December

9, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 87

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as

members of the House are aware, Canada is now participating in the "Uruguay

Round" of international trade negotiations under the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade, the "GATT". These negotiations which involve over 100

nations, are expected to result in a new world trading order, and are vital to

Newfoundland's trading interests. Clearly, the Uruguay Round must ensure that

Newfoundland products can be more freely exported throughout the world.

As we approach the eleventh hour of these discussions, it is

clear that they will have a significant impact on world agricultural trade. The

resolve the international grain subsidy war, while at the same time ensuring

that the GATT provides a strong and clear foundation for the operation of

Canadian supply management systems. This is a balanced position, Mr. Speaker,

which reflects the interests and concerns of the entire Canadian agricultural

community; the interests of the east, and the concerns of the west.

While the Newfoundland agriculture industry is small by

comparison to that in other provinces, supply-managed egg, chicken and dairy

industries accounts for over 70 per cent of provincial farm cash receipts. These

supply managed products account for the direct employment of approximately 1,000

individuals in production and secondary processing. Without question, the

maintenance of an effective supply management system is of paramount interest to

GATT should be clarified and strengthened to provide for an effective

international basis for supply management.

On behalf of the hon. Minister of Development, the hon. Chuck

Furey, on Friday December 6, 1991, I attended a meeting of federal-provincial

ministers responsible for International Trade. At that time I discussed this

issue directly with Canada's International Trade Minister, the hon. Michael

Wilson. I requested that all efforts continue to be made to maintain Canada's

position in support of supply management. Mr. Wilson assured me that Canada's

position has not changed, and that every effort will be made to ensure that

provinces and the industry are kept fully abreast of the developments in this

area.

I wish to assure Members of this House, and the farming

community of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we will continue to closely monitor

developments in the GATT negotiations, and will press at every opportunity to

ensure that Canada's position in support of supply management does not change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank

the minister first of all for an advance copy of his statement. I just want to

say this side of the House is in full support of what the minister and the

Government is trying to do with supply management. We recognize that it is

critical for the Newfoundland livestock industry that supply management be

continues with in the agricultural industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and

we want to go on record as supporting the Government in encouraging the Federal

Government to protect Canadian supply management industry. Not only should

Canada be protecting it, Canada should be promoting that throughout the rest of

the world because it is probably the best system of supply management in the

whole world, the one that Canada uses, and it does not cost the tax payers any

money. It does cost the consumers some money, Mr. Speaker, but it also provides

for fresh local products all throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the big concern that we have to be careful of by

pushing our supply management system, and it looks like what is happening at the

GATT talks is that the US and Europe are getting together to leave Canada out in

the cold. We might be left with our supply management system, but we will have

other tariffs put on us because the US and Europe are making a deal on the

agricultural subsidies, and they are trying to circumvent what Canada is trying

to do at these talks.

Mr. Speaker, we are very supportive of what the Government is

We believe it necessary to protect the supply management system that we have in

our agricultural industry in this country.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a

point of order.

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

When the Member for Kilbride spoke he referred to the members

on this side of the House supporting what the Government said, I want to say

that he was correct, that all this side of the House supports what the

Government has said in this statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Before going on to Oral Questions, on behalf

of hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries today

twenty-four grade XI Democracy Students from Queen Elizabeth High School in

Foxtrap accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Sparks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

President of Treasury Board. Some time ago the President of Treasury Board said,

I think, that Government was proposing to hold discussions with public service

unions to seek their advice on ways and means of dealing with the projected

budget deficit for 1991-92. Would the minister like to tell us how many meetings

have been held, if there have been any meetings, and what progress has been made

to date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Member for

Mount Pearl on being on top of this issue. Just this morning the pubic sector

unions were contacted concerning another meeting, the next meeting, which will

be held on next Monday afternoon. That is the next meeting. We have so far held

two meetings.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had asked the

minister if he would tell us if there has been any progress to date. Would the

minister like to tell us: At their first meeting did he tell, or did whoever was

negotiating at those meetings, or meeting with the unions, tell those unions

that Government was, at that point in time, based on projections of around the

end of September, looking at a deficit of about $120 million for next year? Were

those the figures and what, if any, change has been projected in that figure

since that period?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at our last meeting we went

over in detail the financial position of the Province at this point in time. We

did talk in terms of looking at in the vicinity of $100 million, or slightly

over $100 million projected deficit for next year that we are now trying to

handle, and we had some in-depth discussion on that. The position of the

Province has not changed since that time, and at the end of the last meeting

there was a request from the public sector union leadership that we put together

some more details in terms of the suggested ways of handling the situation. We

have now done that and, as a result, we have now called the next meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I would like the minister to give us some

idea if the unions have come forward with any suggestions as to how we could

deal with the deficit for next year, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister also tell us: Last March Government

deferred wage increases that had been negotiated, for one year. Has Government,

to this point in time, confirmed that those increases will now be given this

year, which was the intent when the freeze was put in place last year, and what

will be the cost of these wage increases this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I will start with the last part first. The

cost of the wage increases would be in the vicinity of $75 million. At our first

meeting we indicated to the union leadership that we could give no guarantees

for the next fiscal year, and hence the meetings that have resulted since, so we

have not given them any guarantees at this point.

The third question the hon. gentleman asked had to do with

suggestions coming from the union leadership. To date, there have been no

suggestions. They have simply indicated that they would like for us to propose

perhaps a number of alternatives that could be the basis of discussion, and that

is what we have done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

President of Treasury Board has now established that he has told the union he

will not confirm that the increases will be in place, so there obviously is

still some doubt as to whether or not Public Service unions will get the

increases that were negotiated for last year and deferred for this year. Will

the President of Treasury Board tell us: has he confirmed that there will be no

additional layoffs this year? And if not, will he now confirm that there will

not be additional layoffs this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our usual

efficient, concerned, truthful and straightforward way of dealing with problems,

we could not confirm that the wage increases would be automatically put in

place, nor could we confirm that there would be no layoffs, simply because it is

a long time between now and the next Budget, and we cannot predict with

certainty exactly what changes may take place between now and then, especially

in light of the fact that we are so dependent on transfers from Ottawa. We

really have no absolute guarantee in terms of transfers from Ottawa; therefore,

we, in turn, cannot pass along any absolute guarantees to the people of the

Province, until we know what our situation is.

I will say to the hon. gentleman, in terms of our projected

approximate $100 million shortfall next year, included in that was the full

salary increases that the unions have negotiated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will put my question

to the all-purpose minister, the Government House Leader, in the absence of both

the Minister of Justice and the Premier.

My questions are about the Hughes Commission report. Last

May, more than six months ago, the former Minister of Justice said that the

Government would withhold from the public the report until the completion of the

Mount Cashel trials, which he said would be about this fall. Last week in

Question Period the new Minister of Justice said, and I quote: "At the

conclusion of the trials, consideration will be given to the release of the

report." Thereby the new minister raised some doubt about the Government's

plans. I would like the Government House Leader to tell us: Number one, whether

the Government will release to the public the Hughes Commission report - would

he give us a definite answer and eliminate the doubt - and number two, his

estimate of the date when the Government will release the report.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I can't give any

estimates as to dates simply because the trials are still ongoing and we do not

know anything about appeals and how long this would take and so on. So, I can

give no estimate as to dates.

As to the comment made by the Minister of Justice with regard

to Government considering, when the trials are over, whether the report will be

released, that is Government's position right now, that when the court process

is concluded then we will decide whether the report will be released and, if so,

on what date. So that is our position right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: This is absolutely outrageous! The Government

House Leader is now confirming that the Government hasn't even resolved to

release to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the Hughes Commission Report.

The Government may withhold it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and should get to it.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader also

just mentioned appeals. I put to the minister and ask him, whether the

Government is not really, as a political ploy, denying the people of the

Province that report to shield and cover up the Government's inactivity, and to

allow time for people to forget the revelations made by the Hughes Commission

hearings which bothered them so much?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, even though I was one of the two

individuals who received the report from Justice Hughes, I have not yet read the

report. The report was put away and has not been dealt with in any manner in

terms of the contents, until the trials are over. It has not been distributed

among Cabinet and so on.

So that is why, I would say to the hon. member, that I am not

saying it will not be released. I am repeating the Government's previous

commitment, to acting on recommendations in that report in terms of the system,

and we already made that commitment right at the beginning. All I am saying to

her is, we have not yet gone over the report in detail. We will when the trials

are finished.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, can the Government House Leader

tell us of any improvement to the Criminal Justice or Child Welfare Systems'

policies or services in the past two-and-a-half years since the Hughes

Commission was set up? Would he tell us how, conceivably, reform can take place

along the lines recommended by the Hughes Report if that report is buried, if

not even the ministers responsible have read it? And finally, how can he excuse

withholding from the public the recommendations dealing with systems, and

policies, and services? How can revelation of those recommendations possibly

compromise ongoing trials and possible future appeals which could go on for

months or years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I can say that simply because we

are committed to reforming the system. We are committed to reforming the system.

We have not said, as the hon. member suggests, that we are going to hide the

recommendations. That is a little bit of political rhetoric she has thrown in as

she usually does. We have not said we are going to hide it. We are not going to

hide it.

All I am telling the hon. member is that because we have not

dealt as a group with that report, simply because it is before the court now, as

soon as it gets to the stage where it is no longer before the court we will, as

a Cabinet, deal with it and make our decisions at the time. But I can assure the

hon. member that the report is not buried, the report is not hidden, the report

is sitting there waiting for the conclusion of court cases.

