November

14, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 70

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I am releasing

the recommendations of an incident investigation involving the disappearance of

an employee from the Bull Arm construction site. The employee disappeared on

March 29, 1991 from a tug and at this time his whereabouts are still unknown.

A review of the incident has resulted in no evidence of any

violation of legislative requirements concerning occupational health and safety

which could have contributed to the employee's disappearance.

It is regrettable that the incident occurred and while there

is no evidence of violation of any regulations, my Department has made a number

of recommendations resulting from their investigation into the incident. The

recommendations are as follows:

That a log should be maintained at all times on the tug

boats. All persons entering or leaving such tugs either for work or non-work

related reasons should be noted in the logbook;

The Department of Employment and Labour Relations,

Occupational Health and Safety Division, should identify and advertise a

twenty-four hour number for reporting of accidents or incidents. This number

should be serviced by an answering machine outside normal working hours;

Thirdly, the principal contractors on the Bull Arm site

should consider identification of a single phone number serviced by an answering

machine or answering service for reporting of such accidents or incidents on

site.

Mr. Speaker, these recommendations will be implemented as

soon as possible and this will make the reporting process, not only for the Bull

Arm site but for all workplaces in the Province, much more efficient and allow a

faster response should an accident or incident occur in the future. Thank you.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Minister for providing me with an

advance copy of his statement. The Minister did not indicate who did the review

of the accident. Was it the people at Occupational Health and Safety or the

officials in his Department? Exactly, who did the review? The Minister also

noted that future accidents should be reported to a twenty-four hour answering

machine. The question is, if the accident occurs on Friday afternoon when is the

machine checked to see if there was a report of an accident? Simply the

reporting of an accident does not indicate that action will take place. The

Minister might remember that when the last tragedy occurred it took some time

for the investigation to begin once the accident had been reported, and I am not

sure how putting a message on an answering machine is going to alleviate a

situation such as we had before.

The Minister indicates the recommendations are going to be

implemented as soon as possible. My question to the Minister is why can they not

be implemented now? We had occasion to visit the Bull Arm site, the land

operations, and there is no question in my mind that safety was uppermost in the

minds of the contractors there, but if we have such concerns about safety on the

tugs and the barges then the Minister should implement the recommendations as

soon as possible. In addition to that the Minister might be aware that a number

of people in Occupational Health and Safety were eliminated from their positions

last year. This year the Department cut down one, two, or three people in that

particular division. Instead of reducing the numbers the Minister should be

increasing the numbers so that this kind of thing would not occur.

Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today

the details of a $1 million expenditure by Municipal and Provincial Affairs

under the earlier announced Emergency Employment Response Programme.

This funding is designed to provide immediate job creation

programmes to maximize the weeks of work for employment insurance qualification

in the coming year.

It will be recalled that when my colleague, the Minister of

Employment and Labour, announced the details of this strategy it was stated that

the first component is designed to assist residents acquire jobs that will

result in long-term attachment to the labour force providing challenging and

meaningful employment. The expenditures being announced today under Municipal

and Provincial Affairs are associated with the second component of that strategy

-namely to provide immediate job creation programmes.

Approximately $150,000 of this $1 million was earlier

announced for recreation-type projects in Labrador.

Today I am pleased to announce that an amount of $408,500 is

to be allocated for recreation-type projects in some thirty-one different

communities throughout the island portion of the Province. These projects are in

the range of between $10,000 and $20,000 and in most cases the funds are to be

expended for the upgrading, repair and extension of recreation facilities

including community centres, playgrounds, arenas, and ball fields, et cetera.

An amount of $404,000 is to be allocated for Local Service

Districts under the Community Water Services Programme of the Department and

these funds will be used primarily to extend and improve water supply systems.

Projects ranging in price from $10,000 to $30,000 have been

approved for a total of twenty-four Local Service Districts and, as indicated,

these funds will be utilized for water supply projects including the

construction of pump houses, intakes, extensions to water mains, et cetera.

The total for Municipal and Provincial Affairs projects

approved to date amounts to $962,500 and it is likely that another one or two

projects will be announced shortly to round out the expenditure of $1 million.

We are all aware that the failure of the inshore fishery in

many regions of the Province has had a major economic impact on fishermen, plant

workers and the economy in general.

Hopefully, the infusion of these provincial dollars -

together with the amounts that have been allocated by other provincial

departments - will have the positive effect of generating some badly needed

opportunities for employment throughout the Province.

My Department was hopeful of approving and announcing these

projects at an earlier date, however, considerable planning was required due to

the large number of initiatives. Now that they have been approved they will be

implemented in a speedy and timely manner.

Attached, Mr. Speaker, is a list of all the projects

approved, including those that were earlier announced for Labrador.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just got a copy - I suppose the Minister knew

what was in it, that is the only difference, and I did not - but it was put on

my desk just previous to the Minister reading his statement. Having said that, I

saw this second part when I just returned from lunch. It was sent out through

NIS; the statement was made through NIS and sent out. When the Minister was

talking to me about it, I thought it was something new; but looking at this, Mr.

Speaker, there is absolutely nothing new except for the latter part of it.

Pertaining to the request for funding for municipalities:

right after the announcements were made by the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations concerning long-term employment, and short-term employment, and

meaningful employment, and providing challenging and meaningful employment, some

weeks ago, I called the western office of Municipal Affairs in Corner Brook and

was told the money was gone and that was the day after, so how can we say that

it took so long because the programmes are so difficult and it took so long to

go through the programmes it just took too long to do it. I just cannot see it.

I was told at that time that all the projects were announced and gone.

I would say that probably there are going to be some of those

expenditures not taken advantage of because I do not see what a community can do

with a ball field and a playground at this time of the year. Now the arenas and

the community centres I can see that could be meaningful, but with regards to

long-term employment in the other parts of this particular programme, there is

no way, Mr. Speaker, that that can be taken advantage of.

Pertaining to the water services: in some cases and in most

cases I cannot see how municipalities are going to take advantage of that. I

know in Sop's Arm - I realize the Minister has one here for Sop's Arm in my

district - it is pretty well too late to do anything, nevertheless, I suppose

they can start shovelling the snow off it, we had six inches of snow Tuesday

morning and they can probably shovel the snow off it for now and hope for a mild

spell so they can get at it and put the water line in, so I suppose having said

that, they may be able to take advantage of it.

I have not had time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Premier, but in his absence I will have to put the question to the

Government House Leader, the Acting Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health announced the awarding of a

$24 million contract to Trans City Holdings Limited for three new health care

facilities for Burgeo, Port Saunders and St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I want to ask the Government House Leader on

behalf of the Premier: Since three separate build lease tenders were called for

each of these facilities, can the Government House Leader tell us if Trans City

Holdings Limited was the lowest bidder on each tender?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, because I am acting Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation I have some immediate knowledge of that

process. First of all, a general tender call was put in the paper calling for a

variety of proposals. I believe, in terms of the three put together there were

seventeen or eighteen proposals received, and they were analyzed. During the

analysis process it was decided that the proposals that were strictly wood were

not suitable. There was another proposal that involved a tin structure which was

not suitable to the purposes, and by the process of elimination, that left the

brick, steel proposals which were then examined in more detail. The short answer

to the member's question is, I believe that two of the proposals with regard to

the wooden structures had a cheaper price.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to ask the Government House Leader, since neither

of the three contracts were awarded to the low bidder - neither of the three - I

want to ask him if he would confirm information that is circulating furiously,

at the moment, in this city, that the total of the low bids for all three

facilities was only $18 million, $6 million less than the $24 million contract

awarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. The information given by the

hon. member is not correct. The information given in his question is simply not

correct. The decision was made that we could not go with, as I indicated, a tin

structure because that would not be suitable. The decision was also made that

because of the long-term maintenance costs and the durability, we would not go

with wooden structures. So the only proposals that were examined in detail were

the ones involving brick and steel. I would like to say to the hon. member that

this process was obvious and the tender call was a very general call asking for

proposals, and the lowest or any would not necessarily be accepted. In terms of

the brick, steel structures that we finally decided upon after examining all of

the proposals, the contract was awarded, in each case, to the lowest bidder.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House

Leader can tell us what the specifications called for. What did they call for,

brick, tin, wood? What did the specifications call for?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall specifically, but

I can go back and get a copy of the thing and provide it to the hon. gentlemen

as quickly as possible.

I would also like to point out to the hon. gentlemen, that

tied in with all the proposals - these were lease-purchase proposals - a

significant factor, I believe, in the awarding of the contract was the cost of

money, the least cost. That significantly affected the bottom line. So that if

the construction costs on two buildings was $8.5 million or something within

that vicinity, or $8 million, then the proposal that had the cheapest money

available was the proposal that was, in fact, cheapest, in terms of the lease

rate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I smell a rat, I say to the

Government House leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: It is an example, I think, of the turning back

to the good old Liberal days of cost plus. That is what we are going to see

here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Government House Leader this: Can he

confirm that Marco Ltd. will be the main contractor for the three facilities

being built for Trans City Holdings? Secondly, can he advise the House, if he is

aware, since the Premier is not here, if the Premier personally met and

discussed this particular tender call with the President of Marco before the

contracts were awarded? Is he aware of that?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of questions there. I am not aware of

anything the Premier may or may not have been doing. I suggest the gentleman ask

the Premier that particular question.

The other question involved the contractor that was used by

Trans City Holdings, which had the lowest proposal. I think the proposal was in

two parts. The first part was using funds which was the significant part, by

Confederation Life, who were a major component of this, and I believe they were

using Marco as the construction company. I think the principals of Trans City

Holdings, if I remember correctly, are two individuals. The majority owner is

one, Joe Butler, and the other owner is one, Bill Case.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

a question for the Premier also, but I guess in his absence - I understand he is

gone down talking to Norm Whalen now to see which other one goes out of Cabinet

next week. Since he is not here, I would like to ask the President of Treasury

Board if he would have the Premier, or maybe the Department of Justice, table in

this House a list of all work that the designated Minister of Justice, Ed

Roberts, has done for this Government since 1989?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think that information is

public information but I will see to it that we do, in fact, and we will go back

beyond 1989 and put together a complete list of the work that particular law

firm has done for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

appreciate the list, as far back as the Minister will go, but to 1989 will be

satisfactory to me. I wonder does the President of Treasury Board also know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Ed Roberts did no work for me, that is

the only thing I know, when I was in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: He was a Member of this House while I was

Minister, most often, I believe he was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder would the President

of Treasury Board also - maybe he could check with the Premier, or ask the

Premier - what will Mr. Roberts' salary be when he becomes Minister of Justice

in January? Will he continue to receive his MHA's pension, which he is receiving

now? Or is there an arrangement made so that the new Minister of Justice will

receive a supplement similar to what the Premier received when he was leader of

the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Good try, Bob. Mr. Speaker, I think it is

quite obvious and public knowledge what the salary of a Cabinet Minister is.

