction. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Kilbdde. Mr. R. Aylward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the hon. minister will suggest as the Premier did, that the Opposition is going to call closure and tey to justify it that way. Mr-.

Speaker, can the Minister confit"m that shortly after- the last general election a pr-ominent Central Newfoundland businessman was promised the position of Ombudsman, and it was only after they took office and discovered that the Ombudsman's office was for- a tet"m of ten year-s and they could not give the job to this gentleman, and the only way they could get r-id of the Ombudsman was No. 90 R6

to abolish the complete office? Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The han. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This should make for lively depate in the next couple of days. I am very interested to see what other hare-brained ideas are going to come from the Opposition. Very simply, the answer to the question is absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if one of the members of the Opposition promised the job to somebody, I do not know if an individual in the Province promised the job to somebody, but the answer very simply is no, we did not promise the job to anybody. Mr. Simms: Nobody did? (Inaudible). Mr. Baker: That is right. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Government House Leader. I noticed that he very skillfully avoided answering the question asked by my colleague for Kilbride on the possible appearance of the Ombudsman before the Bar of~ the House.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in view of the fact that Government is moving to totally eliminate and abolish an officer of this House, the Government House Leader would not. consider it appropriate that that officer be ·called before this House to answer for the office and to answer questions for members of this House regarding the L7 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI significance and the importance of that office for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of taking that course of action. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Warren: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. On several occasions now the Minister has stated that Government, this past several months, is monitoring on a daily basis the rising cost to consumers of gasoline and fuel prices. Could the Minister give us an update on how much gasoline and fuel prices have increased over the last two months? Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. the Dr. Gibbons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge, Mr.

Speaker, there has not been an increase in the last month. The last time I reported we had seen an increase of 8.0 cents per liter since the Persian Gulf crisis, which was the same as the increases in both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I do know that the companies have applied to the Public Utilities Board in Nova Scotia and the ruling, as of this morning, had not yet been made for the next increase in Nova Scotia. To date, I have not seen any further increases here, so if the member is aware of any, I would like to know, as well. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member No. 90 R7

for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Warren: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I am not the least bit interested in the price of gasoline and fuel oil in Nova Scotia, I am interested in the price in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to ask the Minister if he could advise this House, and advise the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how much extra revenue the Government of Newfoundland has taken in during the last three or four months because of the drastic increases in the prices of gasoline and fuel oil in this Province? Mr. Speaker: The han. Minister of Mines and Energy. the Dr. Gibbons: Mr.

Speaker, I must say that I do not know what gasoline tax has been collected. I do not monitor and collect gasoline tax, and I would have to refer that to my colleague, the Minister · of Finance. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Warren: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Now that gasoline and other fuel products have been delivered to the Coast of Labrador, if there are any further increases between now and next July, when the navigation season opens, -~will the minister assure the people in coastal Labrador and central Labrador, where gasoline and fuel oil are already stockpiled, that they will not see any further increases charged to them by both Woodward's Limited and Ultramar? Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. the L8 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Dr. Gibbons: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give assurance to anybody about price changes for a product that is market driven.

Mr. Warren: already there. (Inaudible) is Dr. Gibbons: At this time, we do not have a regulation in place that can control the price of any product, including gasoline. Mr. Warren: buddies. (Inaudible) An Han. Member: Listen, listen! Stop yapping! your boy, Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister was reported a week or so ago as having brainstorming sessions with his officials as it relates to - Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Warren: Which brains? Mr.

Windsor: It is a difficult thing for the minister to have, a brainstorming session, but he was reported by the media, at least, as having brainstorming sessions with his officials, looking at the option of expanding the RST base. Would the minister tell us what the results of the great brainstorming session were and what he proposed to do with broadening the base for GST? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Minister of Finance. Dr. Kitchen: Thank you, Mr. No. 90 R8 ---

Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the sessions were and continue to be very stimulating, and the results will be known in due course. Mr. Matthews: Yes, that is the result of brainstorming. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl . Mr. Windsor: Very informative, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the minister this. Is it the minister's intention to piggyback RST on the GST when it comes in? And will the minister confirm that should he broaden the tax base to parallel the GST, in other words, remove all exemptions presently in effect in this Province, that the minister will gain $65 million for each percentage point? Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Finance . Dr. Kitchen: Mr. first point that made on October suggest that the his Hansard. Speaker, on the announcement was- 5, and I would member consult Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Let me ask him again, the minister perhaps forgot the second part of the question, would he confirm that each percentage point of RST, should the tax base be broadened, is worth $65 million? Mr. Speaker : The han. the Minister of Finance. Dr. Kitchen: Mr . Speaker, we will make these points known at the appropriate time. Mr.

Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. L9 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Windsor: Now, Mr. Speaker, we obviously know that each point is worth $65 million. Unless the 12 per cent rate is dropped to 9 per cent, this Government is going to pick up approximately $185 million or $195 million, in fact. Will the minister tell us, or will he confirm now, or will he assure this House that he has no intention of putting GST and RST on heating fuel and electricity and on children's clothing in this Province? Mr. Speaker: The han. the Minister of Finance. Dr. Kitchen: Mr.

Speaker, we will make our positions known on all these matters in due course. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Mr. Speaker, that minister is a wealth of information. Let me try the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if I may, for a question. Now that the minister and the Government has rammed through, using closure and all other means, The Regional Services Bill, is it the minister's intention now to force the city of Mount Pearl to continue to be part of the St. John's Fire Department?

Is it the Minister's intention to take over the Mount Pearl Fire Station and equipment which is in place but not being utilized because of the Minister's refusal to allow the city to carry out their responsibilities? Mr. Speaker: The han . Minister of Municipal Provincial Affairs. the and Mr. Gullage: Mr. Speaker, first No. 90 R9

of all let me say that the city of Mount Pearl is a partner in the St. John • s Fire Department. Properly named, it should be the Metropolitan Fire Department, because it is certainly not St. John's by any means. Seven or eight municipalities in the Northeast Avalon share in those fire fighting services, including Mount Pearl. So they are part now of an agreement with the Province and with the union in question to deliver fire fighting services on the Northeast Avalon.

So part of your question is, will they be allowed to break away from an existing agreement? which is probably more a legal matter than anything else. Secondly, where do we go with regional services in the Northeast Avalon as far as fire fightin~ is concerned? That decision will obviously have to await the formation of a regional services board in the northeast Avalon, if such a board comes into being. At that time, the' Fire Department along with other services will have to be considered of a regional nature.

And others can be considered, the water supply for one thing - the Bay Bulls water supply, just to give an example. As for the station lying dormant and unoccupied by fire fighters, we all know the reason for that. Very simply, it is a Mount Pearl fire station with Mount Pearl equipment. The station would have been occupied over a year ago by the St. John's fire fighters, but that is a decision of the Mount Pearl council 'to make. If they want the station manned, it can happen tomorrow. Mr. Flight: Good answer! Excellent answer! LlO December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr.

Windsor: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the city of Mount Pearl is a partner in the St. John's Fire Department but an unwilling partner, because that Minister has forced them to remain there. An Hon. Member: Not true. Mr. Windsor: And it is true. Some Han. Members: It is true. Mr. Windsor: And it is absolutely false - An Han. Member: twenty years! (Inaudible) for Mr. Windsor: - it is a falsehood, Mr. Speaker, for this Minister to say that it is the city of Mount Pearl that chooses not to have it manned. That Minister has refused to allow the city - Mr. Gullage: That is not true. Mr.

Windsor: - to carry out their responsibilities. An Han. Member: That is not true. Mr. Windsor: It is true! Let me ask the Minister this, Mr. Speaker. How much longer does he propose to leave that fire station empty? How much longer does he propose to leave that equipment lying dormant while the city of Mount Pearl is not adequately protected as defined by the Fire Commissioner and the Fire Chief? Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Gullage: First of all, Mr . No. 90 RlO

Speaker, as the Member knows, those questions are better put to the city of Mount Pearl than they are to me. Because I can only repeat that that station was built by the city of Mount Pearl, the equipment purchased by the city of Mount Pearl. It. is not within my mandate to impose flre fighters upon the city of Mount Pearl. I suppose the Government could decree that we should do that, and pass some kind of a bill to do it and whatever. I do not think we are going to take that kind of action. The implications of the city of Mount Pearl and its council deciding to withdraw from the St.

John's Fire Department are of a legal nature. And the Member knows that they have sought a legal opinion on that. It is not as easy as it seems to walk away from a working agreement with the Province and with an existing union, which is exactly what they would be doing. And for the Member to continue as he has been doing, fearmongering in the House of Assembly about fire fighting services is totally and completely irresponsible. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl. Mr. Windsor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The irresponsibility here is on the Minister's shoulders, let me assure you, in failing to have that fire station open. The Minister knows full well that the city of Mount Pearl has an agreement with their own union to provide their own fire prevention services and the only thing holding them up from removing themselves from the agreement is the Minister. I also remind the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he knows that the fire Lll December 4, 1990 Vol XLI < - ~ station and the fire equipment was bought and built by the city of Mount Pearl with Government approval. It is this Administration which has put a hold on it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Windsor: I will get to my question. Thank you for your tolerance. Will the Minister tell me this? If and when the Minister does establish the St.

John's Regional Fire Service, will the Minister guarantee this House that he will compensate the city of Mount Pearl for the $2.6 million they have invested in equipment, for the $300,000 a year interest they are paying while the Minister refuses to let them operate, and what will he do with the $600,000 a year more it is costing the city of Mount Pearl, for this unwilling partnership, than they could provide their own far superior fire service by operating their own fire department? Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Provincial and Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Gullage: Mr. Speaker, the $600,000 that the member mentions as being an extra cost to the city of Mount Pearl, of course, is totally non-factual. Mr. Windsor: differently. It ls not. We know Mr. Gulla~: We know from the latest figures. Check with the city of Mount Pearl council and you will find that they now agree there is no differential in cost at all. No. 90 Rll

Mr. Windsor: I have the figures. Mr. Gull age: figures the about is an can decrease First of all, the member is talking assumption that you the amount of service, decrease the number of men, change the shift system, and the list of things goes on that you, in theory, could do. They have now concluded that these things cannot be done. Talk to the council of Mount Pearl.