I also assure the hon. member that we will not sit on this

beyond that point, that we are committed to reforming the system, and she, as a

former Justice Minister who presumably knew the system when she was Justice

Minister, should realize that this is the proper thing to do.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: I have a question for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

When will communities who are slated for amalgamation be

notified when this amalgamation will take place? I refer to communities such as

Stephenville and Kippens in my district, Flat Rock and the communities on the

Avalon, Massey Drive, and Badger's Quay. Could the minister tell me when

amalgamation in those communities will take place, when will they be notified if

it is going to take place, how long will it be, and what date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, some of the communities that

the hon. member mentioned are having elections tomorrow. Badger's Quay and that

area has an election tomorrow. Wareham, Trinity and that area have an election

tomorrow as does three communities on Twillingate Island. So they will be held

tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, Flat Rock was mentioned. I do not know why

because the Northeast Avalon has been dealt with. We will not be doing any

further amalgamation as far as the communities on that portion of the coast are

concerned. But certainly Paradise, St. Thomas's, and Portugal Cove, St. Phillips

and the metro lands that are joining both of those groupings, I will be

announcing elections for those two groupings very soon. The same is true with

Wedgewood Park and the Goulds, two wards that will be joined to the City of St.

John's, annexed to the City of St. John's, expanding their council by two

members. I will also be very shortly, Mr. Speaker, announcing elections there.

We have several groupings that I have not yet made

recommendations to Government on including Stephenville, Kippens. Very shortly,

Mr. Speaker, I will be doing those particular groupings, and elections will be

forthcoming if, in fact, we proceed with amalgamation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, some of those communities have

been waiting for two years, and if members will remember, some of them actually

had elections deferred, and then had elections afterwards. Mr. Speaker, I would

just like to know from the Minister at what time these communities will be told

whether they are going to be amalgamated or not, what the method of amalgamation

will be, and whether they have been removed from the list or not? I mean time is

passing and it has been a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I still feel that my original

target date, at the end of this calendar year to announce groupings, new

communities, amalgamations will still be met in most cases. There are some

groupings that will take a little longer into the new year. I feel confident,

Mr. Speaker, that before this year is out, I will be able to announce, for the

vast majority, either amalgamation taking place or, in fact, not proceeding with

amalgamation. We do have some groupings for which commissioners have recommended

against amalgamation. I think there are twelve, thirteen or fourteen in that

category. We are going through the commissioners' reports now, Mr. Speaker, and

very soon I will make the recommendation to Government as to whether we are in

agreement with the commissioners or if, in fact, we should go the other way and

recommend some amalgamation.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are getting very close to decisions on

the majority of the groupings that are left to be decided. Recommendations and

decisions should be made on the vast majority before the end of this calendar

year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the point of my question - and I

will take an example like Kippens/Stephenville or Massey Drive -

MR. TOBIN: Or Lewins Cove/Burin.

MR. HODDER: Or Lewins Cove/Burin. The point is, there are

only about two and a half weeks left in this calendar year. Those communities

around the Province, who are in this situation, have to prepare their budgets.

Is the minister going to let them know now so they know what is going to happen,

whether they are going to be amalgamated or not or whether they are not on the

list, or is he just going to leave them in financial confusion? Because the

first of the year is the time when they have to have their budgets in.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: That is a good question, Mr. Speaker.

The groupings that I mentioned - to give you a couple of

examples: Paradise/St. Thomas; and Portugal Cove/St. Phillips, and metro lands

that surround those communities - will be allowed to defer their budgets. In

fact, we will be expanding their budget year by a month or so, depending on when

we determine the election date. But certainly I can foresee at this time, in

those cases, that we will give them a thirteen-month year as far as 1991 is

concerned, an extra month.

In other cases, Mr. Speaker, if we do make decisions prior to

the end of the calendar year, and we are in such a situation - I do not expect

too many others - we will consider more time as far as the current budget is

concerned with the next calendar year or the next budget year, if you like,

starting a little bit later than normal, and normally it is January 1.

So, it is a good question, and we are having those

discussions right now with the groupings about whom decisions have been made,

and other groupings that we are currently having discussions and consultations

with, if they are affected that way, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be tolerant

as far as their budgets are concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: On my feet again.

A question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Social Services.

We are into December now. Would he have any idea what the caseload for his

Department would be as of the end of November, 1991?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: The best figure I have at the moment, Mr.

Speaker, is the end of October which would be at 27,800.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

minister. How would that compare to the same period a year ago? Does the

minister have that figure available?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: It is probably up around 14 per cent, but that

is right off the top of my head. I am going by memory. I could have the figures

available quite readily for the member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Would the minister agree, then, that that is

the reason that many members on this side of the House, and I am sure members on

the other side of the House, have heard both from social assistance clients and

workers in the field that the field offices are absolutely swamped and literally

overwhelmed with the workload?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HOGAN: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you could

describe it as overswamped, but certainly the workload has increased, as is

evident to everybody concerned, and the workers in the offices are kept hopping

with the increased workload and are addressing it as best they can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. I suppose you could call him the 'Number One Minister' because

of the traffic congestion between the overpass and Confederation Building and

the disastrous conditions of the roads in the area which cause intolerable

traffic tie-ups, especially during the winter season, could this minister tell

this hon. House what is the status of the Outer Ring Road?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to. The

Department of Works, Services and Transportation is continuing to purchase land

in terms of the route of the Outer Ring Road. There is, currently, an

environmental study being undertaken by the Federal Government and we do not

know the results of that environmental study yet, so until we get the results of

the environmental study being undertaken by the Federal Government, who insist

on doing it because it is federal money going in there, and until we get these

results we cannot make any further decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Most of the

land that has been acquired was bought by the City of St. John's, and, is it not

true that the Province held back on the starting of this project, when they had

the green light for the past couple of years and why did not the Province go

ahead with the project? There was $80 million from the Rails to Roads deal, and

is this Government trying to get out from underneath its commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, the first part of

his statement is not correct. The Federal Government, because of its own

environmental regulations, had to do their environmental impact study and they

are currently doing that study. It will probably be completed, I am told,

sometime in February or March, so that study is now being undertaken. We cannot

do anything until that study is completed. We are not trying to hide anything,

we are not trying to stop anything, there are still a lot of years left in that

Federal/Provincial agreement - the so called Roads for Rails Agreement. There

are still many years left in which to complete that construction.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of years left

and so does the congestion increase with every year. Why is the Government

putting it off? As far as the Environmental Impact Study, the EIS, I was led to

believe that the study was being contemplated, but actually there was no

decision made, and would the minister instruct or ask his colleague, the

Minister of Environment and Lands, to contact his counterpart in Ottawa and ask

him to forego any request for an Environmental Impact Study, and then, would

this minister set the date for the start of this very, very important road?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not see any need to

instruct the Minister of Environment and Lands to do anything. I do not instruct

ministers to do anything, and it is not the kind of thing to be done because the

Federal Government has it entirely within their own control as to whether they

accept the provincial study that was done -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: - or to go with their own.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is just a bit of noise and I am having difficulty

hearing the minister and I expect if I am, others must be too.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government

could have I suppose, accepted the provincial study that was done and not done

one of their own, but they have chosen to go ahead and draw their own

conclusions from that and I am told, Mr. Speaker, that they will be finished, as

I indicated a moment ago, either February or March. That is the time-table in

which their particular study or decision will be made or study will be finished.

At that point in time I can get to a better answer perhaps to the hon.

gentleman's question, but the amount of money for the Outer Ring Road is still

in that agreement, it has not been removed or anything. No matter which parts of

that agreement are postponed to the later six or seven years of the agreement,

the costs will go up, no matter which is postponed until then, so it really

makes no difference in the scheme of things, Mr. Speaker. We are going through

the process and we will continue to go through the process and if the Federal

Government wants to do an Environmental Impact Study, it is perfectly within

their right, and we encourage them to go ahead and do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Development. I would like to ask the minister, and he may have to

take it as notice because there is some detail involved, but I would like to ask

the minister if he would not mind giving the House an update and the amount of

monies, both spent and committed, from the Offshore Development Fund as at the

end of this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is a detailed question, and

I would be happy to get the information for the hon. member and table it this

afternoon, if I can round it up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his

answer. I am sure it does involve some detail. Would the minister also, while he

is getting that answer for the House, be able to give us a list of the permanent

jobs, the long-term jobs actually created, to this date, by the spending of

money from the Offshore Development Fund?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Fisheries. On December 2, the minister indicated to this House

that the Province's position on the sports recreation fishery was that it would

be on the basis of hook-and-release. Can the minister tell us if the same policy

would be applied to licensed fishing camps in areas where the commercial ban

will exist? Licensed fishing camps, people who bring anglers in, would the

hook-and-release policy be in effect for these, as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, what I said on December 2 was

that that was one of the suggestions that maybe the Province would be making. I

think we were talking about what position the Province was going to take with

respect to the licence buy back program that is, I expect, soon to be announced

by the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I said at the time that all user groups would be expected to

shoulder some of the burden and that possibly a hook-and-release policy would be

the thing to do, to ensure that all user groups will share the burden and the

pain of that licence buy back. So, as to being able to answer the hon.

gentleman's questions, I cannot at this point in time. Because there was no firm

policy decision taken on the part of the Province as to whether or not there

will be a hook-and-release program or if, in fact, we will be recommending that

kind of a program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister, obviously, on

December 2 said that the Province's recommendation would be a hook-and-release

for the portions where the commercial ban existed. You can check Hansard and

see. Can the minister, since he made the recommendation - he has obviously done

some studies as to the impact it would have on these licensed outfitters - tell

us the number of guides on the Island portion of the Province who gain their

livelihood from the recreation sports fishery? What kind of impact does he think

that the hook-and-release would have on the camps for tourists and guides and,

more importantly, I guess, for the owners and operators of these? What kind of

impact would it have?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I expect it would have maybe a

very adverse impact, and that is why there has been no firm decision made. That

is why, in reply to the question that the hon. member put I said that is a

suggestion.