However, I would inform the hon. Member that I do not know what that figure is.

But there is a salary figure to be paid Cabinet Ministers, but I do not recall

specifically what it is.

The second point is the MHA pension: there is no way that an

individual can receive a pension and serve as a Member of the House. So

obviously if a Member is being paid as a Minister in this Government that Member

cannot at the same time receive a pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I know that hon. Members opposite may have

different opinions. One of their Members, currently resigned, is getting $65,000

pension from us and $80,000 from the Feds. But we are not about to do that kind

of thing, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. (Inaudible) some

questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In response to a

question from me last week the Minister stated, and he also stated publicly,

that the proposed fire service in Mount Pearl will be somehow less safe than the

present service being provided because the department at the moment does not

have an aerial ladder truck. I just remind the Minister that if it were deemed

necessary, which it is not, to have a ladder truck we could buy two out of the

savings that we will have in the first year of operation. In fact, we could buy

five if the Minister would agree to the 75-25 financing that is given to every

other municipality in the Province.

My question to the Minister is this: on whose advice did he

make such a statement, that the fire service in Mount Pearl would be unsafe

without an aerial ladder truck?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, on the advice of my officials

and the Fire Commissioner's office and all those involved in fire protection in

the northeast Avalon, and indeed in the Province. But even without that advice

it is rather obvious that you cannot protect an area as large as Mount Pearl

with inadequate equipment. I would suggest that you do not need a great deal of

advice to understand that the two pieces of equipment in place now are not

adequate. If you look at Donovans Industrial Park, if you look at the topography

of the land in Mount Pearl - I do not just mean the land in one particular part

of Mount Pearl, but all of Mount Pearl - the difficulty of the terrain, the

difficulty to access various parts of Mount Pearl, and in particular, referring

back to Donovans, the difficulty of protecting Donovans Industrial Park,

certainly requires a different configuration of equipment than is in place right

now. I stand by that statement, I think it is very correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find it curious. Donovans

Industrial Park, I might advise the Minister, is a modern industrial park and

every building in there has a fully serviceable fire sprinkler system within the

building. In fact the last fire that was in there, in the Sears Warehouse, the

fire was extinguished by the sprinkler system and the ladder truck was not

necessary for that.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister might like to think about that

statement and on whose advice he gave it. I advise him that the fire equipment

that has been purchased by the Mount Pearl Fire Department was purchased totally

in conjunction with, and on the advice of the Fire Commissioner, and everybody

in knowledge.

I would also like to refer the Minister, Mr. Speaker - I will

send him a copy of this letter - to a letter dated September 18, 1984,

admittedly some time ago, and it is signed by the Deputy Minister of Justice at

the time, the Deputy Minister who was responsible for the St. John's Fire

Department. 'It is the view of the St. John's Fire Department that it would not

be necessary for any fire department established by Mount Pearl to have an

aerial ladder, and at the rare occasion when this would be required in Mount

Pearl it would be better provided through any mutual aid agreement that would be

reached between the St. John's Fire Department and the Town of Mount Pearl.

In view of those statements, and in view of the Fire

Commissioners involvement in establishing the Mount Pearl Fire Department,

including interviewing people in Halifax, would the Minister now like to tell us

who gave us that terrible advice?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for officials

back in 1984, nor for decisions made back in 1984, or since 1984, concerning the

Mount Pearl Fire Department; the establishment of the building, the placement of

equipment, and so on. I can only speak for today. Certainly the advice I

received says that we need a different configuration of equipment, or indeed

Mount Pearl has to rely, which it will rely as part of a regional service, on

equipment placed elsewhere of a different type in other buildings and other

stations. That in fact is the rationale for a regional fire department. Where

five or six stations back one another up you do not need to have aerial trucks

in every single building, granted, but you can only have a proper fire fighting

service if it is done regionally where one can back the other up and between all

five or six stations together they have all the equipment that is necessary for

any type of fire.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Let me tell the Minister, as he has been

told many times, that it is fully the intent of the Mount Pearl Fire Department

to have a mutual aid agreement with the St. John's Fire Department. I do not

think there is any dispute about that. The question here, Mr. Speaker, is the

need for an aerial ladder truck. Would the Minister like to explain why, all of

a sudden, there is such a need for an aerial ladder truck in Mount Pearl? We are

now being serviced by the Brookfield Road Fire Station and it does not have an

aerial ladder truck. It did have an aerial ladder truck and it was thought to be

unnecessary and it has been removed from the Brookfield Fire Station and the

special bay that was constructed for it is being used for storage. How then does

the Minister justify his statement now that Mount Pearl must have an aerial

ladder truck? What foolishness, Mr. Speaker.

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

Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has a great

ability to twist and contort everything that is said and quoted. The fact of the

matter is, Mr. Speaker, that when I mentioned an aerial ladder truck I meant it

in the context of the need for a regional fire fighting department that included

all types of equipment. In isolation to a regional fire department, Mount Pearl

could not properly protect itself with its existing equipment. In fact I stand

by that statement, that an aerial truck is necessary. Several aerial trucks are

necessary to properly protect the St. John's region which presently includes

Mount Pearl as a partner in that region and a partner in that agreement, which

they are now proposing to walk away from.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Education. I wonder if the Minister would inform the House if his Department is

having problems living within the Departmental salary vote, and if it is

anticipated that there may be more layoffs in that Department?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it has been a difficult year for

the Department of Education. We are not fully within the budget for this year

but we are taking action other than layoffs to try to live within our budget.

That is our goal this year, Mr. Speaker, to live fully within the budget. We do

not anticipate major layoffs, or any layoffs at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, part of the Minister's problem is

that they do have an $160,000 overrun on salaries, apparently. I wonder if he

could tell us if there have been any layoffs, or are any anticipated at the

School for the Deaf?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed, and I do

not have all the details of this, but I will get the details for the hon.

Member, but I have been informed that they do have an overrun at the School for

the Deaf and we are looking at ways to deal with it. I will get the information

for the hon. member and report to the House on that.

MR. HEARN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would

tell us if he is aware that security on buses bringing the students to and from

the School for the Deaf have been reduced from two persons to one, making it

extremely difficult for one person to carry out the task, as well as setting up

an extremely dangerous situation, in light of things that have happened in the

past.

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

DR. WARREN: Is the hon. member speaking about busing for

the School for the Deaf?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing the whole

busing system for the Province, and that includes the School for the Deaf. I

might say, we have some major problems with busing throughout the Province.

There are areas where we can rationalize a service and we are looking at the

School for the Deaf in that context; but I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker,

that we are doing nothing that in any way detracts from safety. Safety is number

one in school busing, and we will ensure that a safe service will be provided

for all of our students.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite evident that the minister is totally unaware of

what is going on and he is just trying to talk around the answer. Will the

minister confirm that his department does have a severe overrun in salaries, and

will he also confirm the previous statement that he will not, in light of that,

have any layoffs within the department? Will he make that commitment?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall precisely the

budget of the department, but it is in the tens of millions of dollars and

$160,000 or whatever he said was an overrun is a very small amount at any one

point in time. I cannot assure the House that there will be no layoffs but, at

this point in time, we do not anticipate layoffs. We hope to live within our

budget by making other reductions and other adjustments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The

Department of Fisheries and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

announced a package two weeks ago to deal the employment crisis in the Province.

I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the House whether or

not his paltry $2 million component to help fishermen and fish plant workers out

and about the Province, has been spent yet by his department.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to inform the

House tomorrow morning, by way of a Ministerial Statement exactly what has

happened to what, regretfully, the hon. member refers to as a paltry $2 million.

Tomorrow morning, I will be able to make a statement and inform the House of

exactly what we have done with it and some of the benefits that we have derived

from it.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware of the severe problems being

encountered out and about the Province. We are seeing protests taking place now

in a number of communities because people are ineligible for one reason or

another under the criteria laid down for the Fisheries Response Program, as it

is commonly called. I wonder if the minister could inform the House whether or

not he is giving serious consideration to increasing the $2 million allocation,

to put another $2 million, $3 million, $4 million or $5 million into the program

to take care of some of those very serious problems around the Province.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House now that we

are responding in a very positive way to just about every request we are getting

for assistance. In fact, I was told no later than an hour ago that of the $1

million we have set aside as a means of topping up fishery-related programs

approved by the Federal Government, there is still a considerable amount of that

money left, but we are responding favourably to just about every single request

we get. Where there has been funding approved by the Federal Government,

Employment and Immigration, where people request topping up funding from my

department to buy materials, for example, that we are able to meet those

requests as fast as they come in. So, to suggest that we need $4 million or $5

million more put into that fund just does not make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: It makes a lot of sense, Mr. Speaker,

because what the minister is doing is giving out $10,000 grants about the

Province to fishermen's committees, and so on, for materials. And the problem is

- is the minister aware that there are hundreds of fishermen and fish plant

workers out and about the Province who, up to today, anyway, are told they are

ineligible, the criteria is not flexible enough to accommodate them for one

reason or another. The fishery has been so bad for the last four or five years

that they are now telling those people who have had to avail of the Fisheries

Response Program for the last four or five years, that they have no historic

attachment to the fishery. So, that is the real problem, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister - in light of that, and

because of the requests to the Federal Government, to the Federal Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, and to Employment and Immigration Ministers, the criteria

has still not been made any more flexible. There is a definite need out and

about the Province. As members in this House said yesterday, they are being

bombarded by telephone calls from their districts. Will the minister consider

asking his colleagues in Cabinet for a few million dollars more to take care of

some of those very legitimate concerns out and about the Province, so that

people will not be cold and hungry this winter.