As far as the financial implications and the equipment and fire station that were constructed and what the Government would do in the event of a regional services board coming into place and fire fighting be placed under that board, that is obviously a question, as the member knows, that has to be addressed at that time. We would give consideration if, in fact, it was taken ove[" by a regional se["vices board, to some rebate of costs, given the fact that it becomes part of a regional services board covering off, I would think, the major portion of the Northeast Avalon.

But those decisions have to be taken at the time, if and when a regional services fire fighting - An Hon . Member: (Inaudible) burned to death first . Ask Ha["vey Hodder. Mr. Gullage: I was waiting for that (inaudible) to come. Mr . Fli gh t: Come on! The alarmist. The alarmist. Mr. Speaker : Order, please! 0["der, please! The han. the Ministe[" has been asked a question.

Since he has been asked a question by the Member for Mount Pearl there have been several other questions Ll2 Decembe[" 4, 1990 Vol XLI asked, and when that happens and the Minister gets into answering those questions, it makes it difficult for the Chair to decide which question the Minister ought to be answering. So I ask the Minister to please answer the original question and clue up very quickly. The hon. the Ministe[" of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Gullage: Mr . Speaker, the city of l1ount .

Pearl is quite aware, and they have been told several times, that if lhey want the station occupied by the fire fighters of the St. John's Fire Department it will happen immediately, with no delay. So to talk about the Minister not taking action, how quick do you want me to take it? If they say a half hour f["om now they want that station occupied, within the hour I will have men in there. An Hon. Member: Suppose they cannot do it with their own (inaudible) . An Hon. Member: They can do it. Mr. Windsor: dishonest. That is being Mr. Flight: You are an alarmist . Mr. Sp ea ker: Order, please!

The bon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Social Services. I have constituents who applied to adopt a baby in April 1985, five years and eight months ago. At the time of application, this couple were satisf led to adopt a baby up to one year old, any sex; No. 90 Rl2

they would conside~ a child with a co~~ec ti b le disability, a twin no problem, even two, a b~othe~ and siste~, and they a~e waive~ing now thei~ age limitation. What was thei~ dream, Mr. Speaker, because they were promised a waiting pe~iod of between one and two years, three years at the most, has now become an illusion. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he would tell this House how many applications for adoption are on file, and how many babies does his department have fo~ adoption? An Hon. Member: Good question. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. Mr. Efford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I have some doubts that it is a question for the House of Assembly. First of all - An Han. Member: Why? Mr. Simms: You used to ask them all the time. Mr. Efford: No, not in my days as an Opposition critic. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the han. Member for St. John's East Extern the question of enough children in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to reach the number of applications we have on file is a very, very difficult situation. We do not have authority over providing children to families who have applications on file, or requests.

There is presently a seven year waiting list, minimum, on file in the Department of Social Services. We are encouraged by the courts, in fact we are told by the courts wherever possible, you T~ 13 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI a~e supposed to keep parent and child together. You are supposed to put in the family suppo~t se~vices wherever it is humanly possible to do that. We cannot at our descretion, nor can the child welfare director of the Department of Social Services, go out and apprehend a child whenever he or she feels like it. You know, that is an impossible thing. Mr.

Speaker, the very clear point is that there are hundreds of applications on file for adoptions - in this Province. I cannot tell you the exact number of applications on f lle, but I wi 11 check it out and find the exact number. I can tell you there is a seven year waiting list, minimum.

I have been suggesting to the people in the P~ovince that if they have problems in adopting infant children, which is normally what people first want when they make application - they will ask for infant children - we have p~ovided information that there a~e older . children, five, six, seven, eight or nine years old who are wards of the Department of Social Services whom they can adopt if they wish. But that requires a major decision by an individual family. All I can say to the han. member is, if he wishes to see me afterwards, I will talk to the child welfare director about that particular family.

He can do that and I will open up my office to him anytime. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not think a week has gone by in my term as Minister of Social Services, in the last eighteen months, that I have not had some parents or some couple into my office concerned about the waiting time. Unfortunately, it is impossible for the Minister of Social Services or anyone else in No. 90 Rl3

his department to lessen the length of time that you have to wait for a child in the Province. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since this couple are satisf led - and I only speak of one couple - there are several in the area I think, as the Minister might know. Since the couple is satisfied to increase the age limitation and if they were to reapply the rules now state that they would have to go back to the bottom of the list - would he direct the people in his department to contact those people?

And would the Minister have that policy changed so as to give applicants information pertaining to their position on the waiting list? Right now you get information only when you are fifth on the list. Would you direct your department to change it? Mr. Speaker: The hon . the Minister of Social Services. Mr. Efford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, any couple in the Province, not only the couple from the hon.

Member's district, who wish to come to the Department of Social Services, and they do not have to make an appointment like they did in the past for six or seven weeks, they can come in without an appointment, I will see them personally or so will the Director of Child Welfare, I have a lot of confidence in him, but any time they want to come into the department and discuss changing their application from an infant to an older child. I do not feel comfortable discussing Ll4 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI this sort of thing here in the House of Assembly, I would feel more comfortable in confiding - An Hon.

Member: Why not? Mr. Efford: Because it is a very emotional thing for people in the Province to deal with. And any people who have an application on file, it is better discussed in privacy. So I can only tell you in the context of the Department of Social Services.

But I am telling you, as the Minister, that we will sit down with an individual and discuss changing the age for thern if they wish to go to an older child any time they wish to do so, and we will look at altering the lessening of time that they would have to wait, because we have a lot of children in this Province who are in foster homes who we can provide for adoption, so they would not have to wait seven, eight or nine years if they were adopting an older child. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for St. John's East Extern. Mr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I asked the hon.

Minister was to state the policy or would he change some part of the policy? It is nothing personal. I would not be standing in my place today if I thought it was something personal. That lady contacted his department last Thursday and she could not get any information. None whatsoever. Mr. Warren: Because she was not fifth on the list. Mr. Parsons: Because she was not fifth on the list. No. 90 Rl4

~ - Now would the Minister concede that those people have a right to know their status? They celebrated their tenth anniversary last Sunday, and their time is running out. I mean they are desperate in their need for - Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I will ask the hon. gentleman to get on with the question, please! Mr. Parsons: Okay. They are desperate in their need for this child. Would the Minister concede that they have a right to know their status? That is all they are asking. Is it going to be two years? Is it going to be one year? Is it _ going to be a month? Just tell them. It is getting late for them.

That is all the people are asking. It is getting late. And the lady went to the department and could not get an answer. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The hon. the Minister of Services. Social Mr. Efford: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here in the House of Assembly and tell anybody or tell the general public or the House of Assembly that the Department of Social Services is running a perfect system in there. But I am totally surprised and I am totally shocked and I will ask the hon.

Member to let me know aftex:-wards who that lady or that couple saw in the Department of Social Services that they could not get the information. It is the first time that it has been brought to my attention that anybody ever called and could not get information, and that is including hon. members opposite. We give the information, but I LlS December 4, 1990 Vol XLI will tell you one thing, nobody has to wait another seven or eight years for information or to adopt an older child.

We have older children in this Province and we wish and pray to God that people would come forward to adopt the children, in fact, we brought in, since I became Minister of Social Services, what we call subsidized adoption, to encourage people to adopt older children who have special needs and who have special requirements. We would encourage couples to adopt them. So nobody has to wait an extra seven or eight years and nobody has to change their application because one has changed from an infant toward - it is just wrong information in this case that has been given out and I would suggest to the han.

Member, if he has a particular case about a constituent,_ as he has done - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Efford: call me and I appo in tmen t and information - in the past, to would make an get the right An Han. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Efford: - relating to his people, but I cannot change the policy of -the Department of Social Services to suit one couple in the Province, because we have hundreds of people who have been waiting four, five six and seven years, and a lot of people as the han.

Member is saying ver·y clearly, it is reaching the stage in life where they cannot wait much longer to adopt a child, but we do not have the children available and we will, certainly, if you have the people come to my office, we will certainly sit down and make suee the right information is relayed to them. No. 90 RlS

~ An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Speaker: Quest ion Period has expired. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees The hon. the Minister of Finance. Dr. Kitchen: Mr . Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Newfoundland Liquor Commission for the year ending March 31, 1990. Mr. Speaker: Answers to questions for which notice has been given. Dr. Kitchen: Could we revert? Mr. Speaker: Revert to which? Dr. Kitchen: Notices of" Motion. Mr. Speaker: Should the House revert to Notices of Motion? Mr. Tobin: No leave. Mr. Speaker: Has the House leave to go back to Notices of Motion? An Hon.

Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Speaker: The han. the Minister of Finance. Dr. Kitchen: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow'ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act to Revise and Amend The Law Respecting a Pension Plan for Employees of the Government of the Province and Others" and, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Aect to Revise and Amend The Law Respecting Pensions for The Members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and The Ll6 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI St. John's Fire Department and The Staff of Her Majesty's Penitentiary".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Petitions Mr. Speaker: for Green Bay. The han. the Member Mr. Hewlett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 349 residents of Green Bay, the vast majority of whom are from King's Point. The number 34q is significant when we look at the fact that. in the last election, a total of only 476 people voted in the community of King's Point. The prayer of the petition is as follows: Because an expenditure freeze in the health care system will mean layoffs and bed closures, we, the undersigned residents of Green Bay district petition the hon.