But I would ask him, conversely, if he would consider the

impact that a licence buy back program on the part of the Federal Government

will have on that twenty-four year old young fisherman in Bonavista Bay who just

inherited a salmon licence? What kind of impact is it going to have on that

person? So, I think a license buy back policy will affect a lot of people and

have a severe impact. I feel that if the scientists can prove that maybe a

hook-and-release program is what is needed on certain rivers, well, then, it

might well be we will have to go that way, but there has been no firm decision

made yet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister can skate as much

as he wants to. He said that part of the Province's recommendation would be to

have a hook-and-release program in parts of the Island portion of the Province.

Can we then assume that the parts of the Island and Labrador that would not have

the commercial ban put into place, would these people then be allowed to have a

sports recreation fishery as it now presently exists? How does he intend to make

that a level playing field for the people in the other parts of the Province who

would not have the same opportunity afforded to them? This was the minister's

recommendation on December 2.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, on December 2 - I do not have

Hansard here in front of me - but I think I did indicate with respect to that,

we have requested a meeting with the federal minister. In fact, I wrote the

federal minister - I do not have a copy of the letter here, but I know I wrote

him around that time, following a meeting that the Premier and I had with

members of the Fishermen's Union executive, at which time they indicated to us

that there has not been a sufficient level of consultation.

The following day I wrote the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, pointing out to him that the Union was not satisfied with respect to the

level of consultation and asked for a meeting. Now, that meeting has not been

held. Once the meeting is held, these are some of the things that will be

discussed at that meeting. So it is not a matter of trying to "skate around." I

have no intention of trying to skate, but I can only tell the hon. member what I

know about the situation as it currently exists.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Since the minister has recommended, if there is a commercial

ban, that there is going to be compensation for the affected commercial

fishermen, what kind of recommendation has he made for the sports recreation

outfitters in this Province, the tourist camps and so on who would also be

affected? Is there a compensation package for these people, as well, and, if so,

how much has he recommended, and what is the mechanism he is going to use?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there has

been no decision made yet with respect to the recreational fishery as to if, in

fact, there will be hook-and-release or what, there has certainly been no

discussions that I am aware of where there will be compensation for the

recreational fishermen. The Province's position is, of course, quite clear. We

believe that in Labrador there should not be a mandatory licence buy back. It

would impose severe hardship. We have some reservations about having a mandatory

licence buy back in White Bay, where a lot of fishermen there depend, to a large

extent, on the salmon fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. There is

time for a short question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to get

through it as fast as I can.

I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture. Last week we heard the federal Minister of Environment bring out

some fairly detailed regulations about environment regulations that would affect

pulp and paper mills right across Canada. I just want to ask the minister: Does

he have any figures yet, through his department, on the cost of these

regulations on Kruger in Corner Brook, and Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls and

Stephenville?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. As a matter of

fact, I was away on Friday. I think the Premier dealt with that issue in the

House of Friday. I do not have, vaguely, any figures. I know that the

announcement was greeted with some concern all across the industry, throughout

Canada. We do know that it will not impact so severely on one of the three paper

mills in Newfoundland, as it will on others.

There is a substantive amount of money involved for the mills

that have to conform. The issue becomes one of compliance - a

schedule of

compliance. How long will these various mills have to implement the kind of

environmental regulations being imposed by the Department of Environment in

Ottawa? I can tell the hon. member that over the next while, starting now, we

intend to determine exactly what the situation is, as it applies to the three

mills, and just what their concerns are and whether or not it will create a very

serious problem for them.

As the Premier said, our position simply is this: It is

obviously very important for us to maintain the jobs and the economic activity

that flows from the operation of those three mills, while at the same time

making sure that it is done in a way that protects and enhances our environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, First Reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department of Mines And Energy Act,

1989," carried. (Bill No. 60)

On motion, Bill No. (60) read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 22.

All those in favour please say, 'Aye.' Those against, 'Nay'.

Carried.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. Well,

I do not think I can take a point of order at this moment.

MR. WARREN: A point of clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of clarification, we will take that.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I understand on Friday that the Minister announced that there

was a mistake on the Order Paper. I think we are supposed to be on second

reading on that particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, the mistake on the Order

Paper was on two other bills that were listed under Motions, but, in fact,

should have been listed under Second Readings.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole on Bill 22. Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province." (Bill No. 22)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the question?

MR. WARREN: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Chairman called Bill

22 and I was standing to take a couple of minutes for introduction to the

Committee. Obviously the Chairman did not see me standing, I suppose, because

normally the procedure is to recognize the minister who is introducing, or who

is lead speaker on the bill. So I just ask you for a decision on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair called order and indicated Bill 22, looked around

the House and saw nobody standing. The first person who caught my eye was the

hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. So, I recognized the hon. Member for Torngat

Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of members on both sides

of the House the minister, by all means, if he has a few words to say, can go

ahead and speak, but he does not close the debate. So, if you want to go ahead

now and say a few words, by all means, go head. No problem!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Only in Second Reading of a bill if the minister speaks he

closes the debate. That procedure is not in Committee, so the Minister can speak

as often as he likes in Committee on this particular bill.

MR. BAKER: Or on any amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On any amendment.

MR. WARREN: Yes, he asked if he could go ahead, so I am

willing to give him leave to go ahead if he wants to. Does the minister want to

go ahead? No!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Well, the Minister got up on a point of order

and wanted to speak to his own bill, and now that we have agreed to let him

speak, he won't speak, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, for the last number of days since this

legislation came in and since this bill was brought forward, we have argued our

point. We have said time and time again, people throughout the Province have

said: this is a dangerous piece of legislation. We honestly believe that if this

piece of legislation goes through without amendments then it is another example

of this Government going ahead and doing things without consulting with the

people.

That is what is unfortunate.

In fact, I am surprised over the last two years with the

measures that this Government has taken. Very controversial legislation over the

last two or three years. The Amalgamation Bill, Mr. Chairman, and this

particular lands bill. Bringing in closure on eleven occasions so far. In fact,

I would think before the day is gone we are going to see the minister bring in

closure again. I think it is very unfortunate that a government has to stoop so

low as to not give opportunity to all members on both sides of the Legislature

to debate a piece of legislation. Again we have a piece of legislation right

here that only one member other than the minister on the other side has spoken

on so far.

I think with this kind of piece of legislation - I would like

to see the Member for St. John's South getting up and saying a few words on this

particular piece of legislation. I would like to see the Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island, who fought vehemently at committees about this particular bill. I

would like to see the Member for Port de Grave getting up. But they are all

gagged. The unfortunate part about it is that all the backbenchers are gagged.

They are all gagged, and that is why they are not allowed to stand up and speak.

We are planning to bring in a number of amendments to this

particular piece of legislation, and it will be up to the Government, of course,

whether to agree with the amendments or not. I would say to my colleagues on

both sides of this Legislature to look at this piece of legislation.

Section

7.(2) in this piece of legislation is the most damaging part of all. I would

venture to say to members opposite, of those who have cabins on rivers or ponds

at the present time - and there are a number of members opposite who have a

summer cabin on a river, pond, or lake - the next thing you will be trying to

do, I can see a letter going to the Premier, to the minister, asking for a grant

and a permit to stop other people from going around the property.

We have expressed our dismay about this particular piece of

legislation. We would rather for it not to be brought in at all. We would rather

for it to be taken and thrown in the garbage. However, all we can say is that we

are against this particular bill at the present time. We are against sections of

it, but there are some sections that are good, and at the appropriate time we

will be bringing in a number of amendments to the legislation.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, there is not much to say really

that has not already been said. We had, as I pointed out earlier, a three or

four day very spirited debate on this bill. The opposition, during that three

days and ever since, have tried to whip up public opinion. They have tried to

arouse public opposition to this particular legislation. This is a good time to

point out that after three days of debate the opposition was not capable of

generating one word in the media - not a word. So, it just goes to show you how

the opposition will flog a dead horse.

Mr. Chairman, I am not proposing any amendment to this

legislation. The amendment will have to be very interesting for us to entertain

it as well because I have, in this past two weeks, discussed this bill with all

the interest groups in the Province; people who last year were opposed to Bill

53, but now, understanding what the bill stands for, they accept it. They accept

it as being the proper kind of legislation, and they feel their rights are

protected to the extent they would expect them to be protected - far more than

they were ever protected in the past.

Now, I suppose if the concern of the opposition is a fact-

I do not know what the hon. Member for Placentia is mumbling

about, Mr. Chairman. He is distracting. I will concede that he can stand up and

make any point that he wants.

Mr. Chairman, it will only take another minute. I want to

tell you that, as with all legislation, if there becomes an apparent need for an

amendment as the legislation is applied, then obviously this Government will

look at amending, but not this particular bill on this particular day - at least

not as far as I am concerned.

I want to say again that I have discussed this bill, and what

flows from it, with the industry, with the general public, and it is very well

accepted, and I really see no reason for continuing to tie up the time of the

Assembly in debating this particular piece of legislation.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Chairman, clause 2. Clause 2 can go,

Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, in clause 3, "The minister may

issue a lease to a person of an area of Crown lands not exceeding 20 hectares

those rents, royalties or other charges that the minister may set out in the

lease."

Mr. Chairman, in clause 3 I would like to amend by adding

immediately after sub-clause 2 of

section 3 the following: "Notwithstanding

sub-section 1 and sub-section 2 a lease shall not be issued to a person of an

area of Crown lands for which aboriginal rights or title exists unless approval

is granted by the aboriginal groups or groups concerned."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I could go on with amendments

to each part of clause three, but I will wait. There are other amendments coming

up, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 4 carry?