MR. SIMMS: Very well asked.

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

MR. CARTER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

Newfoundland, especially the fishermen of Newfoundland, would be better served

if the hon. gentleman made representation to his friend in Ottawa, Mr. John

Crosbie, because the criteria that has been established, by which these grants

are made, was designed in Ottawa and is being administered by a federal

department. The Province had nothing whatever to do with respect to setting the

guidelines and establishing the criteria for make-work grants.

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you?

MR. CARTER: We are responding, Mr. Speaker, as we are

requested to do, by people who get access to those funds, and if there are

bottlenecks within the system, as there are - and I will be the first to admit

that - then he should talk to his soul mate in Ottawa, Mr. Crosbie, and Mr.

Valcourt, by the way, that other gentleman, and ask those gentlemen to maybe

relax on their specifications and criteria and do what they set out to do, what

Mr. Crosbie promised he would do.

In fact, I should remind the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker,

that when the amount was announced there were some questions raised by certain

people in Newfoundland as to exactly what extent it would meet the problem. Mr.

Crosbie indicated, 'If it is not enough money, then we will find more money.'

So I ask him now to ask his friend to make good on that

promise and provide more money.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. It is totally

unbelievable!

My final supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries for

Newfoundland and Labrador is, when is he going to start behaving and acting like

the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: John Crosbie may not do everything we want

him to do, or do it right, but I tell you one thing, it is not because he does

not work and act.

So I ask the Minister of Fisheries: When is he going to stand

up for Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and fish plant workers and get out

and about and do something in this Province and access some funds from his

provincial coffers to help the people who are out there today, desperate, who

are calling in to our offices, some of them, by the way, down and out, some

women crying because they do not know how they are going to get food for the

next week or two? I ask the minister, what is he going to do about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: I am tempted to say that the question is not

worthy of an answer, because he knows as well as I do that the Province is doing

all it can to respond to the current crisis in the fishing industry. My

colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has put quite a lot

of money on the table. My colleague from the Department of Social Services has

provided a lot of money to help alleviate the problem, and the Province is doing

all it can.

Again I repeat, if he is not satisfied with the way things

are going, then I suggest that he direct his comments to his friend in Ottawa,

Mr. Crosbie, and Mr. Valcourt, and ask them to do what they should be doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is to the Minister responsible for Environment

and Lands. I would like to ask the minister, would he table in this House copies

of water and soil samples that his department has taken from the abandoned

uranium mine between Makkovik and Postville?

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

Lands.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under

advisement and respond to the hon. gentleman as soon as possible.

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

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

A supplementary to the minister: Is the minister aware that

in this particular area, between Postville and Makkovik, there are high readings

of radioactive material in that area, and is the minister concerned that the

Atomic Energy Board has expressed concern and advised people not to go camping

or travelling near the site?

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

Lands.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am also aware that the

various agencies, the Federal Government, Atomic Energy, and Environment and

Lands, in Newfoundland, are right now looking at the situation as it applies to

the deposit of uranium that had been previously explored.

Mr. Speaker, one should be careful, because when one

recognizes that the mine, itself, in that area was a uranium mine - uranium

gives off radioactivity. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, where uranium-bearing ores were

exposed, obviously, there would be a higher level of radioactivity than there

would be in a place where it is not so.

I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, to put some minds at

ease, as well, that my reading of reports and statements made in the press

indicated that there were core and various mining materials left around, and the

impression was given that they were scattered all over the ground. That, Mr.

Speaker, is not so.

Radio-active cores and other radio-active material are stored

in buildings on the site, so, Mr. Speaker, I just provided that information,

which I hope will keep people from worrying any more than they should. But I

want to assure the House that the Department of Environment, working with the

other agencies responsible for that site, are presently looking at what they

will be doing and addressing it, themselves, in future.

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

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

supplementary is to the Minister of Environment and Lands. It is estimated that

it is going to cost between $500,000 to $700,000 to clean up this particular

site. Could the minister advise if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

will be contributing to the clean-up of this particular site?

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

Lands.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, through the Department of Environment and Lands will do whatever

is right and appropriate to do, but I will take that question under advisement

and further address myself to it at a more appropriate time.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, there is time

for a short question and a short answer.

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

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Last week, the minister tabled the report of the Review

Committee of the Workers' Compensation Board, and one of the discussions noted

in it was about the length of time it took to see a medical specialist in this

Province. That problem has existed for some time and seems to be getting worse.

Can the minister inform this House if he has any plans now,

immediately, not when the recommendations are implemented, to deal with this

present crisis? Because injured workers are still awaiting diagnosis and medical

treatment and/or benefits?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I thank the

hon. member for the question. As he knows, and as it was stated in the House,

there is nothing that will change in terms of anyone's claim currently being

processed before the Workers' Compensation Commission and the review directs and

points out the Government's impossibilities for us and the overhaul of the whole

system, which we will look at early in the new year. Anything else that applies

to any individual worker being disadvantaged can be taken care of at any time by

that worker approaching the compensation system, or if they have a real problem

and they would like to deal with it more quickly, many of them have called my

office and had it dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Petitions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with great pride, to present a

petition on behalf of the men and women of the Mount Pearl Fire Department. I

would like to take this opportunity to welcome them. Most of them, if not all of

them, are seated in the gallery behind me. They are a very fine group of young

people, and we are very proud of them.

Mr. Speaker, they, on their own initiative, have undertaken

to circulate a petition, and I am very proud to present a petition with more

than 16,000 names.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Last spring, Mr. Speaker, I presented a

petition with some 15,000 names, I think, that was collected in one evening by a

host of people who canvassed the City of Mount Pearl. These people, Mr. Speaker,

on their own, have knocked on every door, and have more than ninety-nine per

cent of the people of Mount Pearl totally supportive of their petition.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the Prayer of the Petition, as I

must. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

given notice of intent to revise the City of Mount Pearl Act to eliminate the

democratic right of our citizens to own and operate a fire department and;

WHEREAS we will be the only municipality in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador that effectively would be legislated out of fire

protection and suppression services and;

WHEREAS the citizens of Mount Pearl own the most modern

fire station in Newfoundland, and is equipped with the latest state-of-the-art

fire fighting equipment and;

WHEREAS independent studies have shown that we can

operate our own fire services for $500,000 per year less than the St. John's

Fire Department and;

WHEREAS thirty men and women have been hired and are now

in a state of readiness to serve their community in the protection of life and

property.

THEREFORE the undersigned residents of Mount Pearl

petition the Premier, and the hon. House of Assembly, to reject the Government's

proposal and allow the citizens of Mount Pearl the democratic right

afforded all other citizens of our Province, to own and operate their own

FIRE PROTECTION AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS.

Mr. Speaker, this is signed by myself, of course, and by over

15,000 other residents of the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have spoken on

this issue in this hon. House. I do not know how many times I have to say to

this Government that it is the democratic right of the people of Mount Pearl to

own and operate their own fire department.

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I referred to a letter

from the Deputy Minister of Justice, written in 1984 but valid nevertheless. I

would like to quote another paragraph from that letter, Mr. Speaker, from the

Deputy Minister of Justice to the Town Manager of Mount Pearl, and I quote, "The

Department recognizes the right of municipalities under the Municipalities Act,

to establish and run a fire department. Sections 188 to 189 do not, in fact,

require the approval of the Provincial Government before a municipal fire

department is established."

The only approval which is required is with respect to the

making of fire regulations. Therefore the decision to establish a fire

department is ultimately that of the municipality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was in 1984. I could refer to another

note a little later -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - since the Minister says: well, that was a

long time ago. Let me refer to a Minute of Cabinet, C-68 of 1988. It says:

directed that the Department of Municipal Affairs is authorized to assist the

Town of Mount Pearl in the establishment of a fire hall, and so forth. Let me

read that into the record. So let there be no question that not only does the

City of Mount Pearl as it is now have the right under legislation, under the

City of Mount Pearl Act, as it did under The Municipalities Act when it was a

town, to own, operate and establish a fire department.

It certainly has a democratic right to do so. The people have

spoken loudly and clearly. The petition circulated last year against the

proposed amalgamation scheme, which included not only the taking away from the

people of Mount Pearl their fire department but taking away in fact the very

City itself and making it part of the City of St. John's. People spoke loudly

and clearly last spring, Mr. Speaker, and they have spoken loudly again on this

specific issue of owning and operating their own fire department in the City of

Mount Pearl.

Now the Minister can stand up and make all the statements he

wants about the lack of safety of the proposal because there is not an aerial

ladder truck. He is talking through his mouth, through his jaw, through the top

of his head. He says he is saying that on the advice of the Fire Commissioner. I

for one do not believe him. The Fire Commissioner's advice was not only sought,

but all other fire departments established, totally in conjunction with the Fire

Commissioner, who as we have just confirmed in Bill 53, I believe it was - it

was debated here and it has had second reading; it has not yet been given final

approval in this House - who is the officer of this Province who has the

responsibility and the authority not only to advise the Minister, but to advise

municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have another

opportunity, but I take great pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the

citizens of Mount Pearl and on behalf of the fire department, and ask it be

referred to the department to which it relates, some 16,000 names.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and make

a few comments in support of this petition by the Member for Mount Pearl. Some

16,000 signatures, I think, were collected by the firemen in the City of Mount

Pearl. A significant number, when you are talking about a population I believe

of - what? Twenty-three thousand, 24,000 people in all?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Something like that in total. To have

16,000 signatures passed to a Member collected by the firemen themselves, I do

believe, says something as far as I am concerned for the citizens of Mount

Pearl, and more specifically on behalf of the fire brigade and the fire

department in the City of Mount Pearl.

What I cannot understand about all this - here is a Member on

this side of the House representing the City of Mount Pearl. We have a Member on

the other side of the House representing a part of the City of Mount Pearl, a

significant part, I might add, when you are talking about, I think, 25 per cent

to 30 per cent. I cannot - and can any other Member in the House? - today

picture themselves sitting in this Chamber and getting up and so forcefully,

arrogantly, and dictatorially telling a city which he represents, 25 per cent of

the people, that: no, you are wrong.