House of Assembly not to approve such a freeze. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind saying in this Assembly that I did not win the community of King's Point in the last election, my opponent won King's Point with 71 per cent of the vote, polling some 338 votes. That was disappointing obviously for myself, but not surprising as King's Point was the hometown of my opponent in the election. I similarly won 73 per cent of the vote in Port Anson, the town in which I was born, so as I say, it No. 90 Rl6

was not surprising. But, Mr. Speaker, when we think of the fact that less than 500 people in King's Point voted and 349 signed this petition, I think that is significant. · Following along the lines of what the hon. Minister of Health has said in this han. House in the last day or so, and following discussions I have held with health care officials in Green Bay, it would appear now that the likely outcome of these impact statements that the Government is receiving from the various institutions, the likely outcome for the Green Bay area is probably the fact that Springdale will lose its hospital as a hospital.

Hopefully it will get a clinic with nursing home beds attached. Hopefully that clinic will be a twenty-four hour emergency clinic. But the bottom line is that when it comes to hospital care residents of Green Bay wi l"l have to depend on the larger centres in Corner Brook or, most likely, Grand Falls, the nearest town with a large regional hospital. That wilJ mean, for instance, parents about to have a new baby will no longer be able to have that child at the Springdale hospital. They will probably have to have the child at Grand Falls some sixty-odd, seventy miles away.

And that will provide an additional strain and expense on the families involved. Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, obviously the people of King's Point did vote for real change in the last election but I do not think the type of change that we are receiving at the hands of this Government is the kind of change they voted for. And they did not vote for education cuts, they did Ll7 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI not vote for health care cuts, they did not vote for a refusal of pavement for their friends and relatives in the Harry's Harbour - Jackson's Cove area. Mr.

Speaker, the people of King's Point voted for the Liberal policy of opening and expanding the health care system in this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I sign this petition, I table it, and ask that it be referred to the Minister of Health. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: The han. the Member for Humber East. Ms Verge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was pausing, expecting the Minister of Health or one of the Members opposite, who• campaigned a short year and a half ago promising to increase funding for health care and open more hospital beds, to rise and speak to this petition of residents of Green Bay district. I would like to support the prayer of their petition. I agree with them that health care is critically important and must be a priority of any Provincial government. It is extremely important for the people who live in the Green Bay area that their excellent facility at Springdale continues to receive enough funding to maintain its operations.

The Green Bay Health Care Centre, representing both chronic care and acute care facilities, is a model in the Province that has been praised by health care administrators and board members throughout Newfoundland and Labrador as well as people involved in health care elsewhere in the country. Perhaps No. 90 Rl7

instead of threatening to take away the hospital component of that facility the Minister of Health should examine the possibilities for copying the Springdale model in other small towns around the Province. The Liberals when they were in power before under Premier Smallwood, carried out wholesale social engineering and resettlement, closing out dozens and dozens of small i£olated communities around our coastline and centralizing our population in growth centt"es. This new Liberal regime under the current Premier seems to be approaching resettlement in a more subtle but just as deadly a way.

This Liberal administration seems to be going about . C"emoving essential services from remote rural parts of the Province, forcing people to resettle. This time, perhaps, there will not be resettlement allowances but there will be a similar compulsion for people to abandon their rural roots and move to urban growth centres the same way as thousands of people did back in the 'sixties. Mr . Speaker, a greater percentage of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador live in rural areas than the population of any other Canadian Province.

About two-thirds of our people live in communities which have 5,000 or fewer population. And our communities are scattered over a huge distance, over thousands of miles of coastline as well as some of our interior expanses. And it is just not feasible now - and it wi 11 never be feasible - for many of these people to go to the few urban centers for hospitalization. It is always going to be important to maintain some level of hospital services, Ll8 December 4, 1990 Vol xr.r both acute care and chronic care, in each of the areas of the Province, including some sparsely populated rural areas. In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I endorse the sentiments and the prayer of the petition of the residents of Green Bay. Thank you. Orders of the Day Mr. Baker: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker. Motion, the han. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, 1977 (No. 3)", carried . (Bill No. 73) On motion, Bill No. 73 read a first time, ordered read a second time, on tomorrow. Mr. Baker: Order No. 10. Motion, second reading of a bill, · "An Act to Repeal The Parliamentary (Ombudsman) Act". Commissioner (Bill No. 42). Mr. Simms: Shame! Shame! Mr .

Doyle: What a black day for the Province. Mr . Speaker: The hon. the President of Treasury Board . Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Question Period today, this particular topic came up. There were some questions asked, and r. indicated at that point in time that a more detailed answer to the questions would be forthcoming upon the introduction of this particular bill, "An Act To Repeal The Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act". No. 90 Rl8

JJ:. As everybody can see, Mr. Speaker, the statement itself is very simple. Clause 1 of the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act is repealed, and then there are some consequential amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, where mention is made of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and these have to be deleted. Then, finally, point three is the commencement date: This particular Act comes into force on January 1, 1991. So it is a very straightforward legislation. simple piece and of Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill I would like to deal with it in a number of ways.

First of all, much has been made of the fact that the concept of having an Ombudsman to deal with problems •..rhich people have with Government is somehow something that is sacred the world over and is a given in any Government, and is something that can never be changed. That seems to be the gist of the comments over the last number of months that have been corning from critics, and some of them quoted in Question Period here today, that the concept, the word 'Ombudsman' is a sacred word. Now, Mr-. Speaker, that is simply not so.

I would suggest to Your Honour that the idea - the idea that individuals should have an avenue for appeal of Government decisions is important, that is a very important concept. The idea behind the position of Ombudsman is extremely important, but what you call that position has really no bearing on its function. So we can start from one premise, Mr. Speaker, that you must have - you must have - in a democratic society an avenue for people to object to Government decisions and Ll9 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI to try to get redress from Government decisions that they feel are incorrect. I think that is obvious.

So that is the first thing. The second thing I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that our society, in terms of protection of the rights of the individual, has undergone some tremendous advances, and I would like to suggest that perhaps what was relevant twenty years ago or thirty years ago or thirteen years ago, may not really be relevant today. The fact that something has existed for a number of years, whatever that number happens to be, is no reason for keeping that in existence forever - no reason. Because as society changes and as conditions change, our institutions must change.

And I think that is fairly self-evident. This applies, not only to the position of Ombudsman, but in many areas of Government, that there seems to be an attitude that the only way Government can make a change is by adding on - that is the only way Government can make a change, by adding on. And we have seen this in the discussions on the health care system, where the Minister of Health has outlined changes that over the next number of years should take place to make the system better ser·ve the people of the Province. And members opposite are taking the approach that well, no, you cannot ·touch what is. Mr.

Tobin: Phone Bill Rowe. Mr. Baker: What is, what was, what has been for the last twenty years has to stay. Mr. Tobin: Phone Ron. No. 90 Rl9

Mr. Baker: And what you do is you leave whatever is here and you simply add on more and more and more. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Baker: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in that attitude. I am very disappointed. Mr. Tobin: Phone Ron Pumphrey. Call Ron Pumphrey. Mr. Baker: Never change anything, simply add on. Government is a bottomless pit, a bottomless pit of money and all you do is keep adding on and on and on until eventually you employ 100 per cent of the people in the Province and there is no need for private enterprise. That seems to be the attitude of members opposite.

We just keep adding on and adding on and adding on and never changing anything. I would like to suggest to members opposite that is not the way to bring about change. You bring about change by looking at your system, by changing things that need to be changed, by, perhaps, eliminating things that have outlived their usefulness , by improving things that need to be improved, and certainly by doing new things. But not only by adding on, not only by doing new things. What we are talking about is effective change in our approach, and the Opposition seems to be stuck on the idea, Mr.

Speaker, that the only change that is possible is more add-ons and more expenditure. Now, Mr. Speaker, specifically to the Ombudsman and the role of Ombudsman. I made the point when I started that the name is not important; certainly the function L20 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI is. The reason for existence in the first place is that people in this Province have an avenue for redress against Government decisions that they feel were incorrect.

A number of options, a number of alternatives have been mentioned, and members opposite just shouted back at me a moment ago about Ron Pumphrey and Bill Rowe, and the advent of the action lines on radio. But, Mr. Speaker, it goes far beyond that. The role of the MHA has become a much more significant role in the last year and a half than it ever has before. Government has provided the individual MHAs with the ability to do that portion of their job that takes most of their time, and that is acting as an Ombudsman for the approximately 10,000 people they r~present.

I can remember, just five short years ago, when it was practically impossible for me as a MHA to do that, simply because, number one, I was afforded no privacy the privacy of an office was denied to me. An Hon. Member: Shame! Mr. Baker: The privacy of an office was denied to me, and a lot of the complaints and the things you have to talk to your constituents about are very personal and private, and no privacy was allowed me. · An Hon. Member: on that. (Inaudible) right Mr. Baker: secretary. I did not have a Mr. R. Aylward: desk. No. 90 I did not have a R20

Mr. Baker: I had a secretary part-time. If you go back far enough, the conditions were worse and worse and worse. You will even get back, if you go back far enough, to the situation where there were no offices, period - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Leo Barry. Mr. Baker: - and the only thing an MHA had was a share in the common room in back there. That was the only location an MHA had, a share in a common room. So things have been very bad. Mr. R. Aylward: office and a does not give (inaudible). By giving you an private secretary you the right to Mr. Baker: Let me get to it one point at a time.

It is too b'ad that Hansard is not picking up your comments. The member is saying that giving an office and a secretary does not give certain rights, and I agree. But I will get to that eventually. I am simply making the point, first of all, that the MHAs in the past, even in the recent past, did not have the capability, the physical surroundings to be able to do that job. Right now we have fifty-two members in this hon.