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that the

Government, naturally because of their majority, defeated the first amendment,

and in fact they will be going on record with about sixteen or seventeen more

similar amendments because they are really setting a very, very dangerous

precedent here with these particular amendments, Mr. Chairman. I fail to

understand how this Government on one hand, in fact, even now officials of this

Government are in Ottawa meeting with the aboriginal peoples and the Federal

Government talking about land claims, and here we are passing this lands bill

that may affect the aboriginal title. I think it is okay for them to say 'aye'

and 'nay', but I think before we say 'aye' and 'nay' to those things, I think

members opposite should realize what they are doing.

So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, on clause 4 be it amended

immediately after sub-clause 2 of

section 4 the following: "Notwithstanding

sub-section 1 and sub-section 2 a grant shall not be issued to a person of an

area of Crown lands for which aboriginal rights or title exist unless approval

is granted by the aboriginal group or groups concerned."

Mr. Chairman, in fact the first one was a permit, and this is

a grant. The only change in the words is from a permit to a grant. Mr. Chairman,

we are talking about large parcels of land that the Government of Newfoundland

peoples in this Province. And it worsens here, it worsens here in our

negotiations. Surely goodness, we should really consider the piece of Crown land

that we are talking about, and this particular piece of Crown land should be and

could be, Mr. Chairman, very difficult once the Crown lands or aboriginal title

to land is clarified. Because, if not, you have to think about the third party

who is going to intrude on the various lands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has

given notice of his intention to do the same kind of amendment in a number of

places in this bill and I can understand where the member is coming from. I

would like to point out to the House, Mr. Chairman, that we are doing what is a

new Lands Act for the Province, really, and I do appreciate the fact that not

only are negotiations underway and have been underway for a while in terms of

land claims, but that we are making attempts to speed up the process, so that

the land claims do not drag on for ten or fifteen or twenty years. So we are

trying to speed up the process.

I would like to point out to the House and to the member who

is proposing these amendments, that simply by putting in some of these

amendments, we perhaps would be interfering with that process, and I would like

to express Government's intent, Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, that

whatever arrangement is arrived at in terms of land claims with the native

people of the Province, the appropriate changes at that point in time will be

made, that if we reach agreement in terms of land claims, then at that point in

time all of the appropriate changes to legislation will, at that time, be made.

But I believe that we should allow the process to continue, allow the process to

work, to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to everybody, and then make the

changes in legislation that are required. I would like to express this

Government's commitment to do that, so we will be voting against the proposed

amendments in this particular bill for that reason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is the

opposite of what the minister just said because, if we don't do this now, in

another year or so, two or three, four or five years down the road, we will be

coming back with a new lands bill again. So, after spending two or three weeks

at this bill, why not make it simpler now and let us get it done. so, Mr.

Chairman, I will wait until the call of that particular amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. the Member for Torngat

Mountains have a seconder for this amendment?

MR. WARREN: The Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 5 carry?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 5, the hon. the Member for Torngat

Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I propose amendment to

section

5 by adding the following: 'Notwithstanding the other provisions of

section 5,

an easement shall not be granted to a person in, over or upon an area of Crown

lands for which aboriginal rights are titled access, unless approval is granted

by the aboriginal group or groups concerned', seconded by the Member for Grand

Bank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. member for a copy of

the amendment, but it is the same amendment that was in the others. The

amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 6 carry?

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I make an amendment, seconded

by the Member for Grand Bank. Immediately after sub-clause 3 of

section 6,

'Notwithstanding the other provisions of

section 6, a licence shall not be

issued to a person for occupancy of an area of Crown lands for which aboriginal

rights or title exists unless approval is granted by the aboriginal group or

groups concerned,' seconded by the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I am bringing forward a number of amendments and I

think it definitely shows - I only wish the Premier were here in the Legislature

today. Because what they are doing today is against what the Premier has said to

the president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada there a few days ago when he met

with her. He was concerned about getting land claims settled, concerned about

the wishes of the aboriginal people, concerned about self-government. In fact, I

am concerned also about an easy settlement to the land claims. But we are not

really helping our cause at all if we are not going to consider the aboriginal

people of this Province in such a bill that includes the Crown lands of this

Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 6 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 7 carry?

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I propose, a bill, "An Act To

Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other

Lands Of The Province," now be amended by deleting clauses (

d) and (

e) of

subsection (c), seconded by the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment in order.

All those in favour of the amendment, 'Aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment, 'Nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

I declare the amendment defeated.

MR. WARREN: Division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Division.

Division

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the amendment,

please stand:

Mr. Matthews; Mr. Tobin; Mr. R. Aylward; Mr. Doyle; Mr.

Hodder; Mr. Woodford; Mr. Hearn; Mr. N. Windsor; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Warren; and

Mr. Hewlett.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against the amendment, please

stand:

The hon. the President of the Council (Mr. Baker); the hon.

the Minister of Development (Mr. Furey); the hon. the Minister of Health (Mr.

Decker); the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture (Mr. Flight); the

hon. the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hogan); the hon. the Minister of

Fisheries (Mr. Carter); the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

(Mr. Grimes); Mr. L. Snow; Mr. K. Aylward; the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Gover); the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kitchen); the hon. the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs (Mr. Gullage); Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Crane; Mr. Noel;

Mr. Efford; Mr. Murphy; Mr. Dumaresque; Mr. Short; Mr. Langdon; Mr. Oldford; and

Mr. Small.

CLERK (Mr. J. Noel): Mr. Chairman, eleven in favour of

the amendment and twenty-two against the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 7 and 8 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 9 carry?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is a long amendment, Mr. Speaker, and it is in three

parts, so you may need some time to review it. I propose clause 9 now be amended

by adding immediately after subclause 2 of

section 9 the following - it will

become 9(3):

9 (3). "The minister may grant free of charge, but subject to

the payment of an appropriate administration fee, an area of Crown lands not

exceeding 10 hectares for the site of a building for a registered charity and

for a building for a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under The

Corporations Act.

9 (4). Notwithstanding the other provisions of

section 9, the

minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council,

grant free of charge an area of Crown lands not exceeding 10 hectares to a

person.

9 (5). Notwithstanding the other provisions of

section 9, a

grant shall not be issued to a person of an area of Crown lands for which

aboriginal rights or title exist unless approval is granted by the aboriginal

group or groups concerned."

Seconded by the Member for Grand Bank.

Section 9 (2). We added (3), (4) and (5).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 9 through 15, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clauses 16 through 77 carry?

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 16.

Amendment on Clause 16.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I propose that it be amended by

adding immediately after

section 16 the following, which would probably read as

16 (1). But I say to the minister, I will be going through this particular piece

of legislation. I notice the acting Minister is not even interested in the bill

at all. However,

section 16 (1):

"Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to abrogate

or derogate from any aboriginal rights or title which may exist in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you want that one?

MR. WARREN: That would be called probably 16 (1).

AN HON. MEMBER: Sixteen, one.

MR. WARREN: Yes, seconded by the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment in order.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 16 and 17, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 18 carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, clause 18. More a

clarification, probably, than a question. If the minister is not available,

maybe the President of Treasury Board might be able to answer it.

Section 18 (1): "Where, through error, more than 1 grant,

lease or licence inconsistent with each other has been issued for the same Crown

lands, the minister may return the purchase money, fee or rental to the person

to whom it is due." What kind of a process would be in place to determine to

whom it is due? Because I am after seeing all kinds of examples where land has

been cleared and the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: Is the minister saying this is the first

application? Because it does not only apply to, for instance, an application for

a person for Crown land because we have a lot of areas in the Province,

especially out around the bays, where people probably could be taken into

consideration under the squatters rights part of it. I just forget the

section

of the Crown Lands Act now, I think it is October 1977 or something like that -

previous to that they could come under squatters rights. Twenty or thirty years

is it?

But after that they cannot, if there is nothing in place, and

previous to that it would have to be proved. In order to prove they had anything

to do with any piece of land at all they had to show some improvement. Even a

fence on the land was reason enough to determine whether they had title to that

land under squatters rights. But my only question is to whom it is due, and how

it is determined, because I have seen examples where people have lost their land

because of cases something like this? That is just a question I have to the

minister. Maybe he could answer it or probably find out for me because, I mean,

who does it go to?

MR. FLIGHT: Where: through error, more than one grant,

lease or license inconsistent with each other have been issued for the same

Crown lands, the minister may return the purchase money, fee or rent to the

person to whom it is due. What will happen here - this is a process for the

Department of Crown Lands to determine who had established the first right to

that land, and therefore would be the person who would either receive the refund

for monies expended or to retain the title. But there is a process that will

allow the minister to determine to whom the money is due.

MR. WOODFORD: What is the process? Because it used to go

to the quieting of titles for certain parts of it. The second part of it - maybe

when the minister gets up to clarify this - why less than 20 hectares. I mean 20

hectares is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I know, but I mean anything less. So

what you are saying there is that it would go to Cabinet even though -

MR. FLIGHT: If it is over.

MR. WOODFORD: If it is over the 20 hectares.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes.

MR. WOODFORD: So the only question to be answered then is

the process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I cannot give the exact details of the

process to the hon. member. I can have my officials tell me exactly what the

process is, and I suspect it will be to his satisfaction. If it is not, we can

deal with it. As far as the 20 hectares is concerned -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the hon. minister, but I am having

difficulty following what is happening in this House this afternoon because

there are so many private conversations going on. I am having difficulty hearing

the speaker, and the Chair has to pay particular notice to the procedures. I

would request that if hon. members want to carry on private conversations,

please go outside the chamber.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I will

undertake to get an explanation on this particular clause as to the process. I

have to take it for granted, Mr. Chairman, as previous ministers took it for

granted, that there is a process in the department to allow officials to

determine who was the first in, or who has the legal rights to a piece of land.

The reason for the 20 hectares is simple, Mr. Chairman. The minister cannot

approve any more than 20 hectares for a grant, lease or license. Anything over

20 hectares must go to Cabinet, so, of course, anything over 20 the same thing

would apply.