There is a principle here, Mr. Speaker. Democracy, I thought,

was always supposed to give people a choice. In pursuing democracy over the

years one of the acts that was instituted, a specific act, one that pertains to

the City of Corner Brook, another that covers all other municipalities in

Newfoundland, The Municipalities Act, and more specifically, The City of Mount

Pearl Act, to incorporate the City of Mount Pearl.

In that Act, Mr. Speaker, there is

Section 215 which states

categorically and quite clearly that the City of Mount Pearl has the right to

put into effect a fire department in their own community, in their own city. Not

only do they have the right, Mr. Speaker, but it is a democratic right and one

that should be based on principle, if nothing else, and morality if you want to

carry it that far. They are paying their way. They have not asked for monies.

They are paying their way and the citizens of Mount Pearl are saying that in the

signatures that are on the Member's desk today and in the work done by the

firemen in the City of Mount Pearl. They said it in spades when they put their

name on it, that we have that democratic right. We are willing to pay. Nowhere

on that petition, nowhere in the past two years did I see a request from the

citizens of Mount Pearl asking this Administration to give us X number of

dollars so that we can operate our own fire department. I did not see it in the

past, I do not see it today, and I suspect we will not see it in the future. If

someone can give me, and tell me, the rationale behind telling a community,

town, or a city in this Province: I am sorry, ladies and gentlemen, you do not

have that right. Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned earlier, I believe in

response to a question from the Member for Mount Pearl, that they had some kind

of a mutual agreement, pertaining to a regional fire department for the City in

conjunction with St. John's. Why did not the Minister, I asked this question

yesterday, why did he not bring in the Regional Services Board Act? It went

through the House last year and we had to invoke closure because the great rush

was on, the stampede had started, and then all of a sudden the House closed and

to this day the Regional Services Board Act has not even been proclaimed, let

alone anything else done with it. Now, that to me, again, Mr. Speaker, begs some

questions and more importantly deserves some answers. If the Regional Services

Board Act was in place and the citizens of Mount Pearl, or the City of Mount

Pearl, the council in Mount Pearl, wanted to, in conjunction with the City of

St. John's, put into place a regional -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this petition

has been taken up over a number of days and people have been asked to sign the

petition from not just Mount Pearl but from all over the area, people not

necessarily directly affected and knowing very little, if anything, about the

issue. I understand that a lot of comments from people who have signed the

petition, to people who are asking that they sign, is that: we know very little

about this. Of course, they signed it anyway. I think that comment is very

pertinent, Mr. Speaker. It is true of a lot of petitions, of course, people

often sign petitions not often knowing very much about what they are being asked

to sign. I think it is very unfortunate that the people of Mount Pearl, in this

case in particular, are being badly mislead by their city council and by their

Member, I might add, badly mislead. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that

this House of Assembly in the Spring of this year passed resolutions and made a

decision that we would have a regional fire department for the northeast Avalon,

as we have right now, Mr. Speaker. We have in place right now a regional fire

department. We are not creating something new. The only change is that it is

moving from provincial jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the municipalities in

the northeast Avalon to be administered by the City of St. John's. Now, that was

clearly the intend of this House in the Spring. Now on the face of that, in

spite of that, and in defiance of the House, the Mount Pearl council decided

that it would defy the Government, ignore the resolution that was passed, and

proceed to hire a Fire Chief and firemen, or firepersons, if you like, for the

City of Mount Pearl Fire Station.

I see that, Mr. Speaker, as being grossly and completely

unfair to these people. I hope they were forewarned that there was, indeed, a

regional fire-fighting service imminent, decided upon by this House, and that

their employment would be short-lived. Mr. Speaker, that is the fact of the

matter. Is that not the fact? Is it not true that this House passed that

resolution? I believe it was.

If that is true, Mr. Speaker, the Council of Mount Pearl is

defying this House and that is very unfortunate and very unfair to the people of

Mount Pearl, in particular, the people of Mount Pearl and, more specifically, I

guess, the employees who have been hired under false pretences. And I hope they

were not hired under false pretences, I hope they were told that, in fact, a

regional service was imminent, would be in place on January 1st, and their

employment would be short-lived, because those are the facts; this House decided

just that. And I don't know whether they were told that or not, but I certainly

hope they were.

This House made a decision, the right decision, to continue a

regional fire-fighting service with stations throughout the Northeast Avalon,

positioned to back one another up, to support one another in the event of a

fire, and to provide the best fire-fighting protection for the Northeast Avalon.

That decision was made and confirmed by this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker, we have a

regional fire-fighting service in place right now, and we have had it for some

time, under the jurisdiction of the Province. We are making the simple change of

moving it over to municipal jurisdiction and authority, where it should be.

The Province should not be in the business of fire-fighting.

It is not in that business anywhere else except for paying its share of

protection of provincial buildings; other than that, it should not be in the

business of fire-fighting, so we are moving out of it, in the Northeast Avalon,

as, in fact, we are not in that business elsewhere.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Government's intention and this House's

intention, more importantly, is clear and has been clear and, in defiance of

that, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for a part of Mount Pearl, I might

state -

MR. WINDSOR: There will always be a Member for Mount

Pearl.

MR. GULLAGE: - and the Council of Mount Pearl continue to

defy and mislead to the point of suggesting that they are not going to have a

fire department. Of course, they are going to have a fire department, except

that they are going to continue to be a partner in a fire department that they

are a partner in now and paying their share of now, and want to walk away from

now. It is totally unfair to their people, unfair to the people of the Northeast

Avalon, unfair to the taxpayers of this Province, unfair to the people they have

hired - totally, completely unfair and in defiance, worst of all, of this House,

Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

petition.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to take leave

to introduce a second petition, the wording of which is similar, Mr. Speaker.

This petition is from the people of Elizabeth Parks

sub-division in the Town of Paradise, not from people in Mount Pearl. And let me

address the minister's statement that 'somebody has been misleading people', Mr.

Speaker. What an insult to the intelligence of the Fire Department! What an

insult to the intelligence of the people who have signed these petitions!

Let me read to you the question that was put to the people at

the door and I quote: 'I am a representative of the Mount Pearl Fire Department.

We have started a petition which we intend to deliver to the Premier of

Newfoundland, showing support of the people of Mount Pearl, having, owning and

operating its own Fire Department. Would you like to show your support by

signing our petition'?

I don't think there is anything misleading about that. The

prayer of the petition is very clear as to its intent; the minister is insulting

the intelligence of people who sign petitions. I tell, the minister, these

people are not sheep, like the backbenchers opposite, Mr. Speaker. They are not

sheep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The minister tries to tell us that this

House passed a resolution by the majority vote, that is true, but he is

misleading this House. People over there were told how to vote. If there were a

free vote, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, you would probably have a different vote.

The backbenchers over there are not allowed to go to the washroom unescorted.

That is the kind of government they are operating over there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition from people from a

neighbouring municipality, supporting the people of Mount Pearl, supporting the

Mount Pearl Fire Department - the minister tries to tell us it is because they

are not involved. They are involved. Because they know by having a fire station

in Mount Pearl that there will be a better level of fire service in the region.

The minister says: `Well, we are not doing anything, we have a regional fire

department now.' Yes, we do, operated by an impartial authority, the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, what the minister is proposing is not a regional

authority. It is a St. John's Fire Department, to which other municipalities are

told they will subscribe, of which other municipalities are told they will

receive service, that they will pay for that service, and that the City of St.

John's will decide how much they will pay. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is taxation

without representation, forcing on the people of Mount Pearl a fire service

owned and operated, controlled and administered by the City of St. John's.

My colleague was quite right. Why didn't the minister use the

regional services bill? If he could show us one reason why a regional fire

department is so much better - Is it so much better? How come we don't have it

in downtown Toronto? How come we don't have it in other major municipalities

across this Province? How come we don't have it in Halifax - Dartmouth?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We don't, Mr. Speaker, we have a mutual aid

agreement. Experience across Canada has shown, in fact, that in many cases,

mutual aid agreements can be far more effective and efficient than a regional

fire department. But, as my colleague pointed out quite correctly, the people of

Mount Pearl have never said, We don't want to be part of it. Show us that it is

the best system for this region, show us that it will be operated efficiently,

at a reasonable cost.

But when the minister says: `No, you can't have your own fire

department. The City of St. John's will have authority over the City of Mount

Pearl. The City of St. John's will decide how much you pay. The City of St.

John's will charge you $600,000 a year more for service than it will take to

operate your own fire department,' that is $20 for every man, woman and child in

Mount Pearl. It represents 11.5 per cent of the total taxation paid by the

people of Mount Pearl. For what? For the same service, owned and operated by

another municipality!

Now, what is democratic about that? Where are the

efficiencies, where are the economies of scale the minister is always talking

about when he talks about regional authorities and amalgamations? Where is the

economy of scale in charging the people of Mount Pearl $600,000 more? Where is

the arbitration report dealing with the salaries and wages of the St. John's

Fire Department? Why has the minister been sitting on that for a couple of

months? Would the minister like to confirm that once that comes down it will be

$800,000 additional a year that the Mount Pearl people will be asked to pay for

their own fire service?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: I take great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, and

great pride, in tabling this petition on behalf of the people of Elizabeth Park.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank

the Member for Pleasantville for welcoming me home. I would welcome the hon. the

Member for Pleasantville to his feet now, to have a few comments on what this

minister and this Government are trying to do to the people of Mount Pearl.

I am surprised, or disappointed, I guess, that the member

representing the people of Elizabeth Park, which I believe to be in Mount Scio -

Bell Island district - I am not positive but I think so - is not here to stand

up for what the people in his district would like to see happen to the fire

department in Mount Pearl. He is away on Government business, I don't doubt

that, but he should be here to have a few comments on what the people of

Elizabeth Park would like to see happen to this fire hall.

The petition that was just presented on behalf of Elizabeth

Park and the petition presented a few minutes ago, with 16,000 names, are among

the largest petitions that have ever been presented to this House of Assembly on

issues, and they are very important issues to the people who live in these

districts.

When the minister was answering the question about who

recommended an aerial ladder to the minister, saying that Mount Pearl should

have it, Mr. Speaker, it just happened that I was minister of that department

for a short time - albeit a short time. But the major issue at the time was the

Carmichael Report. The accounting company - Touche Ross, was it not? or one of

them - did the report, Mr. Speaker, and I had many discussions at the time with

the Fire Commissioner, and I happen to be familiar with what his thoughts were

on the Mount Pearl Fire Department, at that time, and on the Carmichael Report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Woods Gordon.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Woods Gordon Report, yes.