House, each of whom has an office, each of whom has a secretary, each of whom has allowance made for constituency work and constituency travel and constituency contact, all that kind of thing, so that the members can effectively do their job. And if somebody has a problem with Government, it would seem to me that the first avenue they would take is their MHA. We have declared that this is a full-time occupation, a full-time job. L21 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Simms: many of us . It always has been for Mr. Baker: But not for all. An Hon. Member: (inaudible). Except for Jack Mr. Baker: That is true. Mr.

Simms: (Inaudible) the majority. Mr. Baker: But we have declared now, and in the Morgan Commission Report that was done, that this is now a full-time job. So we have full-time members, with full-time secretaries, with full-time private facilities to do the front-line job that needs to be done to look out to the problems of their constituents, and certainly amongst these problems would be problems with Government decisions that they want redress for. So, Mr.

Speaker, over the last thirteen years there has been an improvement, mor·e particularly in the last eighteen months, there has been a tremendous improvement in the ability of the MHAs to carry out that function. Mr. Simms: (Inaudible). Mr. Baker: Now, Mr. Speaker, also in terms of other mechanisms that are available, and members opposite talk about powers to do things, an MHA has a lot of power, if you want to call it that, in -quotation marks, 'a lot of power'. An MHA has easy access to the decision makers in Government, whether it be at the political level or at the civil service level.

They should have easy access, if they do not. I am assuming they do. I have had no particular complaint about MHAs No. 90 R/.1

having difficulty either contacting my office or contacting the civil service in my department - I have had no complaint. They have easy access and they solve many problems. Mr. Simms: not. Yes, and many they do Mr. Baker: Many they solve.

And no mechanism will solve all of the problems because, as the Member for Grand Falls knows, if you get one hundred complaints, there are some of them which are easy to solve, there are some of them which are difficult to solve, there are some of them which cannot be solved, and there are some which never should be solved, because the problem was not with the system in the first place.

So you wi 11 find a certain number of those situations, as well. • But built into our system over the last number of years we have developed many mechanisms to safeguard the rights of the individual, and these generally apply to specific areas.

We have an Adoptions Appeal Board; we have a process that is gone through for adoptions, and then if something is wrong, we have an appeal process, the Adoptions Appeal Board, with the right to overturn previous decisions, so that somebody who has a problem with the document has that access to a Court of Appeal that will look at a Government decision, an arm's length board who will look at the Government decision and eithef verify it or overturn it, and quite often it is overturned.

It is always overturned if in the view of the board the decision was an incorrect one, so we have an Adoption's Appeal Board. 'Ne have a lot of these appeal boards, very, very specific . We have a L22 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Forest Land's Tax Review Board; and we have a Driver's License Suspension Review Board. How many problems are there with driver's license suspensions, and we have a Driver's License Suspensions Appeal Board .

We have a Livestock owners Compensation Board; we have a Mineral Rights Adjudication Board; we ha .ve a Mining Tax Review Board; we have regional appeals boards for municipal affairs all over this Province; we have residential tenancy boards. We have one in St. John's, we have one on the West Coast, and we have one for Central, one for Eastern, and one for Labrador . The problem with rental accommodations is a big problem · in this Province and the mechanism to handle that has been set up and is effective, and I will repeat again it is an arm's length process to handle these problems.

There is a Social Assistance Appeal Board; there is a Student Aid Appeals Comrni ttee; there is a Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal; there is a Processing License Appeals Board; there is a Timber Users Appeal Advisory Board; there is an Appeals Board for the St. John's Urban Regional Agricultural Zone; there is a Land Consolidation Review Committee for land problems; there is a Labour Relations Board and a Labour Standards Board for that kind of process. There is a Labour Standards Tribunal that has a look at problems that individuals might have with employers in the Province.

There is the Human Rights Commission that handles the human rights problems, that essentially were outside the scope of the Ombudsman anyway. There is the Building Accessibility Advisory Board; a Child Welfare Board; the Young Offender's Act Review Board; and it goes on and on. There are boards that have No. 90 R22

CJ been set up to deal with complaints that individuals have with the Government process and essentially that is what we are talking about here in terms of the Ombudsman. Sitting on these boards we have people who can independently make decisions, and very often do overturn decisions of the bureaucracy. Quite often when the off ice of the Ombudsman, as it has existed for the past few years, a lot of thP- calls that come in here, the solution of the Ombudsman would be to appeal it. This is the Appeals Board, go to the Appeals Board, a matter of providing information.

The point I am trying to make at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, is that we have developed an extensive network of appeals pt"ocesses that are there to protect the r'ights of the individual and to protect them against hasty and . sometimes incorrect Government decisions, but"eaucratic decisions. A lot of people at"e sitting on these boat"ds at great expense but I believe they are necessary. I believe we have to look out for the rights of the individual in terms of Government decisions. If the individual happens to be an employee of Government, then, of course, the mechanisms are obvious.

If the grieved person happens to be an employee, a unionized employee, he would have the protection of Collective Agreements and these Collective Agreements may have been crude instruments twenty years ·ago and did not exist in terms of the public service sector, but today - Ms Verge: Mr. Baker: today - Ms Verge: days . (Inaudible). That is right. But (Inaudible) Liberal L23 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Baker: That is right.

And the Member for Humber East says back in the Liberal days, and it is unfortunate that quite ofLen, you know, this mention is made when you are into a serious debate and we have to bring Liberal or Tory politics into it. I am trying to make the argument outside of that and I would readily agree with the Member for Humber East that things were not as good then as they are now, that the collective agreements are refined instruments for dealing with complaints that workers may have. Every two or three years, sometimes oftener, the union reps sit down and negotiate contracts.

And each time they have spent hours, days, months dealing with wha·t they call language items and these language items are essentially - but before they even get the money - they want to do the language stuff first before they get the money because they see the language stuff as being more important. The language of the collective agreement is generally language for the protection of the worker. So that this language has been refined over the years and the collective agreement has become a method whereby the worker can get redress against decisions.

Now, some might argue that the collective agreements in this respect have gone too far, and sometimes I might be tempted to make that comment as well, Mr. Speaker. But in actual fact they are things agreed upon -- developed over the years to protect the workers. So, Mr. Speaker, down through the years in recent history we have developed .in this Province many mechanisms for dealing with the complaints and the rights of the citizens of the Province, the citizens of the Province who are No. 90 R23

affected by Government decisions directly. These mechanisms have been developed with good reason. Thirteen years ago it may have been crucially important, it may have been really important to have the office of Ombudsman. I am not so sure what the reason was when the office was established. It may have been symbolic. If it was more than symbolic, then of course, not nearly enough staff was provided. It was a very, very small office and I suspect the reason for introduction in the first place was more symbolism than anything else.

When it was created I suspect that there was a greater need in the Province for the protection of the rights of individuals. I will say this, Mr .

Speaker, that if, in fact, the office of the Ombudsman was of crucial, vital importance to the people of the P~ovince, if this was the mechanism to handle the complaints that people in the Province had with regards to Government, if this was the medium through which people of the Province could get action concerning their complaints on what Government was doing, if that was the reason, if it was not purely symbolic, then I would suggest that the Government of the day fell down on the job badly because if it was of such crucial importance, if it was so absolutely necessary for the running of this Province you would set up the office of Ombudsman, you would give him a staff of at lease forty or fifty if the job is there to be done.

You would put maybe 300 or 400 people there if there was such a great need, if there was so much work to be done. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it was by and large a symbolic effort. Since that symbolic effort was made we have developed mechanisms L24 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI that can handle the problems far more efficiently. And if, Mr. Speaker, there are any loopholes, and Members opposite suggest there may in fact be loopholes, then I have no hesitation in saying that the loopholes can be plugged later on. There is no doubt about it. So, Mr .

Speaker, in introducing this bill I simply wanted to deal in the first instance with the concept of Ombudsman and the function of Ombudsman and the mechanisms that we have in place to carry out that function. I have decided in rny wisdom or lack thereof, not to start leafing through Ombudsman reports and so on. If it is necessary to do that, Mr. Speaker, then when I close debate on second reading some time, maybe on Christmas Eve, on the Ombudsman • s bill, then at that time perhaps I will deal with the actual work of the Ombudsman rather than the position in theory and in principle. So, Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill and I am looking forward very anxiously to hear the scenarios that are going to come from Members opposite, like the scenario that came up in Quest ion Period today, whereby the only reason we are eliminating it, abolishing the position of Parliamentary Commissioner, is that somebody in central Newfoundland, I believe it was said, was promised a job - An Han. Member: That's right! Mr. Baker: - but then when we looked at it and found out we could not give it decided to abolish it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, entertainment value, No . 90 Lo him, we just for I would like R24

to hear some more of these scenarios · that. I am sure Members of the Opposition will come up with. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: . Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I must say, I have been highly amused by the approach taken by the Government House Leader in introducing this piece of legislation. And to use his closing words, it gives me great pleasure. I somehow have a feeling that the President of Treasury Board, or Government House Leader, _does not have his heart and soul into the task that he has been assigned by the Premier in bringing this bill into the Legislature.

Now I have that feeling, it is a personal feeling, from knowing the President of the Council, I just do not think he has his heart and soul fully into this one. I really do ·think he has reservations. I really do think he has reservations. But, Mr. Speaker, iet me just say first of all at the outset, just in case there is any doubt in the minds of Members opposite particularly, that we do not support this legislation. Absolutely, categorically, no support for this legislation on this side of the House or at least in this caucus.

I would not be at all surprised if our fdend from Fortune-Hermitage supports it wholeheartedly. Maybe he does not. He is an independent Member, therefore an independent thinker, and perhaps he might very well see this as a ver:y negative move for the people of the Province. He used to be a hard fighter for the people and so on, and I suspect he has r:etained that feeling. I hope he does. It would be interesting to see - if he speaks at all - how L25 December: 4, 1990 Vol XLI he stands on this bill. So, Mr.