On motion, clauses 18 through to 35, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 36 carry?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Clause 36, Mr. Chairman. In fact my hon.

colleague for Humber Valley was just thinking about squatters rights. Clause 36

is a clause that deals solely with squatters rights. Mr. Chairman, I noticed

there in clause 36,

section 3, outlines different areas of Crown land that will

be protected, but I wanted to go back to my original statement. The aboriginal

peoples in this Province have squatters rights. The people in Nain or Davis

Inlet do not have fences up around their land that they have been living on for

years, and years, and years, from where they make their living. They make their

living from the land. With that in mind, I would like to bring an amendment to

Section 36, after (4), add the following:

"36.

(5) Notwithstanding the other provisions of

section 36,

nothing in this

section shall pertain to an area of Crown lands for which

aboriginal rights or title exist unless approval is granted by the aboriginal

group or groups concerned."

We are talking about squatters rights. The aboriginal people

in Labrador, the piece of land that they - in fact they are very co-operative in

even negotiating with both governments now, because they have squatters rights

to this particular parcel of land. So I think, to protect their rights, this

particular clause should be added.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) the issue of squatters rights.

The fact of the matter is that from the day John Cabot arrived in Newfoundland,

until 1977, squatters rights applied equally to everyone in this Province. It

did not matter where you were from -you had squatters rights. If you had

established on a piece of land and were there for twenty continuous years, you

had squatters rights. Now that right, to me, was just as important to a person

who was not claiming to be an aboriginal as such, just a descendent from Wessex,

England, and there was just as much resentment around when the Government with

which that hon. gentleman now sits, wiped out what was, in effect, squatters

rights that had existed from day one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before he crossed the floor.

MR. FLIGHT: Before he crossed the floor.

So let us be clear on what squatters rights are. I recall the

debate when squatters rights were wiped out. There were a lot of people in

Newfoundland - I am not sure that I heard any particular debate from any other

part of the Province - but certainly in the Province, who felt that having

squatters rights deleted or wiped out was not acceptable. However, the

Government of which some of the hon. members in the front benches were members,

discontinued the practice of squatters rights, and anyone acquiring land after

1977 was not entitled to ownership under squatters rights if they existed on it

for 150 years. Prior to 1977 squatters rights still - as a matter of fact, I am

not sure that the hon. gentleman's argument is germane because squatters rights

still exist if you can have established that right prior to 1977. So, Mr.

Chairman, I wanted to put that into the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) behind you.

MR. WARREN: The comments that the hon. member just said

then will be transferred, posted, and sent to the aboriginal people in this

Province. Let me say, before John Cabot came to Newfoundland the native people

were already here. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Here we are. The Minister of Development is

talking about having celebrations in 1997 for John Cabot. It would be better for

us to have a celebration for the native people who were here long, long before

that. Let me say to the hon. member that those people have rights to that land.

Now we are taking it away from them. We are not giving them a chance. So if we

can bring anything into this particular clause for agriculture, you are

protecting one part of society; why are you not protecting the aboriginal

people? You have an extra clause in there protecting different societies, and

this Government will not, so therefore you are speaking out of both sides of

your mouth. You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

I would say, if we are going to protect the aboriginal people

in this Province, then I think, in all fairness to them, a particular piece of

property that has been negotiated with the Province and with the Federal

Government, this clause should be carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should point out

once again that the rights of the aboriginal peoples in this Province are being

discussed - the rights that they have. The discussion is now ongoing, and after

the issue has been settled, any changes that are necessary to any of the laws of

this Province will be made, that is the commitment of this Government. The

process will occur, discussions will go on and at some point in time there will

be a conclusion to these discussions, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want in any way

to interfere with that process and I hope the hon. gentleman opposite feels the

same way as I do. I do not want to interfere in the process that we hope to

speed up and not drag on for the next twenty years, so Mr. Chairman, at a

certain point in time, when agreement has been reached and in essence I suppose

that is what the whole discussion is about, the land rights, and there will be

agreement, there will be settlement and then the appropriate changes will be

made to the laws of the Province. Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that

again, and the amendments that the hon. gentleman is proposing, we are not at

this time accepting, but we are allowing the proper, legitimate process to

happen and then the changes will be made to the laws of the land.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 36 through to 43, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 44 carry?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker: where it appears to the minister

that lands within the Province are abandoned lands and no person lawfully

entitled to the lands or an interest in them can be found in the Province, the

minister may begin proceedings to revest those lands in the Crown. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I want to bring an amendment to

section 44 which could be called

section 44 (1):

"44.

(1) Notwithstanding the other provision of

section 44,

no proceedings shall begin to revest in the Crown any lands for which aboriginal

rights or titles exist unless approval is granted by the aboriginal group or

groups concerned."

That is seconded by the Member for Fogo, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment defeated..

On motion, clauses 44 through to 53, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 54 carry?

MR. GRIMES: Oh my, oh my, oh my!

MR. WARREN: Yes, and there are eleven more yet, too, and

I would say that if I was like the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

I would say, my, my, my, my, my yes, because, Mr. Chairman, you are there and

you are gagged; you are not allowed to stand up and say anything, you are

gagged, so I would be ashamed, yes - a weeping willow, and I should say, Mr.

Chairman, in speaking to clause 54 that all this Government needed to do today,

was to just amend one of those clauses, just the first clause then would have

satisfied the aboriginal people of this Province and would have satisfied this

party here. Unfortunately, the minister now, and this Government is on record of

not agreeing with amendment No. 12.

Now, Mr. Chairman,

Section 54, I want to read into the record

because I want to send this particular clause out to every individual aboriginal

person in this Province so I want to read it into the record: "The minister,

subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, may, by order,

transfer either forever or for a lesser term, to another minister of the Crown

specified in the order, the administration and control of the entire or lesser

interest of the Crown, in an area of Crown Lands and the transfer may be made

subject to those conditions, restrictions or limitations that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers advisable."

section 2, where the Crown lands to be transferred under

subsection (1) contain not more than 20 hectares, the minister may transfer the

Crown lands without obtaining the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council.

Mr. Chairman, I want to bring in the following amendment by

adding immediately after subclause 2 of

section 54 the following:

"notwithstanding subsection (1) and subsection (2), a transfer shall not be

approved of an area of Crown lands for which aboriginal rights or title exist

unless approval is granted by the aboriginal group or groups concerned." Mr.

Chairman, that is seconded by the Member for Harbour Main.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to my hon. colleagues opposite - and

I want the attention of the House Leader because he has been the person

responding, and the acting Minister of Lands does not even know what we are

talking about. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my hon. colleagues opposite: we have

a large parcel of land now - and I will just use one of the native groups, I

will use the Labrador Inuit Association - a large parcel of land that has been

recognized by both Governments, has been defined as to what the piece of land

is, and has been recognized as the piece of land that the Labrador Inuit

Association want to discuss.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister if, for example, tomorrow

- here are the minister's officials and the Federal officials sitting down and

discussing with the LIA their potential agreement. And if, for example, tomorrow

the Minister of Development - we will probably even go further than that, we

will say the Minister of Mines and Energy, which would be a prime example. If

the Minister of Mines and Energy tomorrow could walk into this House, and get up

on a Ministerial Statement and say: we are going to reactivate the uranium mines

in (Inaudible) which is right within that parcel of land that they are

discussing. Or if the Minister of Development could decide on starting some kind

of a manufacturing plant inside of Hopedale on the piece of land that both

Governments and the LIA are discussing. So surely goodness before this piece of

land goes through, and most likely the LIA will agree with it, all I am saying

in my amendment is to discuss it with the aboriginal group. Mr. Chairman, all I

am saying in here is at least have consultation with those people, and include

it in there. What I said in my amendment is that it would be subject to the

approval of the group. If we do not do that, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is

futile. So I say to the minister, surely goodness in number 54 before any such

major undertakings take place, at least have this

section included in there that

discussion will carry on with the aboriginal groups concerned, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of the Council.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have let this go on

long enough without making some comment about it. Enough is enough.

Mr. Chairman, what the speaker is doing is shamefully using

the aboriginal people of this Province for his own crass, political ends. That

is what the member is doing, nothing else. Let that be clear in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that he has now proposed in

essence says that where the aboriginal people have the right or title to a piece

of land that we would consult before we would take it away from them. Now, Mr.

Chairman, how ridiculous, how ludicrous, how absolutely foolish such an

amendment is. Anybody in this Province who has the right to the land through

whatever process or has title to the land, it is not going to be taken away from

them, and we do not have to go through every single clause of this act and say

to the people of the Province: we will not take it away if you have title to it.

That is silly.

Now, Mr. Chairman, he is putting it in this way because it is

obvious that if somebody has title to a piece of land, we are in the position of

now saying that they have title to it, and we are going to write in the act that

we are not going to take it away from them because they have title to it. Mr.

Chairman, it is down right silly. Now the member can play this crass kind of

politics and go back to his people and say: ah, ha, the Government down there

does not care about your claims, the claims to the land which include most of

the Province.

He is going back and make that claim to them. And not point

out the silliness and the trickery built into this particular amendment.

So, Mr. Chairman, he has gone on for a long time and this

amendment is simply a little bit of trickery so he can go upalong and go around

the Province and play his foolish little political games. That he can play his

foolish little political games with this particular amendment worded the way it

is. Now, I will repeat again for the record as I have three times now in this

particular debate.

Number one: anybody who has the right to the land or a claim

on the land, nothing is going to be taken away. Number one. I hope the Member is

listening. Nobody who has the right or a claim or a title to a land, the right

or a title to a land, will have that land taken away from him.