I know the Fire Commissioner very well, he is a very

honourable man, and I would like to see him make a public statement on this

issue, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that he is muzzled by his minister. He

cannot make the statement that he would like to make on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if he makes the same statements that he made to

me when I was minister, I am afraid it will prove that the minister's remarks

today, that the Fire Commissioner recommended that Mount Pearl should have an

aerial ladder, will be shown to be false, unless he has had quite a change of

heart.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing, in this case, again,

as it was when he started the whole amalgamation issue, is illegal. It is

illegal for the Government of this Province to force a municipality to submit to

another municipality providing the service for fire-fighting. It is the right of

every municipality in this Province, under the Municipalities Act, to have their

own fire department.

The St. John's Fire Department covers most of my district,

Mr. Speaker, but I have a volunteer fire department in the Goulds, a group of

people who are very upset with what is happening to the fire services in this

Province. If I thought it would do any good, I am sure that I could have a

petition in by next Monday on the same issue that comes from Mount Pearl, and

from Elizabeth Park, on fire services when amalgamation is complete and the

Goulds fire department is dissolved, maybe. Maybe there will be people staying

in the fire hall.

The Mayor of the City of St. John's says the Goulds fire hall

will be manned. I don't know where they are going to get the money for it or the

people to man it, with the layoffs.

But, Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is illegal, and

I don't know how you get that through to him. He can pass any motions or

amendments or whatever he likes in this House of Assembly, because they have the

majority but, according to the laws that he operated under when he became

minister, according to the Municipalities Act, what he is doing is wrong.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he has the power to change those laws. And

when we had the votes on him, he certainly had the support of his backbenchers,

but according to the comments that I heard on NTV, last night, Mr. Speaker, it

is probably a good thing that these votes are not occurring in this House today,

because the backbenchers over there are finally awakening to the fact that they

have no say in what happens in this Province - zero say. They can get elected as

many times as they like, Mr. Speaker, they can get elected for the next twenty

years, but if 'King Clyde' doesn't want them in Cabinet, he will go out and pick

Norm Whalen, next, down on Water Street, Mr. Speaker, and then he will go for

Tom Hickman. Tom got his pay-off, today. I understand Tom got his pay-off this

week. For all those brown bags that Tom brought into this building over the last

five years, he got his pay-off this week. He got an $8 million pay-off. I hope

he did not pay the Premier that much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this petition, of course, from

the people of Elizabeth Park and the member's comment that even though outside

the jurisdiction of Mount Pearl, the City of Mount Pearl supports the petition.

I still would repeat what I said earlier, that people sign petitions without

full knowledge, and how can they be expected to have full knowledge of the

facts? They certainly are not part of the process. Councils and governments are

elected to be properly informed, to research and come to conclusions, and make

decisions. It is very difficult for the man on the street to know as much about

a particular matter as a council or a government that is involved every day, and

dealing with the issue on a greater scale.

Indeed, I would suggest that the wording of this petition

that was presented to the people of Elizabeth Park is very misleading. It gives

the intent, if I heard the words correctly from the Member for Mount Pearl, it

misleads with the intent that it says that the people of Mount Pearl would like

to be given the right to have a fire station, Mr. Speaker, a fire station. I

think it reads something in that context - as if to imply to anybody considering

signing that petition that they do not presently have a fire protection service.

That is the clear implication; that there is no service in place now. You could

not take it any other way. So if you were in Elizabeth Park, and considering

signing that petition, and somebody requested of you a signature to support them

in having a fire station, and you were thinking in your mind: well they do not

have one now, so sure, I will sign that - naturally, we want to see you with a

fire station, everybody else has fire protection. But that is misleading, Mr.

Speaker. It is to imply that they do not have a service right now, and that is

wrong. They are as much a part of the northeast Avalon and the St. John's fire

fighting service as St. John's is, as Wedgewood Park is, as any of the other

partners are, Mr. Speaker, and the implication is that they are not, which is

false. They are paying their share now, and they are part of a regional service.

The way the council is pursuing this matter, and the Member for Mount Pearl, is

to imply that: no service exists, so let us open our fire department because we

have no fire protection. Mr. Speaker, this is totally and completely wrong and

misleading - totally misleading - as it has been all along.

It is getting to the point now, Mr. Speaker, where I think

the truth is going to have to come out. I do not know how it is going to happen,

but as much as I repeat these facts over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker,

it does not seem to be getting reported. Nobody seems to be saying what the

truth is - that there is fire protection in place right now. For Mount Pearl to

be misleading the people in suggesting they do not have fire protection, 'give

us fire protection for the first time', as if 22,000 people are living in Mount

Pearl and no fire protection exists, this is totally and completely ridiculous.

It is in place right now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the question was: why did the Government not

proceed with a regional services board? If we go back to the hearings process,

the feasibility process itself - the hearings were part of that - Mr. Speaker,

the municipalities in the northeast Avalon did not want a regional services

board. They clearly said to me, and to the commissioners: we do not want to have

another level of government in between the municipalities and the Provincial

Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true! Not true!

MR. GULLAGE: We do not want that layer in between, and

they clearly said that to us, and to me as a Minister. They did not want a

regional services board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

MR. GULLAGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, when we made our decisions

on configuration of the northeast Avalon, when we made decisions after the fact,

sure, because a few were displeased with decisions, 'oh, please give us a

regional services board,' but they never wanted it. They never wanted a regional

services board. They did not want that level of government as they perceived it,

a level of government in between themselves and the Province. They did not want

it. So, Mr. Speaker, we did the wise thing in any case. Whether they wanted it

or not, Mr. Speaker, we made the right decision - to save the taxpayers of the

northeast Avalon, and of the Province, millions and millions of dollars in

administrative expenses by not creating that extra level of government, Mr.

Speaker, by not creating it. With an administrative structure already in place

in the largest municipality in this Province, the City of St. John's, fully

capable of handling regional services, and costing out on a per capita or other

reasonable basis-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that structure was already in

place. Why duplicate it with another structure in between the municipalities and

the Province? It is totally unnecessary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like leave to present a third petition.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this petition is similar in wording, but

again it is from a different area, and one I would suggest the Minister may be

familiar with. It is from the great historic City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker,

the City of St. John's. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it happens to be from the Cowan

Heights area and the rest of the area represented by the Minister in the House

of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, there are not only a couple of names on it; there are

5,452 more of the Minister's constituents, 5,452 more. Mr. Speaker, 94 per cent

of the people polled in that area spoke out and said: We agree with the City of

Mount Pearl. The Minister can play all the games he wants and say we are

misleading the people, Mr. Speaker. No, we have not misled anyone, Mr. Speaker.

We have given the truth. It is the Minister who is talking out of the side of

his mouth.

Mr. Speaker, every household received from the City of Mount

Pearl, circulated to their door, the Mount Pearl, Special Edition, which gives

all of the details.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paid for that?

MR. WINDSOR: The City of Mount Pearl paid for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers of Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The taxpayers of Mount Pearl paid for it,

and were proud to pay for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. member opposite who is a member of

Mount Pearl should be on his feet and speaking in favour of his friends and

neighbours. He is a low black sheep on his street, Mr. Speaker, because he has

not got enough fortitude to stand up and say what he believes over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to take his place, and remind hon.

members that when we are speaking to petitions that we speak to the material

allegations of the petition, and not get into unnecessary debate.

I ask the hon. Member to keep his remarks to the material

allegations of the petition.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right,

but it is so much fun taking shots at them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister, that the

information as it relates to fire protection was spelled out in great detail, a

full page of detail, the chronological history of everything that has taken

place. Nobody has ever said that we do not get fire protection from the

Brookfield Fire Station. Many times I have stood in this House and thanked the

men of the Brookfield Fire Station for the service they provided in the past.

But the reports that have been done, that the Minister has in his possession,

done for Government, done for his Department, every one of them clearly point

out the need for a station in Mount Pearl. There is no dispute about the need

for a fire station in Mount Pearl, none whatsoever. The dispute, Mr. Speaker, is

about the administration of that station being forced down the throats of the

people of Mount Pearl against their will and causing them to pay $600,000 more a

year for a service they can provide for themselves. That is what this is about.

Regional services, Mr. Speaker, was not something that the

people of the northeast Avalon did not want. What they did not want was the

Minister's concept of the City of St. John's being the great regional authority

and dictating to other municipalities in the region. That is not regional

services. That is dictatorship, Mr. Speaker. That is what this Government is

used to. That is how they run their own Government, and they want to run

municipalities like it. I say to you, it is not acceptable.

I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of this

Government. The Premier, in a letter delivered to our fire chief two days ago

says, 'Theatrical moves by the Mount Pearl City Council.' He refers to, 'I am

having great difficulty treating your letter seriously.' A letter from the fire

chief! 'I am having great difficulty. Entirely fabricated against good sense,

good judgement and the stated intention of the Legislature.' This, Mr. Speaker,

is how the Premier of this Province and his Government are dealing with these

petitions, three now in total, signed by more than 22,000 people. Mr. Speaker,

this is the largest petition, the three of these combined, ever presented to

this House of Assembly.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, will have to answer. He may not

listen to his constituents now. There are 16,000 names from Mount Pearl, and I

would submit that probably 5,000 or more are from the Minister's district. There

are 5,400 more in this petition from the Minister's District. There are 10,000

of the Minister's own constituents telling him he is wrong, and there are 12,000

or 13,000 more residents of Mount Pearl and Elizabeth Park in the Town of

Paradise who tell him he is wrong. The fire commissioner tells him he is wrong.