Speaker, I say at the outset, we will be encouraging and giving our Members here on this side of the House every opportunity to speak to this legislation, to express their views and concerns. And, Mr. Speaker, we would expect that Members opposite will take the opportunity in this d~bate to express their views. I think they should. Because frankly I would like to hear Members opposite defend this particular decision. It is an important piece of legislation, it is a major step.

And I hope that Members opposite, both private Members and Government Members or Ministers, will take the opportunity to participate in the debate and respond to comments that some of us may make. So, we are opposed to it, we will not be supporting it, we wi. ll be encour:aging our: Members to speak to it as frequently as they possibly can, we may be proposing amendments, we will do everything we can to ensure that our views and opinions are heard and reflected upon at the appropriate time. But I can assure the House that we will be voting against this very draconian measure. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this meaSU£e was announced in the Legislature in full view of the galleries, being full at the time, the floor of the House being full with representatives and distinguished visitors to the Legislature announced eight months ago by the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech; I think that was the first inkling. No. 90 R25

Now, Mt". Speaker', what I cannot understand is why in heaven's name the Government House Leader', who is sponsot"ing this bill, could not Or" did not pt"int this bill, say in Apt"il, a month after' the Minister' of Finance announced it. He announced it in Mat"ch, why did they not pt"int this bill in Apt"il, one month after' the announcement? I mean, her-e it is, her-e it is, Ht".

Speaker-, it is a flimsy little piece of legislation, a flimsy piece of legislation, absolutely no effor-t r-equit"ed I am sur-e, with due r-espect to the Legislative Council, I do not imagine they had to spend. eight months dr-afting this, but they had to wait for- the instt"uctions, of cout"se, of the Gover-nment.

And the Government, even though it announced it eight months ago, did not give the instt"uctions to pr-int the bill, why did he not do it in Apr-il, even a month afteLWards would have be~n enough, 0[" even two months' why did he not print the bill in May month, two months later-, and then gi"ve it to one of the Legislative Review Committees, the competent Legislative Review Committees, headed up by some competent pr-ivate members, who have their- own opinions, I bet, on this Legislation.

I know as pr-ivate member-s they ar-e expected to toe the par-ty line, but I know fr-om talking to some of them that they have ser-ious t"eser-vations about this particular­ initiative. Now, they are not going to be expected I suppose to get up and expr-ess those reser-vations, I wish they would, but I do not fully expect them to do so. But why did not the Gover-nment put the bill out to a committee, let them have some public hearings and L26 December- 4, 1990 Vol XLI let us see if the public have any pat"ticulat" views on this -· particular initiative.

That is one thing that saddens me and I am deeply disappointed that the Gover-nment did not do that. To take eight months to pr-int this flimsy bill is absolutely t"idiculous, eight months and unbelievable. Now, Mr. Speaker', ~ listened to the President of Treasur-y Boar-d trying to defend the indefensible. It was one of the weakest defences, weakest explanations, weakest ar-guments that I have ever hear-d ft"om a Minister in pt"esentlng a piece of legislation.

And I suppose, knowing how this all came about, I suppose the Minister- actually did his best ot'" tried his best to defend what in r-eality as we all know, is a decision taken by the Pr-emier-.

I would say it is a decision taken by the Pr-emier-, and the Minister­ did his best to tC"y to defend that par-ticular' decision, but we expect all the Cabinet Ministers to shake the it" heads now and say, oh no, that was our- initiative, but I think people would be foolhardy to think that this was a collective, unanimous decision of Cabinet, we do not expect that it was, they have to accept the responsibility for- it now, once the decision is made, I under-stand that, but it is clear- ft"om wher-e the initiative came, Mr. Speaker.

The Govet'"nment House Leader's big ar-gument was that he was disappointed in all the cr-itics approaches, all the cr-itics explanations dealing with the question of change, some deep philosophical discussion about how you deal with change - No. 90 R26

An Han. Member: The next thing is the flag. Mr. Sinuns: Yes, I would not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, that would not surprise me one bit. An Han. Member: You want a revolution? Mr. Simms: The Government House Leader talked about changing things that have to be changed. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no argument with that, changing things that have to be changed or changing things that must be changed; we have no argument about that at all; those things that are necessary to change, that has never been our argument, but here, I think we have an example of change simply for the sake of change.

To satisfy the whim and a decision, taken prematurely I believe, by the Premier of the Province and then laid down upon the Members of Cabinet who had no choice but to support it and then of course, he was not prepared after it came to his attention - all the critics conunents came to his attention - he was not prepared of course then to back down because we all know the Premier as being a very, very, stubborn individual and he certainly would not do anything to lose face, or change face at all, so that is what is transpiring.

Now, I want to try to briefly refresh the members of the House of Assembly as to the responsibility that the Ombudsman has to the citizens of our Province. I want to comment on the argument that MHAs could do the job, and I want to enlighten members through some quotations of people who are very involved and knowledgeable about Ombudsmanship L27 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI throughout the world.

I want to remind members of the House of some very kind comments, warm comments, made by members sitting on that side of the House today, comments made by them when they sat on this side of the House only four years ago, back in 1986. I want to refresh the member's memories about that, so that is the kind of approach I want to take in responding to the Government House Leader. First of all one must remember that this initiative to create an Ombudsman was a great initiative of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture shakes his head and that leads me to believe and to confirm my suspicions that he does not understand what is transpiring. The Act to create the Ombudsman was passed in 1970 by the previous Smallwood Liberal administration. The Act to create an Ombudsman 1970, so it was a great Liberal initiative. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible) . Mr. Simms: I will get to that now. The Act itself was passed by the Liberal Government of 1970. They brought in the Ombudsman, a tremendous initiative, Mr.

Speaker, and it was introduced and proposed by a former MHA and former Minister of the Smallwood Government who did a study on it, John Nolan. That is who proposed it twenty years ago, the Liberals, one of their great initiatives. The position and office of Ombudsman was brought into full force in 1975 by a Progressive Conservative administration but the Act was passed, presented, brought in, by the Liberal administration. Now, do not forget that, Mr. Speaker, because those are important points when No. 90 R27

you hear debate back and forth, I hope, from members opposite· when they try to defend this decision they are taking. It is also important to remember, as Your Honour would be fully aware, of course, and some members opposite would be fully aware, my friend ft"om St. John's South who is knowledgeable about Beauchesne and things, he would be aware that the Ombudsman is an officer of the House of Assembly and he is responsible and repot"ts to all of us as members of the House of Assembly. It is a great parliamentary practice, a great pat"liamentary position.

Some knowledgeable members of this House on t"Ules and parliamentary privilege would be familiar with it, like the Member for St. John's South. An Han . Membe t': The Member fat" Hat"bour Grace. Mt'. Simms: Or the Member for Harbour Grace. He is also appointed by the members of the House of Assembly, so you will soon get the connection and importance to us as members of the House on why we feel so strongly about what is transpiring. The position can only be removed on the recommendation of the House of Assembly for disability, neglect of duty, misconduct, or bankruptcy

Section 7 of the Act. Now, those are the only four t"easons under the Act that the Ombudsman can be removed on the recommendation of the House of Assembly. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but the Ombudsman could have a very strong legal case, and the piddly amount of money, the $200, 000-odd that Government says it might save on this might end up costing them a heck of a lot more. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going L28 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI to get into the way this took place.

I am sure colleagues on this side, when they speak to this bill, will talk about the vindictive way in which this decision was taken, where the Ombudsman nor his office staff wet"e even formally advised of this decision, and even after it was announced, I think, it was quite a number of days before they were even called and it was explained. That is just unacceptable. That is offensive, unacceptable and callous, but other members on this side will deal with that aspect of this issue in greater" detail in due course. Mr.

Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying in my view, in my humble view, this is clearly a very retrogressive step. I have no hesitation in saying that and I am not saying it for politically partisan reasons. I say it because I sincerely believe it. And, you ask the question why? maybe. We have heat"d some comments opposite from the Premier and the Govet'nment House Leader, well, people can call open line programs now or MHAs can do the job of an Ombudsman. I mean, Mr. Speaker, that kind of rhetoric - because that is all it could be called - is not a very well thought out kind of argument, I do not think.

Because if you read the legislation - and that is what you need to do, read the law - the Ombudsman has the power's to insist on evidence and to insist that documents be produced. Now, Mr. Speaker, no Member of the House of Assembly has that authority. As a Member of the House I cannot insist on a document being made available to me if I am looking into the case for an individual citizen. I do not have the authority to insist that a document be produced and No. 90 R28

given to me to help me in trying to fight a case for a citizen. But the Ombudsman does. And that is one clear difference. And that is what makes the argument that MHAs can do the job, so silly. I mean, generally speaking, the people who go to the Ombudsman are those who had already gone to their MHA, gone through that process and can't get the problem solved. And we all know there are problems like that that,MHAs can't get solved - Opposition and Government MHAs. There are lots of problems like. that so it is important to know.

He has the authority to ask for evidence and be provided with it, and he has the authority to ask for documents to be provided. We do not as MHAs have that authority. He has the full authority under the -legislation to resolve complaints by citizens in this Province. He has the authority and the power to resolve complaints or problems made by citizens against Government. We do not have that authority. We do not have the authority to resolve complaints. We can look into them and cajole and lobby and everything else, try to get them resolved. But we do not have the power to ["esolve complaints. The Ombudsman does.

And, M[". Speake[", clearly this office therefo["e p["otects citizens against gove["nment actions, whethe[" it be in the bu["eauc["acy or whethe[" it be at the executive level~ or even at the Ministe["ial level. And, M[".

Speaker, one of the p["oblems I have with the argument about MHAs doing the job, a fu["ther argument I have, is that we now have come to understand, I believe, although there has been some contradictory responses to our questions, that Ministe["s, fo[" L29 Decembe[" 4, 1990 Vol XLI example, to whom a complaint O[" --criticism might be directed, will not even accept collect phone calfs f["om people from around the Province. The Premier confirmed that. Although I understand that the["e is a cont["adiction, because I understand some Ministers do - I believe the Minister of Fisheries says he accepts calls.