Number two: the land claims issue is a different issue, and

is being dealt with in a different process. At a certain point in time the lands

claim issue will be dealt with to the satisfaction of everybody. At that point

in time any changes that are required to any Provincial legislation will then be

made. So it is unnecessary to go on with amendments like that, that are in

effect trickery - a total charade - and just allowing the Member to use the

aboriginal lands claim issue to his own crass political purposes. That is all

that is happening here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, after that savage verbal attack

by the President of Treasury Board who is doing all the talking on this

particular Bill - the acting Minister is not doing anything - but let me say to

my hon. colleague: All of those amendments that I brought forward today - except

Section 7, deleting clauses (

d) and (e) - every one of those amendments came as

a result of negotiating, of talking with the LIA.

MR. GRIMES: Nonsense!

MR. WARREN: With the LIA, Mr. Chairman! And it was the

legal advisor to the LIA!

MR. GRIMES: Nonsense!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me tell my hon. colleague

for Exploits, never call me a liar in this House!

MR. GRIMES: I said "nonsense"!

MR. WARREN: Now, I say it now the last time.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) nonsense!

MR. WARREN: Because, Mr. Chairman, I am no liar!

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

MR. WARREN: You're stupid, too!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains

to withdraw that statement.

MR. DOYLE: But he never called anybody a liar

(Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to withdraw what

I never said. I said I will not be called a liar in this House!

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair requests the hon. Member to withdraw.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Withdraw calling the hon. Member for

Exploits a liar.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I never did any such thing. I

said I do not want the Member calling me a liar!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I will check Hansard, but it appeared

to me that is what was said. But the Table informs me that -

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, for the record,

that those amendments were from the legal advisor with the LIA. This is where

those amendments came from. Let me tell you. I spent a number of hours talking

with the LIA on all this particular piece of land because they are concerned

about what this Government is doing with the land claim negotiations.

Because on the one hand we are talking about the settlement

of land claims, and on the other hand we are doing everything in our power to

not have them get title for what belongs to them. Let me conclude by saying that

I am quite satisfied with what I have done today. I am quite pleased with what I

have done today. Because it is on the record -

MR. HOGAN: You're living in a dream world.

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. colleague, the Minister of

Social Services: I may be living in a dream world, but you and I may not be in

this Legislature and it might be many other years after that. But do not

continue to do to the aboriginal people in this Province what has been done for

centuries. You are one of the ones. And as a Cabinet Minister, that is what you

people are doing today. You are continuing to give the native people in this

Province the white man's philosophy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying, I

think that this last amendment should be seriously considered by all, and

hopefully Government will see (Inaudible) to take into consideration that the

first people of this Province is the aboriginal people.

By this particular piece of legislation, which was not here

before, this Government is trying to do through the back door what they are not

doing through the front door. It shows me that irrespective of what the Premier

will say publicly, but they are doing through the back door, and in a really

sly, slimy way, is to try to curtail the activities and the land claims

settlement that the Premier has promised over the last number of years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I must rise and have a few

words in this debate, because obviously what has happened here this evening is

unconscionable. The display that we see from that hon. Member, as a native

Labradorian, I find objectionable. Because it was only a few weeks ago when that

hon. Member rose in this House on a Private Member's resolution calling for

native representation in the House of Assembly, and he got the Members obviously

in this House made aware of that particular issue.

Of course, we made sure that the appropriate wording was in

that resolution to reflect the aspirations as we felt of the true native

population in this Province, not the hon. Member. Because if people had been

listening a day after when there was an interview with the president of the LIA,

the LIA was roundly critical of the hon. Member, and said it is time that his

tokenism be taken out of the House of Assembly through this particular Member.

What we see happening here again today is exactly that kind

of antic that has personified that Member ever since he has been here. We have

seen nothing but tokenism towards the native people of this Province. When he

talks about the consultation, the proof has got to be in the pudding. The proof

is that the native people of this Province know (Inaudible) consulted. That is

the most patronizing thing that you can ever do to a person (Inaudible) in a

position where they are being told that this is what they are suppose to be

doing and how they are supposed to be represented; and on the other hand come in

here and try to uphold the great sanctity that you have for their well-being. At

the same time, when he was in a position of power to do something, he did

nothing for the native people!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: He talks, Mr. Chairman, about the land

claim process, and how he has this profound feeling now that there has to be a

determination of the land claims. It is this Premier who says that we are going

to take land claims from ten to fifteen years back to two years! This Member has

not gotten up and said one word about the virtue of that particular policy which

is being recognized all across this country as the most well-meaning and

well-defined approach to native land claims that we have seen in our history of

governments dealing with native people in this country.

I remember - talk about trying to get in through the back

door what you can not get in through the front - I know what that Member, when

he was previously a Minister, along with the previous Premier, when he was down

in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, the native people were there banging on the door,

trying to get into the meeting, and they were not allowed into it! That is the

kind of antics that we have seen from that hon. Member.

So let the native people of this Province have no fear. We

are doing what we are put here to do. To see that the land claims negotiations

are on the fast track, to see that justice is brought to the native people of

this Province! What you are doing to them is disrespectful, it is the most

arrogant display that I have seen for quite some time. To be dragging out, I

think, for the purposes of pure political gain. I would not be surprised that in

a day or two we will hear another interview on the open radio of this Province

saying that again this member has used them to try and see that there is some

political benefit in them - to use them as tokens of his political charade. It

is time that he put the native people first and did something substantial,

instead of coming in here and using this House and the people of this Province

in this unfortunate and certainly arrogant way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

I have already recognized him.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Another scathing attack. Another scathing attack by the

gigolo.

One thing about the hon. Member for Eagle River is that you

can tell when he is upset, because you can look across and he is as white as a

ghost. You look across and he looks as white as a ghost, and he gets up and then

all of a sudden, for five or six minutes, he gets right mad and calls another

member down. I should remind the member, because he did talk about the part that

I played as a minister and being on this Government side, I remind the member

that the land claim negotiations started because of this man right here. They

started because of this man right here, in Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Secondly, let me say to my hon. colleague

that he just misled the House. My hon. colleague has just misled the House. Now

whether he wants to withdraw it is up to him, but he was saying about native

people at a meeting in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, who were knocking on the doors

and could not get in - something like that. Let me say to my hon. colleague that

unless he wants to withdraw it - it is up to himself - but every native person

who wanted to see me as a minister or as a member has always seen me. Secondly,

when they came to the First Minister's Conference in Happy Valley - Goose Bay,

over 200 of them came into the hall, and every one of them sat down for two

hours with me and discussed their issues. I would say to the hon. gentleman,

that he should have guts enough to get up and apologize.

There is a big slogan going around 'Clyde Lied'. I think that

particular slogan should be extended to the Member for Eagle River, because what

he just did is lie to this House. He just lied to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, I ask him to

withdraw those comments, please.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do withdraw them, but

also I would think that the hon. gentleman for Eagle River will also withdraw

the comments that he just made. I withdraw. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw -

sure. Furthermore, I would hope that the Member for Eagle River would have guts

enough to get up and withdraw the comments he made earlier!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous that a man

would stoop so low. It is ridiculous. I said it before, and I say it again -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We are discussing the lands bill, and I ask hon. members to

be relevant.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are discussing the lands bill, and the land belonging to

the native people, and that is what this member does not want - the native

people to have any land. I say again, and I will say over, and over, and over,

what I have said in this Legislature before. The hon. gentleman is still in

diapers. He is still in diapers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) immature.

MR. WARREN: Well that is the same thing. When you are

immature you are in diapers, and it is bloody ridiculous!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) repeat what the Premier said.

MR. WARREN: The hon. gentleman would have been in Cabinet

today if he were mature enough. He was not mature enough. That is what the

Premier said.

I want to go on record again, and in fact -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, you are on the

amendment.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, I would go so far as to table, to make sure that my

hon. colleague, and in particular the Member for Exploits, will not accuse me of

making up all these things. I am going to table, Mr. Chairman, the handwritten

notes from the legal advisor of the LIA, just to let you people know that the

legal advisor to the LIA is a person who will consult and talk with me. Why

don't you pick up the phone and call somebody and they will tell you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, in conclusion -

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

We are discussing the bill on the Lands claim, and we are

dealing with the amendment on clause 54. I ask the hon. member to keep his

comments relative to that amendment, please.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As

pertains to that clause, I am interested to note that the member who spoke

before me mentioned the comments that William Anderson made. I said the same

thing to the media. I said: William Anderson has one vote in an election, only

one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: And there is more than one vote in the

district of Torngat Mountains.

With those few remarks, I will close my comments now, but I

am interested in knowing what the members opposite are going to have to say

about the remaining number of issues on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Shall the amendment carry?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I have to again correct the

hon. Member opposite, because obviously, the president of the LIA, who is

dealing with the land claims on an ongoing basis, did so with the majority of

his people behind him on three or four consecutive times now that he has sought

election. Certainly, that could not be done with one vote.

More importantly, what the hon. member talks about is what is

connoting patriotism. The true hallmark of a patriot is if he would carry the

flag. That is not what that hon. member did. He took our flag and put it into

the floor of his office over there and let the whole Province walk over it! That

is what he did!

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

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want

to speak very briefly on this legislation. My colleague has introduced an

amendment, as he has done on various sections throughout the day. He has done it

because he is concerned about his constituents and about the people of Labrador,

and certainly the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has done it because he

believes in the people he represents, unlike the Member for Eagle River, who has

been a dismal failure in this Assembly, who lacks the maturity to take any

leadership role, and just wants to try to get even with my colleague from

Torngat Mountains who speaks in the best interest of his constituents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for the amendment?

On motion, amendment defeated.

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province." (Bill No. 22).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 5, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 5. Bill 29, "An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting Land Surveyors In The Province".