The fire commissioner's report, that the Minister refuses to release, recommends

the City of St. John's operate the St. John's Fire Department, the City of Mount

Pearl be allowed to operate its own fire department and other volunteer fire

departments be allowed to expand as appropriate and when affordable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: That is the commissioner's recommendation,

and this Minister refuses to follow it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the

Member for Mount Pearl, or for part of Mount Pearl would raise the matter of the

Mount Pearl Special Edition which I could not believe, Mr. Speaker. About three

days prior to seeing that in full living colour, about a dozen pages - I do not

know if I got a letter or not, I saw a comment in the paper that the Mount Pearl

council was implying that Government was responsible for the difficulties with

their forthcoming budget. They were going to have great difficulty with their

forthcoming budget. Only a week prior to that, again, after supposedly holding

it up and again accusing me, accusing the Government, if you like, I approved $5

million for a new arena, gave approval to borrow for $5 million. Here is a

council, Mr. Speaker, that is blatantly political at the best of times.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Mount Pearl to restrain himself and to

give the Minister a chance to respond to the petition in the proper manner. I

think the Member for Mount Pearl was afforded that courtesy and I ask that the

same courtesy be afforded the Minister.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: They had no problem finding the money for

that glossy edition, a piece of propaganda really, is what it was. They had no

trouble finding that but they are going to have great difficulty balancing their

budget and, of course, we are responsible for that. That is where Mount Pearl

comes from for most things, that council in Mount Pearl that is espousing

propaganda most of the time, and trying to imply that the Minister is

responsible for anything that goes wrong in Mount Pearl. They are not

responsible for their own acts, the cannot handle their own budget.

Mr. Speaker, talking about the fire station in Mount Pearl

and the fact that there is no dispute about a fire station in Mount Pearl

-obviously because there is a station in Mount Pearl. Anybody can go in there

and physically see it, but, Mr. Speaker, that station was put there, I believe,

at the same time that the Member was part of a Cabinet and saw that it was put

there, I would think. Am I guessing right?

Instead of saying: we want a station to be added to the St.

John's Regional Fire Department, which you are already a partner to, Mount

Pearl, I want to put that station in there to be for Mount Pearl. Let us

withdraw from the regional system. Let us not be partner to a system we are

already partner to, and paying our share of, and best of all part of a union

agreement. Two and a half years ago did the City of Mount Pearl not sign a union

agreement with another union while already a party to the union they have an

agreement with now? Is that true?

MR. WINDSOR: That is absolutely untrue.

MR. GULLAGE: It is true.

MR. WINDSOR: Mount Pearl has never signed any agreement

with you or with (inaudible) union.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to please keep to the material

allegations of the petition. I realize the intensity of the moment but this is

not a period for debate, it is to talk about the material allegations in the

petition and I ask the hon. Minister to please keep his remarks to the petition.

MR. GULLAGE: Obviously the fact disturbed the Member

greatly.

The final comment I want to make is this. Think for a moment

about the fact that I represent a good piece of Mount Pearl, about 25 to 30 per

cent, I believe. Mr. Speaker, right from the beginning of this debate some two

and a half years ago, when I first became the Minister, I maintained the

position that we should have a regional fire department and that Mount Pearl

should be part of that as it is now, and that would be maintained. I said that

to the City of Mount Pearl, and to the council of Mount Pearl particularly,

because that is who I have to speak to, talk with, and discuss these items with.

A regional fire fighting service, as you are part of now, is the way it should

be. It is the best way to provide fire protection and your station should be

part of that system. Granted, yes, we need the station in Mount Pearl. The

station is there now and it should be operative. I offered to operate that

station and man it two and a half years ago. It has sat vacant ever since

because the Mount Pearl council said: we do not want you to man it, we will not

let you man it. And that is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

I have heard the Member for Mount Pearl say that the Minister

told a direct lie. That is unparliamentary and I ask the Member to withdraw,

please.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are quite accurate and

I do withdraw.

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

Provincial Affairs may continue.

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the hon. Minister's time is up.

Sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Just let me finish my comment? By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave! No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There has been no leave given, so -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: You give leave? Sorry.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs may

finish.

MR. GULLAGE: (Inaudible) comment on the same item I was

raising, Mr. Speaker, that it is unthinkable, if you really think it through,

that a Minister who represents a good part of Mount Pearl would do something not

in the best interest of his own people and taxpayers, and, Mr. Speaker, I have

not done that. From the beginning I have maintained the right stand and I have

maintained that stand throughout the last two and a half years. In the best

interest of the people of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take

great pride this afternoon in standing in this Legislature to support the

petition so ably presented by my colleague for Mount Pearl, on what has become a

very sensitive, and a very vocal, very high profile public issue.

As one Member of this Legislature, who has followed this

debate both inside and outside this Legislature very closely, I cannot believe

what we have witnessed here again this afternoon. For the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs to stand in his place, a Minister who represents part of

the City of Mount Pearl, to accuse the fire fighters who went around with the

petition of hoodwinking the public, that the people did not know, trying to get

them to put their name on a piece of paper without knowing what they put it

there for, I think that is very demeaning, I say to the Minister.

I do not think that is necessary. That as sensitive and as

emotional as this issue has become that we should (Inaudible) going on here.

MR. GULLAGE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on

a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that. I did not

mention at any time the fire fighters who were taking up the petition. No

mention at all of those fire fighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order, just a point of difference.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister

said was those that went around with the petition. Now who went around with the

petition, I ask the Minister? The fire fighters. That is who went around with

it. The people were very well informed who signed the petition, I say to the

Minister. Just as well informed as the people out and about the Province are

informed about the total bungled amalgamation issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: What we are talking here is a bungled

process that the Minister has bungled from Day 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't stand success!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I love success.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Didn't have the guts to do it? Mr. Speaker,

I have the guts to do anything, if it is right. I stand in this Legislature

because of a principle of democracy. The people of the district of Grand Bank

could have just as easily sent someone else here. They chose to send me.

The people of Mount Pearl have chosen. The other thing I say

to the Minister is that in meetings with the Mayor and Councillors of the City

of Mount Pearl, they have always spoken very supportively of the regional

concept. But this Minister did not want a regional concept. He came in here and

passed the regional services bill, forced it through this House by closure,

which his side put through the House.

We had the regional services bill that he could have done

what he wanted to do with, and the City of Mount Pearl would have been receptive

to it. They are not against the regional service. But they are against the

process that the Minister has followed and what he has done with it. It is just

terrible what he has done with it. They do not mind paying for it. But they want

some say in it. That is what the City of Mount Pearl has told me and Members of

this caucus when we have met with them.

MR. SIMMS: At a reasonable price.

MR. MATTHEWS: Exactly, at a reasonable price. But they do

not want the City of St. John's sending in the tax bill and saying: pay up Mount

Pearl or else, when they have no say in the service whatsoever. That is what it

is about, and I am sure that deep down within the Minister - I think what the

Minister is doing here today, he is doing it against his will. I tell you, if I

were in his position, I would tell the Premier where to go on this issue. I

would not sit there and take it and be embarrassed and humiliated by my very own

people who sent me into this legislature. I would not put up with it, Mr.

Speaker. And I honestly think I know the hon. gentleman well enough to say that

what he is doing, he is doing against his will. And we know what happens when

you are in Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. If you are not willing to do what this minister

is doing today, you have a choice, and that is, to leave the Cabinet.

MR. FLIGHT: Is that the way it was?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that's the way it is with every

Cabinet, but I say to this minister, that there were people in our Cabinet who

would have had the guts to leave on the issue.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You would have, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, you are proving my point. There were

people with the intestinal fortitude to leave, and I say to the Minister of

Development, he should bite his lip or there may just be a few more from outside

coming in yet. There just may be more coming from outside to take over some

front benches over there, if they can ever get elected to the legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rose today to support the petition

presented by my colleague on behalf of the thousands and thousands of people who

signed it, the same thousands and thousands of people who chose in the last

general election whom they were going to send to this legislature, the minister

being one of them. They will choose again in the next general election.

All I say to the minister is, there is still a possibility of

resolving this issue, and if the minister would go in and sit down with the

City, they can work things out. I am still convinced it can be worked out

without being dictatorial about it and without doing something which is obvious

today, by the names in the petition my colleague has brought in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that it can be accommodated without getting into one mess,

and that is what we are seeing here, a big mess. I ask the minister to

reconsider and, in the final analysis, to believe in democracy, listen to the

wishes of the people and do what they want.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of 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. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased

that it falls to me as acting Minister of Environment and Lands, to proceed with

and to introduce for second reading Bill No. 22, "An Act To Revise And

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

Province".

Mr. Speaker, this is really a consolidation of various pieces

of legislation under which Crown land, in this Province, would be administered.

This act will consolidate administration under one act and allow for the repeal

of the following acts, which I will read from the back of Bill 22. The following

acts, under this legislation, Bill 22, are being repealed: The Abandoned Lands

Act; The Administration and Control of the Crown Lands (Transfer) Act; The Crown

Grants Act; The Development Areas Act; The Labrador Lands (Reservation) Act; The

Land Development Act; and The Veterans Land Settlement Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are no substantial changes in this

bill from the previous legislation. As I said, it is purely a consolidation of

all existing Crown lands, or acts under which we administer Crown lands. The

main purpose is to consolidate existing legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, one

cannot stand up and debate Bill No. 22, without referring to the debate that

took place on Bill No. 53, and every member of the House will remember the

debate - the debate in public, the debate in committee stage, the debate in

Question Period. I did not participate in that debate, I sat and listened. I

heard the Opposition rail against and decry the bill; I listened as they jumped

all over the bill; I listened as they encouraged public opposition to Bill 53; I

listened, when the loyal Opposition misrepresented what Bill 53 really meant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are very protective of their rights of free access anywhere in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very proud, as a people. We appreciate, and we

are very jealous, of our right to hunt and fish, unrestricted. That is the way

it was, it has been our way of life, and that is the way it will remain.

Newfoundlanders would be very concerned and would resent very much, and would

vigorously resist any effort or any attempt by Government or anyone else to

restrict that access. Mr. Speaker, as the debate raged on Bill 53, I sometimes

wondered if we were not inadvertently or otherwise actually restricting access.

Were we denying people rights that they felt were theirs traditionally and

historically?

As more and more concern was expressed by the general public,

by interest groups, by individuals, spurred on by the Opposition, this

Government, out of a concern and a desire to protect the traditional and

historic rights of people, said: 'Look, let's revisit this piece of legislation.

Let's see if there is any basis for the concerns being expressed, for the

concerns being encouraged by the Opposition.' And we did. We recalled the bill

and made changes. I will get to those changes later.

I would like, at this point, to remind this hon. House that

the previous minister, the now hon. Member for Naskaupi, made a commitment that

if changes were required in this bill, changes would be made. I am pleased to

announce that he made good on that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: But what is most important about Bill 53, Mr.