But the Minister of Transpo["tation does not. The Ministe[" of Forestry does not, except from thei[" own constituency, because we called his off ice and asked, as a matte[" of fact. A few days back. Some Han. Members: (Inaudible). M[". Simms: I did not call myself. But if Ministe["s do not even accept collect calls from the people of the Province who might have a problem O[" a criticism or a complex issue to try to get ["esolved, how in the heavens can a Minister as an MHA do the job that the Premier says an MHA could do in the place of the Ombudsman?

It just does not make any sense, it is a very weak argument in my humble view. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have also heard during the course of the last several months, Government occasionally throwing out - in selective fashion of course - some minor, always some minor items that a["e dealt with in Ombudsman ["eports over the years that do not have much substance, and l would be the first to agree, some of them do not have much substance. But I guess the point is, of course, to the individual concerned it is very important and it does have a lot of substance.

So when they throw out those small mino[" items, that they do not seem to have much substance, they should remember that it does affect a person's life or a No. 90 R29

person's might be individual might be. role in life, and it very important to that no matter how minor it But, just as an example, Mr. Speaker, just today, before I came up to the House, around 1: 00 p.m. I had a call from an individual out in my area, in fact I think he may be from Windsor, I am not quite sure. But. an individual called me today at about 1:00 p.m. And he has been fired by the Wildlife Department. I do not want to use the individual's name. He might even be from Bishop's Falls, I am not quite sure .

Anyway , he has just been fired or released or let go fired is the term he used - by the Wildlife Department, even though he has worked there for two years seasonally and never had any complaints, to his knowledge, against his work performance. He has now been laid off or fired because he has been accused of being ... have to get my glasses ... oh, he is accused of being unsuitable for the job. Now he has been there for two years, never had any complaints to his knowledge from the Wildlife Department, but now he has been let go, because he is accused of being - what was the word I said? An Han.

Member: Unsuitable. Mr. Simms: Yes, unsuitable. Now, Mr. Speaker, if ever~ there was an example of a case for somebody with the authority like the Ombudsman to investigate, I think that is a perfect example. If I were to call the Minister responsible for Wildlife to discuss that matter with him, which I would do if he were here - unfortunately he is not around, I gather for the last couple of days. I do not mean that as a L30 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI reflection on his absence.

But if I were to call him, I am sure the Minister would check it out and call me back and just say, well, the Wildlife people decided that was it, he was not suitable. And that would be it. So all the lobbying and fuss I might kick up as a Member on behalf of that individual, even though - I think he might be from Exploits. I am not quite sure. I would tt·y on his behalf to talk to the Minister responsible and see if I could get him reinstated or find out what the problem was or whatever, but I do not have the authority to do it. But the Ombudsman would have the authority to fully investigate that situation.

In addition to the grievance opportunity he has with his union and all of that, the Ombudsman would have the authority to investigate it and he would also have the authority to resolve the problem, either by ruling that the Department was right or that the Department was wrong. I mean, that is a very important point to remember, particularly for the Government, by the way. Not a 11 the rul _ings from the Ombudsman are supportive of the citizen's critic ism ot:" problem. Many times the Ombudsman has said he investigated this, that or the other thing and found that the Department was right.

Now what better protection, not only for citizens, but for the Government, to have somebody in authority? So that-. is an example of what happened to me today, a call from a wildlife person who was let go today. Here are a couple of other examples, and I think these are a little more substantial than the ones the Government often flick across. They will often use, for the sake of their own argument - No. 90 R30

Mr. Baker: (inaudible). I have not made Mr. Simms: Yes, you have. Mr. Baker: No. Mr. Simms: Yes you have, in fact. If the Government House Leader will relax, he has flicked across in answer in debate or in answer to a resolution, a Private Member's resolution which I, in fact, put on the Order Paper I think about a year ago, or was it last spring? Ms Verg .e: It was in May. Mr. Simms: Last spring, last May. Ms Verge: May 9. Mr. Simms: You have it there. Mr. Baker: A year ago. Mr. Simms: No! May. Ms Verge: No, six months ago. Mr.

Simms: May past I put a Private Member's resolution on the Order Paper and the Government House Leader got up in response and he flicked across a couple of these minor little ones, and they were selected, obviously, for his own argument. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Oh, yes. Anything the Government House Leader says I keep filed right here in my ear, look. I hear it and I keep it there. But let me just give a couple of examples which are perhaps a bit more substantial, just to point out that in fact there are substantial issues that the L31 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Ombudsman deals with. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is important to refer to a f~w of them, because I think it is in the public interest. Because all they may have heard are these inconsequential kinds of items that appear from time to time. But it ls in the public interest I believe, and perhaps the public interest would be better served if we raised some of the more substantial issues dealt with by the Ombudsman in the past. An example: Now this also may sound minor to some, but those of you who are outdoors people or hunters would have a good appreciation for this one.

The Ombudsman investigated a case of a young hunter whose brand new rifle or gun had been returned to him when it was agreed that he had been too harshly dealt with by the Wildlife Division. The Wildlife Division had dealt with this individual and taken his gun, and when . the Ombudsman checked it out, dug into it and got copies of documents which he has the authority to get, he decided that the department was wrong. The department agreed, and this young hunter had his weapon returned to him. Now that sounds like a minor item to some people.

An MHA in that day may not have been able to convince the Minister of Wildlife that he should do it, whether it was a Government member or an Opposition member. And here is a case where I talked about some of the examples having been in support of the Government. I am glad the Minister of Social Services came in. Here is a case where the Ombudsman investigated criticism of the Child Welfare Division of the Department of Social Services. In his investigation and in his findings he decided and ruled, and he has the authority to No. 90 R31 .

do so, that the criticism of the department at the time was unjustified. So it was supportive of the department, and· that was an important item. I say, before the Minister's head gets too swollen, that was an item in the 1977 report. I do not think he was there then. But I have no doubt that some similar rulings might come forth. My point is that some of the things the Ombudsman gets involved with are often supportive of decisions of the Government, so it is to the Government's advantage. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are other examples. How about this one?

This might sound like a minor item, perhaps, to members opposite, who often refute what the Ombudsman does. Title to thirty-five acres of land - now thirty-five acres of land is a fair bit of property - that belonged to an aged widow and was ordered forfeited by the Government of the day. After the investigation of the Ombudsman, it was restored to her - that thirty-five acres of land was restored to this widow. I think that is a substantial kind of issue that the Ombudsman dealt with and resolved.

A Royal Newfoundland Constabulary member who had been fired, determined by the Ombudsman to have been unjustly fired, and he was reinstated. Now, there is no member of the House who is going to be able to get the Minister of Justice to reinstate somebody who had been fired with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. None of us have that power or authority, but the Ombudsman has the authority to resolve. That is the difference. They have the authority to resolve, and the power; he does in this case, she, L32 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI maybe, in the future. So, Mr.

Speaker, ,there are some substantial items that the Ombudsman deals with, and members opposite should not be so selective in throwing out two or three minor items when they are trying to substantiate their own weak arguments with respect to their decision to eliminate the Ombudsman's office. Now I want to get into what some other people are saying before I get to what some members opposite said. What are some of the other people saying, people who are experts in the area? A world authority on the concept of ombudsmanship - a world authority, Mr.

Speaker, not some fellow out in Grand Falls or some fellow out in Whitbourne, with all due respect, but a world authority on the issue and subject of Ombudsmanship, Professor Rowat at Carlton University in Ottawa; he told a recent national convention of Ombudsmen, held in Halifax a while back, that what the Clyde Wells administration is proposing is a major step backwards - a world authority at a national conference. He said, The proposed abolition is incredible, indeed.

It is hard to understand, especially in the light of the current revival of the concept in the United States, at the Federal level in Canada and . in parts of Europe, I might add. The President of Treasury Board in introducing the bill says it ls time to change, that what was in place ten or twenty years ago may not be necessarily needed these days. Yet, everywhere else in the world you look the concept of Ombudsmanship is being actively promoted, increased, improved upon, particularly over in Europe, and I will get to that in a minute. No. 90 R32

But this is said: The what Professor Rowat concept has worldwide acceptance as a necessary requirement for modern democratic Government. It is absolutely absurd, he said, to suggest that members of the Legislature could handle complaints like an Ombudsman. And contrary to what the Government House Leader said, that argument of members being able to do the job of an Ombudsman is an ancient argument, an ancient argument that is not relevant any longer. For example, he says, Government backbenchers in trying to resolve a problem or not resolve a problem may not exactly be impartial.

They may not exactly be impartial if they are trying to solve a problem or deal with a minister on a particular issue, they might be prepared to take the minister's response and that is it. So, I mean, to use that argument of an MHA doing the job of Ombudsman with no power, no authority, to my mind it just does not wash. And he says: I think the decision of the Government to introduce legislation to abolish the office demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of the office and usefulness of it. And, Mr. Speaker, might I add that I believe that is a view shared by an awful lot of people.

The reason is, the Government, or the Premier certainly, does not have a full understanding of the usefulness of the Ombudsman's office. I think that is really where the root of the problem is. Now, Mr. Speaker, what did others say? The Canadian Press, Mr. Speaker: While several newly democratic East European countries have recently pledged to appoint Ombudsmen to help their citizens battle bureaucracy, the Province L33 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI -.... of Newfoundland plans to abolish its Ombudsman this fall, believed to be unprecedented in the office's world history - world history! Mr.