Shall Clause 1, carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hold it, hold it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to have a

couple of words on this Act, Bill 29. I could leave it until we get to clause

No. 27 I guess, but I just want to mention before we get to clause 27, that the

lawyer representing the Land Surveyors, the person who has been dealing with the

legislative draftspersons and Government on this Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have to declare a conflict first, yes,

I forgot about that, Mr. Chairman. I am a land surveyor and a member of this

association, so I will declare a potential conflict, and I will table myself if

the hon. Minister of Development would like it, but I probably would be flicked

back faster than I went up there.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that a letter was sent to

the solicitor in the Department of Justice concerning one

section of this Act,

section 27 (1). I brought it to the attention of the Government House Leader and

discussed it with the acting Minister of Environment and Lands. One of the

Clerks at the Table explained to me why this difference exists between the

surveyors' lawyer and the Government's

interpretation of what is in this bill,

and the explanation was that, if the definition of who can perform land survey

is put into the Act, as suggested by the Newfoundland Land Surveyors' lawyer, it

would prevent somebody from surveying his own land. It makes no sense to me

whatsoever. If you can survey your own land, you can survey your own land, it

will not be accepted by any agency to whom you would have to present it. Crown

Lands will not accept it, a bank will not accept it unless you have a legal

survey done by a land surveyor, so that explanation to me, as a surveyor, means

nothing.

I don't know why anyone would want to survey his own land

unless it were to find out for himself how much land he has, and that is quite

acceptable, you can do that. There is no Act to stop you from doing that. But,

if you are going to survey your own land for transfer to somebody else, then you

have to not only satisfy yourself as to what land you have, but you have to

satisfy someone else's lawyer or a bank or a mortgage company or Crown Lands or

whomever.

I guess the best example is Crown Lands, who will not accept

your surveying your own land. They will not accept me, as a licensed land

surveyor, surveying that piece of land. If I want a piece of Crown land, I have

to get somebody else to survey it. So, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand that

explanation. There might be something else to it, there may be another reason

but it was not given to me by the Clerk at the Table. Now, Mr. Chairman, I just

want to raise that, early, and when we get to clause 27, I certainly could move

the amendment, but I would prefer that the Government House Leader or someone

would move the amendment I suggested. It only defines who can act as a land

surveyor in this Province, and people who act as land surveyors in this Province

should be the people who are trained to do it, I would expect, who have passed

all the legal requirements. That is all this

section 27 (1) would say when it

was passed. So, Mr. Chairman, with those few words I just -

AN HON. MEMBER: So we agreed from 1 to 26?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, 1 to 26 are okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Chairman, it was indicated when the bill

was first introduced in the House of Assembly, this act is almost totally

drafted by the Surveyors Association of Newfoundland, as the hon. minister

knows, and it is about the sixth draft. He himself, I think, as minister,

encouraged and played a role in the drafting or introduced it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have only become aware

of the proposed amendment in the very recent past, but my advice is that there

is no reason for the amendment. If a person is a surveyor or knows how to use an

instrument and wants to survey his own land, why not? Obviously, the Crown Lands

Division will not accept it unless it is certified as a Crown Land of

Newfoundland, the banks will not accept it, and mortgage companies will not

accept it. If he wants to do it, why stop him? It is not recognized as a legal

document unless it is done by a recognized, certified surveyer.

So, Mr. Speaker, the advice, in the time that we have had to

get the advice, is that there is no need to entertain this amendment. It serves

no real purpose and, Mr. Speaker, on that basis - it is up to the hon. member -

we will not be proposing the amendment, and I doubt very much if there is a

reason for us to support the amendment. So, if the hon. member wishes to move

the amendment when we get to clause 27, then we will have to vote on it, Mr.

Speaker, but there is no real reason for or against it. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, we see no reason to support the amendment.

On motion, clauses 1 through 26 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 27 carry?

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move,

seconded by the Member for Harbour Main, the following amendment to clause 27.

Before I move it, I just want to say that the amendment I am

about to suggest is in

an Act now that is governed by this Legislature. It is

the exact same section, pretty well, the exact same wording that is in The

Engineers and Geoscientists Act today, the Act of 1988. So, this Legislature did

have this definition in a professional Act.

The minister again said, that if a person wants to survey his

own land, why shouldn't he be allowed to. Well, certainly he should be. Nobody

is stopping him. This amendment won't prevent anyone from surveying his own

land. This amendment prevents somebody who is not trained to be a land surveyer

from going out and purporting himself to be and doing a survey for, say, one of

the hon. members opposite, a survey that would not be legal and it could be paid

for. It is being done daily in this Province, people purporting themselves to be

surveyers are going about the Province doing surveys.

I will just give an example of one group that does it quite a

bit, the instrument men with the Department of Transport. Say an instrument man

is working out in a remote area of the Province, as they do quite often, and

somebody comes to him and asks him to get their land surveyed, get it marked and

cut out on a plan. That person doesn't know if he is a legal surveyer or an

instrument man with the Department of Highways or an instrument man with a

construction company.

So, in some area of the Province a person sees someone with

an instrument set up and they come to him and say, 'Look, can you survey my land

after work tonight or Saturday morning?' That fellow will say, 'Yes, sure, no

problem.' So, he will go and do the survey. He is not a licensed land surveyer,

but he will do the survey, he will mark it around and measure it as best he can.

And it might do as good as a surveyer does, I do not know. He probably wouldn't

have the property ties and the like, but, even if he did, he could do that

survey, charge that person a fee for doing it, and give the person the survey.

Now, if that person has that piece of land for the next ten

years and he is not intending to sell it, he doesn't have to register it because

it is his land. So, he has that survey that he believes to have been done by a

surveyer in his possession for ten years. Then he wants to raise some money on

that piece of land. That person would like to mortgage a house, his son might

like to build on it, he might wish to sell it to someone else, or a hundred

different reasons. That other person has to go through a lawyer or a mortgage

company, and this survey that the owner paid for in good faith with good money

is given to the mortgage company and the mortgage company says, 'Well, that was

not done by a legal land surveyer, you have to get another survey done.' Then

the problem starts, when a legal surveyer has to go back and do the survey over

again and charges this person extra money, which should never have been in the

first place. That is why -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible). They can do that today, if

somebody (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I agree. The hon. minister is quite

right, this can be done if there is no amendment. But what cannot be done or

could never be done under the old Act, and what I think might be a bit fuzzy in

this act. You could not get the person who did the survey and charge him for it.

Do you understand what I mean? You could not get the person who purported

himself to be the surveyor, and he was a surveyor with the Department of

Highways - his title might have been a surveyor, instrument man or whatever it

was, so technically he was a surveyor - but he was not a legal land surveyor. So

you could never, under the old act I know for sure, get that person convicted

for doing that survey. Under this act I have some assurance from the Table that

that cannot happen again, but to ensure that that will not happen again, I would

propose this amendment, which would be the same as

section 4.(1) of The

Engineers and Geosciences Act of 1988. This amendment, I request that - I will

just read out the letter that the surveyor's lawyer sent in:

I request that Bill 29 now being tabled be amended at the

Committee of the Whole stage as following: By adding the following as paragraph

(

a) of

section 27.(1). Paragraph (

a) would read: 'Engage in the practice of land

surveying' and the second part of that would be relettering the rest of

section

So the only addition, the amendment that I offer to

section

27.(1) is to add

section (a): 'Engage in the practice of land surveying.'

That sounds to me to be reasonable, but maybe it is not. I am

not sure. That would be, and I can table this, the amendment that I would

suggest, and it reads the whole paragraph, so

section 27.(1) would read as

follows. I will just read it out so that all members will know what they are

voting on. Whether they support it or not is up to them.

Section 27.(1) will

read as follows:

Section 27.(1): A person, firm, partnership, corporate body

or other association of persons except a land surveyor or holder of a

certificate of authorization under

section 25 'shall not engage in the practice'

it should read. 'Engage in the practice of land surveying' and it is wrong on

this, but 'engage in the practice of land surveying; (

b) be held out as being

entitled to engage in the practice of land surveying; (

c) to use the titles

"land surveyor" or "registered land surveyor" or the extension or abbreviation

of these titles; or use the name, title or designation or act in any manner that

may expressly or otherwise might lead to the belief that that person, firm,

partnership, corporate body or association is a registered land surveyor or a

holder of a certificate of authorization under this act.

That is the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, and I guess we

can vote on the amendment now if there are no other speakers.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 28 through to 66 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act." (Bill

No. 38).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 7.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The High Sheriff Of

Newfoundland." (Bill No. 27)

On motion, clauses 1 through 8 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 9 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. GOVER: With respect to clause 9, as I indicated the

other day when I introduced the bill for second reading, clause 9 now provides

for a somewhat antiquated language defining who may or may not participate in a

sheriff's sale. It provides for first and second degrees of consanguinity.

The amendment I wish to put forward today will take that

language out of the Act and adopt plain language: 'Brother and sister,

step-brother, step-sister,' etc., to set out the degrees of prohibition on this

particular sale.

I move that particular amendment seconded by the hon. the

President of the Council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 9 as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 10, carried.

On motion, clauses 11 through to 26, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 8.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Colleges Of Applied Arts,

Technology And Continuing Education." (Bill No. 37)

On motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again. Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill Nos.

22, 29, 38 and 37 carried without amendments, and Bill No 27 with amendments and

has asked leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bill Nos. 22, 29, 38,

and 37, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

On motion, amendment to Bill No. 27 with amendment read a

first and second time, bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Consolidation And Revision Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland," Bill No. 49.

MR. SPEAKER: The acting Minister of Justice.