Speaker, which is now Bill 22, with very minute changes, is that during the

process there was a great revelation. I was not aware as this debate raged on

Bill 53 - and I doubt very seriously if many members on this side of the House

of Assembly were aware; I know that members on the other side were aware,

because most of the front bench was in the Cabinet - that this Bill 53 was

really not our bill, it was their bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: A previous Cabinet, of which the hon. member

was part, approved the legislation and it was to be on the Order Paper in the

spring of 1989, with not one dot, comma, word or letter changed, not one. It was

to be on the Order Paper in the spring of 1989, Mr. Speaker. It would have been

tabled and enacted by that Tory Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: But, Mr. Speaker, one has to remember, a very

significant event took place in the spring of 1989. There was an election and

these great protectors of people's rights were defeated. Yet, after they were

defeated - and here is the key point that every person in Newfoundland should

know - they railed, protested, criticized, tried to whip up public opposition,

to what, in effect, was their own legislation! Every word, comma, clause, and

full stop in that bill was Bill 53.

So, in that debate that raged around the Province, that they

encouraged, they were pious, sanctimonious, self-serving. They displayed the

classic example, on this bill, of hypocrisy, a classic example. Mr. Speaker,

that may be unparliamentary, and if it is, I am prepared to withdraw it. But

there is no question what it was. What happened on Bill 53 was the depths and

heights of hypocrisy.

But, now, I intend to be kind and say that they, the

sanctimonious, pious, self-serving, self-righteous Members of the Opposition had

a collective seizure of amnesia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: They actually forgot that it was their bill,

approved by their Cabinet, ready for tabling in the House of Assembly. Because,

Mr. Speaker, if I am not prepared to believe that and say that, then how else

can I explain their disgraceful performance on Bill 53? It can't be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: We will get to the changes.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is history, and now we have Bill 22.

Let's look at it as it relates to access dealt with in clause 7, which will

probably be the clauses that get debate here. When this is over, the hon. the

Member for Grand Bank suggested there be a public debate or that we should go

make our case. I will be prepared, when this is over, to defend Bill 22 to the

general public. I will be prepared to defend Bill 22 to the general public in

the member's district, any other district, or any other room in Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at what happened in Bill 53 as

it relates to clause 7. Clause 7 guarantees that on any land bordering a lake,

pond, river, seashore or foreshore that is granted, leased or licensed will

provide for a reservation of not less than ten metres wide unless the grant

specifically says otherwise. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about what grants can

specifically say otherwise. In other words, what I just read says that ten

metres of land from the waters edge will not be included in the grant, lease or

license unless the grant specifically or expressly states otherwise.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me read clause 7. "Where Crown lands

that border on a lake, pond, river, the seashore or foreshore are granted,

leased or licensed under this Part, it is considered, in the absence of an

express grant, lease or licence of those Crown lands, that a strip of Crown

lands not less than ten metres wide around and adjoining the lake, pond,

seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river was not intended to pass

and did not pass to the grantee, lessee or licensee."

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's go to clause 2, if you want

protection. And this is what we will debate in public, if it comes down to it:

"No grant, lease or licence of a strip of Crown lands around and adjoining a

lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river that is

otherwise reserved under subsection (1)" - in other words, and the reservation,

"shall be issued without the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council..." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is where the hypocrisy comes in, here is

where the rights of access have been protected to a greater extent in Bill 53

than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, in the existing legislation, I, today, as the

acting Minister of Environment and Lands, can, by ministerial discretion, issue

a permit to occupy from the water's edge to any property I wish. I do not have

to refer it to Cabinet. That is the way it has been for thirty years. This very

day, my assistant deputy minister is issuing permits for wharfs and boat houses

all around Newfoundland by right of my authority and my discretion under that

act. And now, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that we are going to take that

discretion away from the minister. Every application that will affect the

reservation, the foreshore, the seashore, the area of the lake, will be subject

to approval by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now, you talk about

protection!

Let's talk about protection, let's talk about people's

rights, Mr. Speaker. Not only have we gone that far with Bill 53, we have gone

farther. This legislation identifies -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your Cabinet said yes.

MR. FLIGHT: No, they did not approve one as good as this.

They approved Bill 53, this is Bill 22.

Now, Mr. Speaker, not only in our desire to protect the

rights of the citizens of this Province to unrestricted access, not only have we

said that every application received in Newfoundland and Labrador must be

subject to the approval of the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, for

all-time, not only have we done that, we have identified, the kinds of

applications, the kinds of structures, what undertakings, the Cabinet can

approve. We have tied Cabinet's hands. This legislation says, Mr. Speaker, and I

will read - and this is done out of our great fear, not a very great

probability, but out of the great fear that one day these people will be back

here again, and they will have the same legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me read clause 7. Here are the

undertakings, conditions, and the structures that a future Cabinet, Mr. Speaker,

- not a future minister like these people lived with for seventeen years - a

future Cabinet. Here are the exceptions where they are allowed to issue a grant,

lease or license: after the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - not a

minister, not an assistant deputy minister, not a director, as have, indeed,

approved lands on the foreshore. Here is what they are: (a) "where an applicant

demonstrates that a grant, lease or license of the land is necessary for the

purpose of an industrial undertaking and the grant, lease or license would not

cause undue injury to the rights of others;" (b) "to enable a person to carry on

aquaculture;" which we all agree, Mr. Speaker, holds great potential for

economic development in this Province; (d) "where a structure that is being used

as a residence and was erected before the coming into force of this

section

intrudes on the reservation," - and only to the extent that an existing building

intrudes - " to the extent of the intrusion only;" and (e) "for the purpose" -

now, listen, Mr. Speaker - "of giving a licence only for the construction of

boat houses and wharves to the extent that they intrude on the reservation."

Now, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council must do that, not the minister or the

deputy minister.

MR. WOODFORD: Who got the (inaudible)?

MR. FLIGHT: Come out in the public, 'Rick', and debate

this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this legislation - talk about guaranteeing

the rights of people: "A grant, lease or license under subsection (2) does not

convey exclusive hunting or fishing rights". I want to talk about hunting and

fishing rights, Mr. Speaker. "A grant, lease or licence issued under paragraph

(2)(

d) or (

e) shall not permit a grantee, lessee or licensee to restrict access

to the reservation on the part of the general public by erecting a fence or by

other means."

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at how we made it a little

tougher. Let us look at how we have protected the rights of people to free

access around ponds, rivers, and streams a little more. "An applicant for a

grant, lease or licence under subsection (2) shall publish a notice of his or

her intended application in the Gazette, 1 local paper and 1 weekend edition of

a paper having general circulation in the province at least 2 months prior to

making the application." Now, Mr. Speaker, not only must the Cabinet approve the

application and deal with it, but the applicant must publish his intention to

apply within two months. How much protection, Mr. Speaker, are hon. members

going to stand up and demand? How much more can be done, when you consider that

for thirty years, Mr. Speaker, the minister had the right to issue permits to

occupy right to the seashore?

I understand the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains is

going to stand up shortly. There is no better way it can be done, Mr. Speaker,

that a Government can accommodate, can allow for the type of development that is

in the public's better interest, such as I have outlined, and yet, at the same

time, guarantee the public's right to unrestricted access. The public's right to

unrestricted access cannot be guaranteed or protected to a greater extent than

is provided for in Bill 22.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about outfitters, because that was

the big issue. The hon. Members of the Opposition went out and stirred up

confusion and misinformed people about outfitters. At the present time, Mr.

Speaker, most outfitters' titles are in the form of a permit to occupy, issued

under

Section 21 of the present act. Mr. Speaker, I have the present act with

me, and that act,

Section 21 -and the member can look it up - says and

notwithstanding anything else in this act, the minister, if he so desires, can

issue a permit to occupy right to the water's edge. So the minister of the day,

Mr. Speaker, I, today, as acting Minister of Environment and Lands, can issue a

permit to occupy to every outfitter in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't do it.

MR. FLIGHT: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, in fairness

to the ministers, it was not done; but it could be done. The debate here focused

- and what the Opposition tried to do was convince the general public that we

would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Speaker, it is gone. The Member did

not hear me. The Member did not hear me. It is gone. That is the purpose of this

act, to do away with the legislation that would have restricted the rights; that

gave a minister or an official of the minister, unrestricted abilities.

This act, Mr. Speaker, takes away the discretion from the

minister to issue permits to occupy. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, remember the

big deal made about outfitters?.. not only that, it was not identified for the

Cabinet. Cabinet cannot approve a permit to occupy, or a lease, or a licence, or

a grant to outfitters. Outfitters, hunting and fishing outfitters, are not

identified in this legislation as one for which Cabinet can approve a grant. Mr.

Speaker, so much for the argument that the intention of the legislation was to

allow outfitters to build fences right to the shore, and restrict access for

fishermen or hunters.

Mr. Speaker, one could go on and on, but I am not going to

delay too long. I just want to make another point or two. I want to make a point

that the Member for Labrador will find very interesting. He may know, or he may

not know, that the Labrador Lands Reservation Act covers approximately 20,000

square miles of western Labrador, an area approximately one-half the size of the

island of Newfoundland. Titles issued in that area are issued under the old

Labrador Lands Reservation Act rather than under the Crown Lands Act. What is

the significance of that, Mr. Speaker? What is the significance? The

significance is that there is no provision under the Labrador Reservation Act to

maintain a reserve around lakes, ponds, and streams in Labrador. I would be

curious if the hon. Member for Torngat would have known that. I would be curious

to know if the hon. Member for Torngat knew that under the existing legislation

that we have lived under for the past thirty years, that there was no

reservation permitted or allowed for under that legislation; that any grant,

lease, licence, or permit to occupy, included right to the water's edge on

20,000 square miles of land in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: It does not matter. The hon. Member lived

with it for seventeen years and did not bother to protect the rights of his

people in Labrador. Why did the hon. Member not spot that three, four, five, or

six years ago? Why did the hon. Member not have it included in Bill 53, the Bill

that his Government drafted. Why did he not protect the rights of the people of

Labrador in Bill 53?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: A bill approved by the Cabinet and about to

be brought into the House, if they had not lost the election. How come, Mr.