Speaker, they . say it is an austerity move, this is what the Canadian Press said. They say that is the Government - it is an austerity move based on the number and substance of complaints received. But, they say, that is like going back to the Fire Department and saying look, you have not had enough big fires last year so we are going to shut you down. That is the analogy, and I think a very good analogy, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. An Han. Member: Water bombers. Mr. Simms: Mr . Speaker, we all know that every Province in Canada except PEI has an Ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, we also know - Mr.

Efford: That is wrong. Mr. Simms: Except PEI. Mr. Efford: (Inaudible) PEl and Newfoundland. Mr. Simms: No, an Ombudsman. Minister is wrong. Mr. Efford: As they won't. Mr. Simms: Well, you said, is it? now . Newfoundland As usual has the of next month, that is not what You said, as of Mr. Winsor: though . (Inaudible) first, Mr. Simms: Anyway, Mr. all kinds of records show - Mr. Efford: (Inaudible) No. 90 Speaker, thirteen R33

years ago. Mr. Winsor: President (inaudible). Oh, of oh, that Treasury is the Board Mr. Simms: All kinds of records will show, throughout the Canadian jurisdiction in particular, that Ombudsmen have helped people untangle bureaucratic red tape over and over again, dealing with problems like worker's compensation, tax rebates, all kinds of issues. This individual who spoke here, of course, is writing for the Canadian Press. You have Professor Rowat's comments on it, one of the world's leading authorities on Ombudsmen.

There are about 120 Ombudsmen in the world, in more than forty countries across the world, federally, regionally, locally. And, Mr. Speaker, here is an interesting observation. Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Simms: I know Members opposite are not the least bit interested in it, because they have shown their ignorance on the issue right from day one. But I do not intend to listen to their interjections or interruptions or let that faze me, I will still have my say on the matter.

At a time for example, where in Poland and Hungary - we all know what has transpired over the last little while in Poland and Hungary, places like that. In those places, two newly democratic countries, I guess you would call them, have recently established Ombudsmen's offices. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Yes, to help citizens L34 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI -C """--· battle bureaucracy. And citizens here need it, and citizens in the forty countries around the world that have Ombudsman offices need it.

In fact, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are also looking at installing Ombudsmen in their particular countries. Mr. Speaker, the President of the International Ombudsman Institute, Stephen Owen, has said the office is seen as a fundamental democrat ic institution all over the world and its elimination in Newfoundland has to be seen as a backward step. If it happens, in his view, it would be a major embarrassment for Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, those are pretty stern words. Those are pretty strong words.

So you have Stephen Owen, the International President, you have Professor Rowat, a world authority on Ombudsmen, you have the Canadian press, we have a number of our local media here who have expressed editorial opinions negatively about the decision of the Government. I do not know how much it takes for the Government to listen to people who have some knowledge and expertise in the area. I do not know what it takes. It is pretty clear the Government is not going to back down on their decision, unfortunately. And that is too bad. Now I do not want to read everything in the

article written by Peter Boswell last Saturday, but I thought it was an excellent

article and a good explanation of what has transpired. I know not every member opposite has read it, so I just want to touch on some of the items. Ms Verge: I did not read it. Mr. Simms: My colleague for No. 90 R34

Humber East has not read it. So I want to touch on a few items, just for the record. It is important to put it in the record, anyway. I have some good quotes. A recent editorial headline - now this is not his - a recent editorial headline in The Evening Telegram stated simply 'Save The Ombudsman' which is a noble sentiment indeed, but one that is more likely to be found in some third world tinpot dictatorship. That is what Dr. Boswell said. The editorial was a separate editorial, not in his column, but a separate editorial found in The Evening Telegram. Mr. Noel: Boswell was (inaudible). Mr.

Simms: 'It is an appalling reflection on the judgment of the Province's current leadership that such a headline would ever be necessary. How sad that the hero of Meech Lake has become the villain of parliamentarians everywhere. An Hon. Member: What did you expect him to say, he was against (inaudible). Mr. Simms: Pleas to the Premier by eminent and respected Canadians have been ignored. Mr. Noel: How come you did not quote him at the Meech Lake debate? Mr. Simms: Now, Mr. Speaker Mr. Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Simms: I did quote him, as a matter of fact. Mr.

Speaker: The hon. the Member for LaPoile, on a point of order. Mr. Ramsay: member who Mr. Speaker, the hon. yesterday so defended L35 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI other hon. members with regards to the reading of prepared text and materials is now himself reading, and I think, in light of his comments yesterday, the hon. member, if the Chair so desires, should not be quoting from materials that he is using in giving his speech. Mr. Speaker: On that point of order, there is no point of order. The han. member is obviously reading ft:"om copious notes. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: The han. the Member for Grand Falls. Mr. Simms: It is pretty clear the Member for LaPoile is having enough trouble with his caucus colleagues over there without getting up on embarrassing points of order. The reference yesterday deals with reading a speech, a prepared text. That was the point of order yesterday. Any member can refer to newspaper articles, and all the rest. I will table it, if the hon. member wants. So it is not a very strong point of order, as the Speaker has ruled.

It is just an attempt by the Member for LaPoile, of course, just when I am getting down to the meat of my comments and really starting to sting, really starting to hurt, they will employ this well- known parliamentary method of interjecting and points of order just to try and slow you down. Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be moved, I shall not be stopped, I shall continue to have my say on this important legislation. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! No. 90 R35

Mr. Simms: Now, what else did Dr. Boswell say, Mr. Speaker? An Han. Member: What else did he say? Mr. Simms: Well, he talked about the lame excuse that the Government used for doing it - to save money. And he talked about if that is the case, then how come I mean it was not proposed during cutbacks or anything, it was proposed in the Budget when there was a $10 million surplus being forecast. So it is a pretty lame argument to say we are doing it for money reasons, when you budgeted for a $10 million surplus. It does not make a lot of sense at all, Mr. Speaker.

But then he went on to say, of course, and the Premier as we all know, and members opposite in particular would know what the Premier says, because they hang on to every word the Pr.emier says, but the Premier said that it would be a total waste of money. That is what the Premier said. And Dr. Boswell said, Well, if that is the case, why have you let it run on until the end of December, if it is a total waste of money? Are you admitting to wasting $150,000 already this year? An Hon. Member: Yes, we are. Mr. Simms: You are. But why did you not bring it in in April? An Han. Member: We were busy. Mr. Simms: Busy.

The Member for Exploits says we did not bring it in April because we were busy. Well, you know what we were busy at, don't you? Meech Lake! That is what we were busy at, instead of dealing with issues like this, of very important concern to the L36 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI ---- citizens of this Province. Ms Verge: "(Inaudible), chat with the teachers. An Han. Member: (Inaudible) Meech Lake . Mr. Simms: And they were out yeah, well, I will not say that. What a bunch of nonsense!

The Member for' Exploits says we could not deal with this flimsy little piece of legislation, this one page piece of legislation back in Apt"il ot" in May because 'we were busy'. Now I know you wet"e some busy you could not print a bill on one piece of paper'. It took you eight months to do it. What a bunch of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It is like everything else these days. The people at"e finally beginning to see through the illusions created by this Govet"nment, particulat"ly led by the Premier', their' people are beginning to see tht"ough.

You might be at 60 odd pet" cent whatever' it is, but do not fot"get you were at 82 pet" cent tht"ee months before that. And that is how quickly you can go down - that is how quickly you can go down, Mr. Speaker'. Some Han. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Simms: And I pt"edict you will go down further'. You can bt"ag all about it. Some Han. Members: Oh , oh! Mt". Simms: Mr. Speaker', we know mot"e about it. We know mot"e about it. In fact, we did it. In tht"ee weeks, we lost twenty points. We did it in three weeks, so Members Opposite should not fot"get that. They should not get too cocky at all, not for a minute.

No. 90 R36

!:.!( ~ An Hon. Member: Not cocky at all. Mr. Simms: Oh cocky. Well confident then, cocky. no, you if you are you are not awful are not Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Simms: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I hope, I guess - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Yes, Peterson was pretty cocky too, as I recall, Premier Peterson of Ontario. But, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits says they were too busy; they could not bring it ln back in April, they could not bring it ln back in May, they were too busy. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, they are bringing it ln

now, therefore, they cannot be very busy. Are we to assume that, they are not very busy now? An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Oh, I am not twisting words, T am interpreting what the member is saying. An Hon. Member: Well, you said you planned to (inaudible). Mr. Simms: Well, in that case, is the Member for Exploits saying we are now busy? Because if you are, how can you bring this in if you are busy? You could not bring it in April or May because you were busy. Make up your mind, I say to the Member for Exploits, who, by the way, Mr.

Speaker, displays day after day his ignorance of Parliamentary procedure by not even being in his seat, and interjecting and yelling across the House. If he wants to interject, let him get back up to L37 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI his seat. An Hon. Member: allowed to do that. No, he is not Mr. Simms: He is not allowed to do it; I know what is wrong, he is not allowed to do it up there in particular, because he sits behind the Premier, for sure. Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Mr. Simms: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me move on. An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr . Simms : Oh no , I am not .

I )lave not gotten into the text of my remarks yet. Because it is very important - Mr. Flight: (Inaudible). Mr. Simms: Listen! I make no wonder the Member for' Windsor' Buchans, the Minister' for' Forestr'y, wants me to conclude. I make no wonder.

Just when I am about to remind and r'efr'esh Members' memor'ies of some infamous comments made by Member's on the Government side today, in Cabinet, when they were on the Opposition side only four shor't year's ago, 1986 -I believe, when the r"e-appointment of the Ombudsman came up, 'some Members in this House who wer"e in the Opposition and now sit in the Gover"nment benches, proudly got up and defended the Ombudsman - proudly!