MR. GOVER: The main purpose of Bill 49 is to provide a

mechanism for bringing of the revised statutes of Newfoundland for 1990 into

force. In the past the statute (inaudible) containing all the revised statutes

was actually brought into the House of Assembly. Most jurisdictions now read

this as an unnecessary formality, and provide instead for a copy of the revised

statutes to be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Assembly. Once the

revised statutes have been deposited with the Clerk, they are brought into force

on some date convenient, the date being fixed by proclamation of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Bill 49 provides for this. The remainder of Bill

49 simply reinforces the provisions of the statutes and the Supportive

Legislation Act respecting the preparation and revision, and sets out a number

of rules of

interpretation concerning the revision. That is basically the

purpose of the statute, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to entertain questions

from the hon. members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very

important and welcome measure. It is one that I initiated on becoming Minister

of Justice back in 1985. It is necessary periodically for statutes, the acts

that we and the Provincial Legislature pass, to be consolidated so that lawyers

and others needing to be informed about the laws can have easy access to them,

when we think of complicated legislation and bulky legislation such as, for

example, the Child Welfare Act or the Schools Act, or the Highway Traffic Act,

lengthy statutes that are frequently amended. After the passage of several years

it is very difficult to determine the state of the law.

In our Province since Confederation we have had only two

consolidations of our provincial laws. In 1952, and then eighteen years later in

1970 - I am told actually that the 1970 consolidation was not published until a

couple of years later, but it represented a consolidation up to 1970. I became

minister, as I mentioned, in 1985 and initiated the process of preparing another

consolidation aiming initially to have it done within eighteen years since

eighteen years elapsed from the 1952 consolidation to the 1970 revision. Of

course eighteen years after 1970 was 1988 and here we are in 1991, three years

beyond my original eighteen year target date. Now one of the reasons for the

length of time it has taken to prepare this consolidation is that, until

recently, our statutes were not computerized. Of course computer technology has

been developed only in recent years and has been added to the Office of the

Legislative Council only since the work of preparing this consolidation was

started.

Mr. Speaker, I have to pay tribute to the Office of the

Legislative Council and to the former senior Legislative Council, now our Clerk,

seated at our table, for their work in preparing this 1990 consolidation that is

being authorized by the bill presently before us. That represented a monumental

effort to assist the Legislative Council in their work. The former

administration, and I believe the current administration, provided additional

resources to the Office of the Legislative Council and the Law Foundation, which

is established under provincial legislation to administer the proceeds from

interest earned on lawyers' trust accounts, made a substantial donation to the

Provincial Government for the work of our Legislative Council in preparing a

consolidation, so I would like to, on this occasion, express appreciation to the

Law Foundation for their support of this effort.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in the work of preparing

this consolidation, computers were used by the Legislative Council, having been

added to their office. The next consolidation of statutes will be much easier

and will be accomplished much more readily that the previous revisions. I am

told that beyond the 1990 consolidation, any amendments will be added to the

computer data bank and the production of a consolidated version of each and

every act will be quite simple. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say again

that this is a very important and welcome measure, it will improved

the Law Foundation deserve credit for their efforts and thankfully, with the

modernization of the Office of the Legislative Council through the addition of

computers, future consolidations will be forthcoming on a much more speedy and

timely basis. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: I rise to speak in support of this

legislation. I do not have very much to say about it except to say that many

people around this Province who depend on having updated legislation to be able

to know what the state of the law is, have been long awaiting a new

consolidation of the statutes of Newfoundland, the act of bringing them

up-to-date and knowing for sure what the law is, is very time-consuming, not

only for individuals, members of the public but I am sure government offices and

departments over a time have spent a great deal of person hours or person days,

keeping statutes up-to-date and making sure that whatever laws are being dealt

with are the current versions of them.

I think, Mr. Speaker, one of the improvements that can now be

made with the onset of the technology available to the Government and to many

private individuals both law firms, Government agencies or people using

computers throughout the province, is the possibility that with the ongoing

computerization of legislation, the fact that the current work has been done on

computer, that there is the possibility of an almost revolving consolidation, as

each amendment or as each bill is passed in this Legislature, the systems are

now capable of having an automatic consolidation that could even be, in these

days, on a computer bank in the Legislative Council Office, and members of the

public could have access to it by computer modems and other forms of technology,

which are readily available now, Mr. Speaker, at a fairly moderate cost. This

bill obviously doesn't deal with that particular issue, but it certainly is an

administrative type matter.

I see the Minister of Justice listening very attentively to

this, so I know that he will be passing this suggestion on to his officials,

that consideration be given for having an ongoing consolidation, current,

up-to-date, based on insets being put in the computerized version of the

Consolidated Statutes, obviously with a notation as to when each

section was

last updated.

It would, Mr. Speaker, be a very convenient and a very

economical method of ensuring that up-to-date versions of Statutes are

available. It would save somebody having to do a cut and paste in departments

which happens from time to time for an office Consolidation of a Statute.

Mr. Speaker, I will say nothing further on that except that I

support this legislation and would ask that the House give speedy consideration

to its passage.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. If the

hon. Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to reiterate the commendations that the Member

for Humber East passed out to the Legislative Counsel and to the Law Foundation

for their assistance in the preparation of this particular revision of the

Statutes of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I must say, as a lawyer in private practice prior to 1988,

not only did the hon. member regret that she didn't meet her target date by

1988, but certainly I did. It was getting to be a nuisance having to go through

that many years of amendments. As the Member for Humber East points out,

particularly with acts like The Wildlife Act and other such acts, it gets very

difficult after a significant period of time to know exactly what the law is,

even for the lawyer, let alone the person who is not a lawyer.

I take her comments about computerization into consideration,

and also the comments made by the hon. Member for St. John's East. Perhaps we

could give some consideration, as the Federal Statutes are revised every decade,

to revising our Statutes every decade, as opposed to every two decades.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Consolidation And

Revision Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland." read a second time, ordered referred

to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 49)

MR. BAKER: Order 17, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 17.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Application And Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The

Legislature Upon the Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1990." (Bill No. 48)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 48 is a bridging Statute necessary for the following

reason: The revised Statues of Newfoundland, 1990 consolidates the law as it

stood on December 31, 1990. However, it will not come into force until the

spring of 1992 at the earliest. Hence, the acts passed in 1991, although having

to eventually be read with the Revised Statutes, 1990, must, at the time of

their passage, refer to the pre-1990 law.

Bill 48, the bridging Statute, states although the acts

passed in 1991 refer to pre-1990 law, they shall be read after the revised

Statutes of Newfoundland come into force, as referring to the law as it is

contained in the Revised Statutes of Newfoundland, 1990.

Basically, the effect of Bill 48, Mr. Speaker, is to

providing a bridging for the Revised Statutes of 1990.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Official Opposition, I express my agreement

with the principle of this bill. As the Minister explained, it is a necessary

bridging provision. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. If the

Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

co-operation from Her Majesty's loyal Opposition on this particular matter and

move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Application And

Effect Of Certain Acts Passed In The Present Session Of The Legislature Upon The

Revised Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1990," read a second time, ordered referred to

a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 48).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Order 18.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies

And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 52).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members are

aware, almost every year, a bill of this nature is introduced into the House of

Assembly to correct various errors and anomalies which have occurred in the

statutes which are passed in the House. Generally, these matters are of a

routine housekeeping nature and, indeed, most of the matters dealt with in this

particular bill are of a routine nature.

I would bring to the House's attention what I believe are the

most significant clauses in this bill, clauses 15, 19 and 20. These amendments

relate to the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, the Teachers' Pensions Act and

the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991. The purpose of these clauses is to

clarify the relationship between the marriage breakdown provisions in these

three acts and the division of pension on marriage breakdown in the Family Law

Act.

It was the intention all along that the Family Law Act would

govern these three pension acts, and the intention in introducing the

amendments, as proposed in clauses 15, 19 and 20 is to ensure that the general

law as set forth in the Family Law Act is applicable to these three pension

Acts.

Given the current state, as these acts currently stand, there

may be some argument on the issue as to the overriding nature of the Family Law

Act, and a number of representations have been made to the department from the

local Bar concerning this possible ambiguity. These particular clauses will

remove the ambiguity and make sure that the general law, as contained in the

Family Law Act governs these three pension provisions.

To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that is the most important

change that this particular bill would introduce. I advise members of that, and

with that I await members' questions on this particular matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that none of

us can avoid making errors and passing laws with anomalies. It is nice to see

that the new 'real change' administration is not perfect.

I want to thank the minister for pointing out the clauses of

this bill that are particularly noteworthy. Quite honestly, I have not had a

chance to go through this bill and determine the consequence of the various

amendments. I take the minister at his word that all of the amendments are of a

technical, minor, housekeeping nature. I assume that in the usual way, this was

initiated by the Office of the Legislative Council in their ongoing work

involving reviewing the statutes, and perhaps represents some errors and

anomalies spotted in the consolidation effort.

As for the three clauses the minister underlined, I am

assuming from his explanation that they are calculated to make clear that the

Family Law Act predominates in any potential conflict relating to the division

of pension contributions or pension assets upon a marriage termination. If that

is so, it is a principle that I would have no hesitation in supporting.

Mr. Speaker, when we get to the Committee clause-by-clause

detailed examination, if by then, after I have had a chance to look at this more

carefully, I have any questions, I will certainly raise them then. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, in

principle, we have no problem with correcting errors and anomalies in the

statute law. I am quite surprised that the Member for Humber East had to wait

for this legislation to come before the House to realize that the Government was

not perfect. However, there are a few sections, the significance of which I

wonder if the minister could explain, because they seem to be more than errors

and anomalies and perhaps they are not. But

Section 6, Mr. Speaker is a repeal

of one

section of the Expropriation Act,

section 57, and substituting one which

allows the minister, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, to dispose of land vested in him on behalf of the Crown under the

that the minister considers appropriate.

Now, that seems to be a fairly high level of discretion, Mr.

Speaker, without any necessity of there being tenders or public tenders on that,

and I wonder whether that is a change in substance from the previous section. I

do not have the Expropriation Act before me. Perhaps the minister can explain

what

section 57 was before the minister is given the p