Speaker? He was in the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, he was

Minister of Forestry and Lands for a short time. He should have known. So where

was the great protector of Labrador rights in this particular case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, since this bill repeals the

Labrador Reservation Lands Act, this goes with it. From now on, Mr. Speaker,

when Labradorians apply for a piece of land on a river, or anyone applies for a

piece of land in Labrador, the reservation will be there, because now the grants

will be issued on the basis of Bill 53 - a good Liberal piece of legislation

designed to protect the rights of Newfoundlanders to free access.

Mr. Speaker, where was the Member that he did not protect the

rights of Labradorians? Mr. Speaker, after this legislation is proclaimed there

will be another 20,000 square miles of Newfoundland and Labrador that the

general public will be guaranteed right to access around rivers, ponds, and

streams.

One could go on, Mr. Speaker, but the only real issue in this

legislation was Clause 7, the right of unrestricted access. We made a

commitment, Mr. Speaker, that we would go out and determine whether or not there

was any sense of denying people rights of free access. We went out, and there

was none, Mr. Speaker, and I have gone through it; however, Mr. Speaker, changes

were made. This Government agreed to make changes to protect to the maximum

extent possible; to make sure that nobody in Newfoundland would ever be denied.

Wide open Government. To make sure that no Minister would ever cause a

Newfoundlander or Labradorian to be restricted - restrict access around ponds,

rivers and streams.

As I said earlier, this Bill is a consolidation of various

Acts under which Crown land is administered in this Province. The Bill has gone

through the public review process by way of the Legislation Review Committee.

Most of the changes made in Bill 53, if not all, are the result of the

recommendations made by the Legislation Review Committee.

Now before I sit down I would like for us to take a second to

defend Crown Lands. It is a fact in this Province that the Crown Lands Division

comes under a lot of criticism. You hear people everywhere saying: it takes two

years to get a grant, it takes two years to get a lease, those guys are not

doing anything, the application is sitting on their desk. Well let me give you

some facts. But first let me say this to you: Crown Lands is getting a bum rap.

All Crown Lands does is accept the application, process the application, and

when they are ready to issue the grant they issue the grant.

What we have in Newfoundland - and that is being reviewed

right now, I can tell the hon. House - is a situation where if an individual

applies for a piece of Crown land, we have what they call the referral system.

If Works, Services and Transportation has a reason to consider the application,

there is a referral that goes out. If there is a possibility of a bit of

mineralization, a referral goes to Mines. If there is a possibility of Health

having a problem with it, a referral goes to Health. Poor old Crown Lands sits

there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Poor old Crown Lands sits there waiting for

the referrals to come in. If those referrals are not in in six months there is

nothing they could have done about it. So it is sort of a bum rap and I want to

tell the House that we are looking very seriously at revising the way that

applications for Crown lands are processed. But in spite of that let me say in

defence of Crown Lands that the average processing time for registration to a

decision these past two years, since this Government has been here, is

approximately seven weeks. Seven weeks from application to processing, and

either approved or refused.

Mr. Speaker, these past two years, 1990-1991, 3,051

applications were received by Crown Lands; 2,729, a full 89 per cent, have been

approved and the title granted, whether it is lease, grant or (Inaudible).

Eighty-nine per cent of the applications received in 1990 and 1991 have been

dealt with, processed and approved. That is these past two years. Titles

approved under this Administration since April 1989, applications received,

processed, titles approved - 7,000, 7,000 in two years. It would be interesting

to compare that figure with the numbers that were approved by the previous

administration prior to - in the seventeen years they were there.

So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister would allow me this moment. I thought it

was the right pause, so I decided I would come in to announce the questions for

the Late Show:

The first one is: the Member for Humber Valley states his

dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs with regards to the institution of regional services boards;

The second one comes from the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, stating his dissatisfaction with an answer given to a question put to the

Minister of Education, re: the School for the Deaf;

The third one is from the Opposition House Leader, the Member

for Grand Bank, stating his dissatisfaction with an answer given by the hon. the

Minister of Fisheries regarding the fisheries emergency response programme.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In closing I want to

say that this is progressive, enlightened legislation. I am sure there will be a

spirited debate. I look forward to it, and I am prepared to answer any questions

that might arise. But in the end I am sure that the hon. House of Assembly will

enact this legislation and they will do it confident and secure in the knowledge

that it is designed to and does indeed protect the rights of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians inasfar as the administration of Crown land in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House

in debating this bill in Second Reading. However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has

caused me to make a couple of comments, in particular when he started out by

saying that the former government brought in this bill. Let me say to my hon.

colleague, that we, as government, knew that this bill was dangerous to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we decided not to bring it into this

Legislature.

MR. FLIGHT: Not so.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. gentleman

that that is true.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Sir.

MR. WARREN: We had no intention of bringing that bill

into this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. And let me say to my hon. colleague, now I

can finally see, Mr. Speaker, what this Government is up to. Back a couple of

years ago there were accusations made about brown paper bags coming into this

Legislature, into this House, and into this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, I never

(inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe we know who this

bill is going to protect. This bill is going to protect the people who supplied

the brown paper bags. This is what this bill is trying to do, support the

wealthy people in this Province, support the people who want to control the

lakes and ponds.

We saw an example today, Mr. Speaker, of a tender being

awarded for three hospitals. By who? Mr. Speaker, it is an example of what this

bill - that is who controls this bill, the Premier of this Province, on behalf

of those people who have been putting something in brown paper bags and bringing

it into this Legislature, into this House, and into this building.

DR. KITCHEN: What do you mean? What is in the brown paper

bags?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague, the

Minister of Finance, he should know what was in there. On many occasions there

were some loonies in it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is what this bill is

trying to protect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you (inaudible), or what?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said it was

the outfitters we were concerned about. The outfitters were one of a group of

many people in this Province who were concerned about this bill. Mr. Speaker,

the word should go out through Newfoundland and Labrador to all those people who

enjoy fishing and enjoy going out with their rod and trying to catch half a

dozen trout to fry for their breakfast, word should go out to them now, that

this Government is going to stop them from walking around a pond.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen is -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Come on, ask your question.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague

from Eagle River - and I want to be very fair and very kind to him - that, if he

has not got sense now to grow up and behave like a man, he should go somewhere

else. Because ever since he came into this House he has been acting like a

child. I guess when you act like a child and you look like a child, therefore,

you must be a child.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He was the one who commented on NTV last

night about young people going into Cabinet.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting that my

hon. colleague from Eagle River is one of the people, one of the four

backbenchers who would not tell who they were, who made some comments about: I

do not see why I cannot get in Cabinet. I deserve to get in Cabinet. There is no

Minister for Labrador. My hon. colleague has been scratching on the Cabinet door

now for the last two months. I would suggest to my hon. colleague that he take

the opportunity to get up and speak against this Bill, because down in his

district on the Pinware River, my friend, let me tell you, once this Bill goes

through your constituents will be stopped from using the Pinware River. That is

an example. So why don't you speak up on behalf of your constituents?

The same thing on the Forteau River, where many of your

constituents go up daily and fish. But all of a sudden this is going to stop

because of this Bill. So speak on behalf of your own constituents, stand up on

their behalf. Let me say the same thing about Sandwich Bay. Those are the people

whom the Member needs to stand up on behalf of, not the Tom Hickmans of this

world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, how interesting, yes, the

same crowd wanted to buy the government store in Makkovik. The Department of

Development asked them to put a request in, requested them to make a proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, so this is an example of

what the hon. gentleman is trying to talk about. Anyway, let me go back to the

Bill and say to my hon. colleague that we have had the old Act, the old Bill, in

existence since Confederation - actually, before Confederation. The old Bill,

the old

section - and I say to my hon. colleague that the hundreds and thousands

of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who have traditionally all their lives

enjoyed their relaxation, going out to the ponds, rivers and lakes, and going

around those ponds at their leisure, - and all of a sudden the Minister decides

it is going to be up to the Cabinet now to either allow the ordinary

Newfoundlander and Labradorian whether he is allowed to walk around that pond or

not.

Now it is most interesting. I refer the Minister to two

particular sections, and I would like to refer him to the present Bill. Because

the first starting off,

Section 3 (2), and I say this to the Minister, and I

will read what

Section 3 (2) says. "The minister may, subject to the approval of

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, issue a lease to a person of an area of

Crown lands...." Okay, so we stop there. So the Minister is saying in

Section 3

(2) - and that is a lease for a period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Okay, that is fine and dandy. Now the

Minister is saying anywhere in Newfoundland, but with the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor, okay? Subject to the approval. Now let's go to

Section 7

(2). Let's look at - what is the Minister doing here? Now in

Section 3 (2) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, will you kindly tell the hon.

gentleman from Eagle River either to shut up or get out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has requested silence so I

would have to enforce that rule.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now let's

go from

Section 3 (2) to

Section 7 (2).

Section 3 (2) says: "the minister may,

subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, issue a

lease...." Now, in

Section 7 (2), the Minister is saying: "No grant, lease or

licence..." can be issued "without the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor

in Council...." So in one

section he is saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon.

gentleman, this is a grant!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: In one

section it is only a lease, which is

for a period of time; on the other hand it is a grant that is for life,

eternity! - he is giving it to him. Mr. Speaker, look, I just today had a long

conversation with some legal advisers. They are telling me that all you are

doing, I say to my hon. colleague, is causing hardship for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians for the sake of a very few rich people. That is what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my hon. colleague that I can

tell you why this bill is coming forward, because the Premier was determined

before the last provincial election to have the bill changed, that is why, and

this is the second time now it has come before this Legislature. The Premier has

been determined, not the Minister, the Minister is doing what he has been told

by the Premier, the same thing with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. They have been told the same thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we get into clause by clause, I have

something like eighteen or nineteen amendments that I will be bringing forward

to this bill and some of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, are very, very

appropriate. Earlier, the Minister spoke about the old Bill as it pertains to

the Labrador Lands; he said earlier I might not know too much about Labrador and

its lands, but let me say to my hon. colleague, that in this bill from cover to

cover, there is not one mention whatsoever of any protection for the two native

groups who are negotiating land claims with the Federal and Provincial

Governments.

In fact now as we speak, we have the Native Association, The

LIA, sitting around a table on the first floor in this building, negotiating