And just to r"efresh Members' memories, I want to r"ead quotes fr'om the Hansard of the day and, I might add, ·the Member" and the Minister who has had the gall her'e today to get up and intr"oduce the bill, sat r'ight there, in that seat - r"ight ther'e in that seat. No. 90 R37

...: - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. so. then? Simms: Was he No, not I do not finance An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). think critic Mr. Simms: Was he? Well, worse still. He sat behind the Leader of the Opposition, and I will bet you, if Hansard recorded pounding, he would be pounding. Hansard, unfortunately, does not record pounding, but Hansard does record what people say in the House. An Hon. Member: And their names. Mr. Simms: And their names. Here are some interesting remarks.

And it is very surprising, by the way, to see how they could have had such a sudden change of heart, such a sudden change of heart on this whole issue, after only four short years. I do not suppose they would have been intimidated since? No, they would not be intimidated by the Premier, sitting around the Cabinet table. They would be bold enough to speak up and express their own views, they would be brave enough to stand up and say, Mr. Premier, this is a draconian measure. We cannot go along with this. It is retrogressive. We would be an embarrassment to Canada. I am sure they would have.

But, strangely enough, they have had a sudden change of view. The motion was,

be it resolved that the House hereby recommends to Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the appointment of Ambrose Peddle to be the Parliamentary Commissioner, introduced by the former Government House Leader, Mr. Marshall. He talks about Mr. Peddle being a businessman, a L38 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Mayor, a member of the House of Assembly, a member of the House of Commons, and very well versed. Who was the first speaker from t~e Opposition side, the official spokesman for the Opposition in support of the re-appointment in June 1986 of the Ombudsman? Mr. W. Carter. Mr. W.

Carter who wa~ here in the Opposition four years ago praising it, now sits over there as Minister of Fisheries. Let us hear at least part of what Mr. W. Carter had to say - I am not going to read it all. 'I think the choice of Mr. Peddle as an Ombudsman is an excellent choice. I think he has conducted himself extremely well in that office. He is a very impartial man, contrary to the views of the Minister of Health. The man has maintained a low profile and I suppose the nature of the job requires that he do that. I am sure there are times when, if he wanted to, he could have gotlen himself a lot of publicity.

But being the type of person he is, he is quietly and very effectively doing his job in a very fair and impartial way. Mr. Speaker, we have no hesitation on this side in going along with this legislation.' No hesitation on this side, and on this side at that time sat, among others, the Government House Leader, the man wh.o had the gall to stand up here and introduce this piece of legislation. He sat there, and our friend the Minister of Health, who not long ago referred to Mr. Peddle as a Tory hack I believe, sat over there. I believe he was in the backbenches, too, on the Opposition side, but he sat there.

And I would not be at all surprised but he was there pounding on the table I would not be at all surprised - for the Fisheries Minister now, Mr. Carter, or a few others. I No. 90 R38

-..... believe the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation (inaudible) out of his seat and pt"ayed and cheered and all the rest of it. He knew him vet"y well, I am sure. Ms Verge: (Inaudible) the minister (inaudible). Mr. Simms: The Ministet" of Works, Services and Tt"ansportation. They are all embarrassed by this, I am sure they are. They do not have the it" heart into it. I am glad Mr. Speaker himself is not in the Chair, because I would not want to embat"t"ass Mr. Speaket" Speaket", the real Mr. Speaker, the Member fat" Bonavista North.

Since the Deputy Speaker is there, I will just refer to what his colleague - Mr. Rideout: I will do that. Mr. Simms: I have it here. I will give it back to you. You want something to say, do you not? You do not want me to take everything. Mt". Rideout: I said I will embarrass the Speaker. Mr. Simms: Oh, I thought you meant you would read it. Mr. Rideout: Being a fot'mer Speaket", you would not want to do that. Mr. Simms: I will not embarrass him, I will just read what he said. ThP. Leader of the Opposition may be a bit more ·· how shall I put this? - elaborate. Mr. Rideout: Less diplomatic . Mr.

Simms: No, he will be diplomatic, I am sure, but he may elaborate. The Speaker is in the doorway and can probably hear me, L39 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI but I want to say, Your Honour, if you are within heat"ing distance, this is not meant as a reflection on Your Honour now as Speaker of the House. Here is what Mr. Speaker Lush said as a member of the Opposition, sitting over here pounding on the table supporting the appointment of Ambrose Peddle as the Ombudsman, only four short years ago. Now Mr.

Speaker today may be the only one who still believes his convictions, and fortunately he is now in a position where he does not have to say so. Because if he was sitting over there, I am af t"a id the Premier would be having the heavy hammer nailed onto his bac~, and pounding him and· everything else. Here is what Mr. Speaker Lush said in talking about the Ombudsman, Mr. Peddle. 'He certainly has carried out the duties of that job with diligence, with respect, and with honour.' And, Mr.

Speaker, I tell you I can remember, I can almost visualize the Member for Bonavista North sitting over there in his seat saying, 'Mr. Speaker, I wish to have a few words to say on this resolution. ' I can hear hi-m now, his resolution. He said, 'he certainly' - Mr. Peddle 'has carried out the duties of that job with diligence, with respect and with honour.' That is what the Member for Bonavista North said back in those days. 'I think whatever debate went on at that particular time' - talking about the original~ appointment ten years before 'in tet"ms of the political patronage, certainly Mr.

Peddle has exonerated himself, Mr. Speaker, and demonstrated himself to be a Ombudsman deluxe. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Simms: An Ombudsman deluxe, said the Member for Bonavista North. He said, , I believe he has No. 90 R39

-.___ gained the respect of everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. ' Quoted by no more an eminent person than the Speaker of our House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. Now I am not finished with his comments yet. The Member for Bonavista North went on to make a little confession. He said, 'Mr. Speaker, if I ever voted Tory in my life, and I cannot remember that I would, but I expect I could remember it, but if I ever did vote Tory in my life, it would have been for Mr. Peddle when he ran in the Grand Falls District when I was teaching at Windsor. ' That. is what the Member for Bonavista North said.

That is how much he loved the Ombudsman, that is how much he loved Mr. Peddle and the Ombudsman position. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he talked about Mr . Peddle campaigning and I believe he made a further confession. He said, 'It seems to me that I would have remembered such a move, but I know that I respected the man, I know that I respected him, I know that I attended his rally.' Now the Member for Bonavista North even at tended Mr . Peddle' s rally. Now do not tell me that the Me~ber for Bonavista North - An Han . Member: of Tory rallies. (Inaudible) lots Mr. Simms: Well, let me go on just a bit more .

Let me go on some more. Some Han . Mem bers : Oh, oh! Mr. Simms: Here is some important stuff. 'I just want to say that probably, one other suggestion, I believe to help Mr. Peddle do a more effective and to be a more efficient Ombudsperson is an expansion of his powers so that he L40 December 4, 1990 Vol Jf:LI could look into things and areas which he is now not permitted Now, Mr . Speaker, I am willing to bet that the Member for Bonavista North today stlll feels just as strongly.

And he made a very intelligent suggestion, a wise suggestion, instead of the Government tearing up the legislation, abolishing the Ombudsman's Office, why does it not take the advice of one of its own members, and you said you are tearing it up and abolishing it because it is not effective. It is not doing the job. Members can do the job. Well, maybe one of the reasons is not as effective as it should be is that it needs to be enlarged and expanded. And, Mr.

Speaker, that is precisely what the Member for Bonavista North said when he sa id 'I believe we should expand his powers so that he could look into things and areas which he is not now permitted to do. That is a good suggestion. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than abolishing the Ombudsman's Office. That is the easy and simple way out. Mr. Tobin: A bunch of cowards. Mr . Simms: Now, Mr.

Speaker, not to be outdone , I have quoted from the Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Twillingate, and I quoted from the Member for Bonavista North, now the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and if it was_ not a big issue at the time, then you would not expect too many others to have anything to say. But, Mr . Speaker, jumping up from his seat in the House at that time, from the front benches, I believe, over here, was none other than the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the present Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, and he said, Mr. Speaker, he~e is his quote 'I cannot resist rising in No. 90 R40

"" this debate. I cannot resist it!' Now that is how enthusiastic he was about the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman's Office. 'I cannot resist it'. And, I suppose, members sitting near him had to try and hold him down. But he got up, Mr. Speaker, and he said, 'I have a great deal of respect'. Mr. Flight: Right. For the man. Mr. Simms: And he said, 'When Mr. Peddle was appointed in the first place, I was in the Opposition at the time' - forgetting, of course, that when he spoke in the debate he was still in the Opposition - 'I was in the Opposition at the time, and we recognized it as a blatant political appointment.

I would say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, if there is such a thing as exonerating oneself from that kind of charge in the first place, it has been the performance of Mr. Peddle in his role of Ombudsman and I want to associate myself with the comments made by the bon. the Member for Bonavista North.' Mr. Flight: the man. I was talking about Mr. Simms: Now, Mr. Speaker, I told you what the comments were from the bon. the Member for Bonavista North. He ·supported the office, he asked the Government of the day, us, to enlarge on the powers of the Ombudsman so that he could do more things.

Therefore, the Member for Windsor - Buchans obviously agreed with that. Mr.

Speaker, to listen to what is coming from the other side in debate on this particular bill, to hear them· trying to defend the indefensible, to listen to comments made by the present Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Twillingate, the Member for L41 December 4, 1990 Vol XLI Windsor - Buchans, and His Honour, the Member for Bonavista North, who praised the Ombudsman, praised the Ombudsman's job and, in fact, asked for an expansion of his authority and powers, you have to sit back and ask yourself, well what has happened to that crowd in just four short years? What has happened? Mr.

Murphy: their minds. (Inaudible) changed Mr. Simms: No, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St. John's South, they did not change their minds, they had their minds changed for them. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what tt'anspired here. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Simms: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was somebody who was a specialist in the topic of foolishness, it is the Member who just spoke, for St. John's South. Anyway, Mr. Speaker - how much time do I have? When did I start? An Hon. Member: Twenty to. Mr. Simms: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have another twenty or twenty--five minutes.

I could go on, but I know - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr.