November

15, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 71

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

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

It is with great pride that I stand before this legislature

this morning and ask hon. members, through You, Sir, to send congratulations and

best wishes to an historic Newfoundlander, a Newfoundlander whose name will be

ever enshrined in Newfoundland's history in the future.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not remind

the hon. legislature, it is because of this man and many others

that we are here today enjoying the liberties and freedoms

that we take for granted. I am speaking of Abe Mullett. Mr. Speaker, Abe Mullett

will 100 years old tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Mullett is the only surviving member of

The First Hundred Blue Puttees of the First World War. I want to bring the word

to the legislature that he is in excellent health, and very active with the

Royal Canadian Legion, which meets the first Sunday of every month. Sir, I ask

you to send the appropriate message to Mr. Mullett.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly like to be

associated with those remarks concerning Mr. Mullett. Abe, of course, as the

hon. member said, will be 100 years old tomorrow.

I was fortunate enough this summer to travel with him and

visit Beaumont Hamel in France. The gentleman is, indeed, a real veteran in

every sense, having participated in both battles, Beaumont Hamel, and Gallipoli

in Turkey. He was a fine ambassador, certainly, for this Province, while

visiting Beaumont Hamel. Indeed, we should pay tribute to a gentleman of his

stature. Only three veterans remain, of course, from the First World War and

from the Blue Puttees. In the past few days we had the opportunity to view a

film concerning the battles and the conflicts in the First World War. He played

a prominent

part in that film, which was aired on CTV.

We would certainly like to be associated with those remarks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, today I want to give the House

an update on the financial support being provided by the Department of Fisheries

in response to the catch failure of the 1991 inshore fishery.

As you may recall, I announced on October 4 that the

department would be providing $2 million for a response program. This funding is

allocated equally for two areas: funding in support of specific community

fishery-related projects approved by the Canada Employment and Immigration

Commission (CEIC); and the other half to enable inshore herring fishermen to

achieve higher earnings from the fall herring fishery.

To date, Mr. Speaker, my department has committed a total of

$620,000 for 76 community projects. Now, Mr. Speaker, in my statement, I bring

forward a report from CEIC to November 1, but I want to amend that now, because

ten minutes ago, I got a report from CEIC, a current statement as to exactly

what has transpired. I ask those who have copies of my statement to make the

necessary changes. In my statement, I say that from November 1, CEIC indicates

that more than 2,500 people engaged in the fishery are employed on projects

approved to that date, but that should now read, Mr. Speaker, from November 15,

CEIC indicates that more than 3,593 people, or 23,000 person weeks of

employment, for a total of $9.1 million expended, engaged in the fishery, are

employed on projects approved to that date.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, to date, there are 3,593 people,

for a total of $9.1 million, people who are engaged in the fishery, now employed

on projects approved.

The $1 million provided by my department for community

projects, is designed to provide up to $10,000 per project, in the form of

grants for the purchase of materials or other related project costs. This

funding supplements CEIC funding for the projects, and provides project sponsors

with sufficient monies to cover the cost of meaningful fisheries-related

projects.

Mr. Speaker, the department's $1 million herring program

increases the price paid to fishermen by three cents per pound. The three-cent

price supplement is paid directly to fishermen, at the point of sale. Buyers are

then reimbursed by the department for the additional payment, but they must

provide documentation verifying that fishermen have been paid a minimum of eight

cents per pound for herring.

Information from buyers up to November 14 shows that this

program has provided assistance to fishermen in the sale of approximately eight

million pounds of herring. The overall program will provide a subsidy for

approximately 30 million pounds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the effectiveness of our

Fisheries Response Program and its income generating impact for those fishermen

and plant workers adversely affected by reduced fish landings this year.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

thank the minister for a copy of his statement in advance, but it is too bad I

did not get his updated version, because I missed some of the figures that the

minister gave out there. Having said that, I thank him for the statement.

I just want to say to the minister that, really, I think once

again there has been a misconception placed out and about the Province by the

public relations people dealing with this situation for Government because

everyone out there thought there was $2 million from the Provincial Government

going directly into the Fisheries Emergency Response Employment Program, and now

the minister admits here this morning that really we are talking $1 million with

the other $1 million going into the herring fisheries subsidy program.

MR. CARTER: It's the same job.

MR. MATTHEWS: No it is not the same job, I say to the

minister, and there are, indeed, some problems from different regions of the

Province pertaining to the herring subsidy, in that there are accusations of a

two-tiered system, with the processors and the fishermen being paid different

prices.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make this morning is one I

made yesterday that, yes, the $10,000 grant to provide materials to the

projects, is, indeed, useful and helpful. It is certainly not enough, but my

point is, what we really need in this Province today - with the Federal

Government's money in the Fisheries Emergency Response Program, and with the $1

million provincial allocation, there are still hundreds and hundreds of

fishermen and plant workers who cannot find employment in our Province, for one

reason or another, either the federal criteria is so inflexible or there is not

enough money. I say to the minister that we need an influx of a few more million

dollars, with which we could clear up those outstanding problems in the

Province.

Also, this morning, instead of just listing the total figure

of $620,000 for seventy-six projects, and then his updated figures, I thought

the minister would bring forward a complete list of projects that have been

funded up to $10,000 by his department so that we could have a look at it and

see where the $10,000 grant allocations have gone throughout the Province. In

concluding, I ask the minister would he consider, perhaps next week, bringing in

a list for members of the House so that they can see where the money has gone?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, I announced a two-fold employment

strategy based on the premise that our people are our most valued resource. The

first component was designed to assist residents of the Province acquire jobs

that will result in a long-term attachment to the labour force, providing

challenging and meaningful employment. The second component, Mr. Speaker, was

designed to provide immediate labour intensive job creation programs to maximize

the weeks of work for unemployment insurance qualification for the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am providing a status report on these

employment initiatives.

Under the short-term, Labour Intensive Program for which $9

million was allocated, the following has been committed: 321 projects have been

approved, creating 2,929 jobs and providing 27,155 work weeks in the Province

with 98.6 per cent of the allocation of funds committed. Departments

participating in the delivery of this program are Social Services, Forestry and

Agriculture, Environment and Lands, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and my

Department of Employment and Labour Relations.

Mr. Speaker, jobs that will result in a long-term attachment

to the labour force continue to be created. Under the Employment Generation

Program, 363 projects employing 476 people for 9,520 weeks of subsidized

employment have been approved, with an expenditure, to date, of $1.3 million.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the Linkages Program not only creates

jobs, but provides employment counselling and support through community- based

agencies working with local employers. In partnership with community-based

agencies, my department has approved seventeen projects under the Linkages

Programme, employing seventy-six people and creating 1,976 work weeks,

exhausting the total $500,000 that was allocated for that program.

The first time pilot employer-based training project is a new

concept for this Government. To date, seven projects have been approved

employing seven people for a total of 193 weeks.

Ninety-eight point six per cent of the funding for the

short-term, make-work initiative and 100 per cent of the Linkages funding has

been committed, with my Department continuing to process applications for both

the Employment Generation and the Employer-Based Training programmes on a daily

basis.

To summarize, in total, from both components of the

programme, there have been 708 projects approved, generating 3,488 jobs, both

short- and long-term, for 38,844 work weeks created in the Province since the

October 4 announcement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If Shakespeare was

alive today I am sure he would write, Much Ado about Nothing, part two. What the

Minister has done here is simply rehash what has been already announced in this

House. It has been sent out over the wire service a dozen times now. There is

not one person in Newfoundland who has not heard this. But what it is is an

attempt to convince the people of this Province that this Administration has

done something to provide jobs.

What a farce: the premise that our people are our most valued

resource. Lip service. People are not at all important. There are still

thousands of people out in this Province who are begging this Government to

provide some leadership and some jobs. The programme that was put in place was

woefully inadequate, it does not address the serious unemployment problem we

have in this Province. Much of this money, $5 million in Social Services, as the

Minister has already said, a fair portion was money that was already committed

and spent prior to its being announced, Mr. Speaker.

This has done absolutely nothing to ease the difficulties

that Newfoundlanders are going to face this Winter. If the Minister wants to do

something to help the people of this Province, the Minister should have been

standing on his feet this morning announcing another job creation programme to

help those who have not been able to find any work, because this was far from

adequate to take care of the needs of the thousands of Newfoundlanders who

needed work.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about

Shakespeare, we could also say: "a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and

fury,/ Signifying nothing." Might be appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be an appropriate time for the Chair to bring to

hon. members' attention, on both sides of the House, the complete desire of the

Chair that when members are speaking they not allude to comments made by a

previous speaker, particularly when we are in Ministerial Statements and in

Question Period.

I have noticed in Question Period, after a member is finished

questioning a particular minister, he then makes a comment made by the last

minister when he, indeed, is about to question another minister. Now, we know

that Question Period is not for debate, and that promotes debate. The same thing

with Ministerial Statements. Ministerial Statements are supposed to be factual

and not to create debate, and when we get into that kind of a situation it does

so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I am so impressed

and I am no much in love with Shakespeare, whom I did a lot of study on when I

was in university, that when I hear his name mentioned I just cannot resist

coming forward with a quotation. I apologize to the hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise members of the hon. House of

Assembly of the fact that November 17 to November 23 is Drug Awareness Week.

Each year, the event is sponsored in this Province by the Alcohol and Drug

Dependency Commission, an agency of the Department of Health, to raise public

awareness of alcohol and other drug issues. The slogan they have chosen for this

year's event is "We Can Make A Difference," which aims to boost community

involvement in raising awareness.

During 1989, the ADDC participated with Health and Welfare

Canada, in the National Alcohol and Other Drug Survey. Our analysis of the

Newfoundland and Labrador data presents a disturbing picture of the problems

associated with the misuse of alcohol. Sixty point two per cent of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nineteen and under, are currently drinking, in

excess of 60 per cent of our young people under nineteen, Mr. Speaker. Over a

quarter of these young drinkers, 26.4 per cent, reported having health or social

problems in the year preceding the survey as a result of their drinking. Over

two-thirds, 68.7 per cent, of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over nineteen are

current drinkers and 12.5 per cent of these people have experienced problems

with their drinking.

It is obvious that the irresponsible use of alcohol is having

a profound effect on Newfoundlanders, especially on our young people.

Consequently, it is imperative that we continue to educate Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to prevent the misuse of alcohol and to reduce the problems

associated with this misuse. While this is something we should do every day of

the year, Drug Awareness Week is a special time when we can focus on these

problems.

Mr. Speaker, the ADDC has the responsibility to sponsor,

conduct, and promote programmes for the treatment and rehabilitation of persons

suffering from alcohol and other drug dependency, and to disseminate information

respecting the nature and effects of various types of drug dependency.

Through Drug Awareness Week and many other initiatives, the

ADDC is fulfilling its mandate. I would like to briefly outline some of these

initiatives, Mr. Speaker.

1. The Humberwood Treatment Centre in Corner Brook is the

first inpatient treatment centre of its kind for the Commission. At this ten

(10) bed facility, residents from Newfoundland and Labrador can enter the three

week programme to seek treatment.

2. The Talbot House Detoxification Centre. A Centre located

in St. John's which accepts male and female referrals who require assistance in

withdrawing from alcohol and other drugs prior to commencing the treatment

process.

3. The ADDC offers individual and group counselling to

clients and their family members within its offices throughout the Province.

4. The ADDC offers a variety of professional and community

training options to professionals, community groups, and the general public.

5. The Diploma Programme in Clinical Counselling for

Addictions is offered in co-operation with the School of Social Work at Memorial

University.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to commend the staff of the

ADDC on their exceptional performance and I look forward to keeping you and my

colleagues informed of their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

Minister for providing an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, we want to join with the Minister in supporting

this initiative of the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission. It is more

important than ever that we attack this most serious problem which we have in

the Province, particularly as it affects the youth. It is rather alarming to see

that 26.4 per cent of the young people under nineteen indicated that they were

current drinkers and were having health and social problems. If that is to

continue into adulthood, then we can see even more ramifications in family life

as the trend continues. So it is very important that we address this problem

when they are in the youth stage, so hopefully by the time they are mature

adults then it will be solved.

Mr. Speaker, we commend the Province on its initiative to

provide some treatment centres for people who are afflicted by alcohol and drug

problems. It is very important to have this kind of education programme both for

our youth and for adults to deal with alcohol and drug abuse.

Mr. Speaker, on the coast of Labrador the LIA runs a

programme of its own that is very similar to the programme that is run here, and

this week or next week, I think, in Makkovik at it's annual meeting they are

going to have a non-alcohol dance. I notice this kind of thing is occurring

throughout the Labrador region, and we very much support the LIA and other

organizations in attempting to educate people to the problems that are

associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs.

We too want to commend the staff of the Alcohol and Drug

Dependency Commission on their exceptional performance. They contribute a lot to

the life of the youth and families of this Province, and we want to wish them

well as they get on with their programmes, and encourage the Administration to

perhaps place more centres of that type throughout the Province. I see the need

for one in central Newfoundland as well now. We have one on the west and one on

the east, and maybe one in the central Newfoundland area would be in order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have a question this morning for the

Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I want to follow up on

questions yesterday about the awarding of three contracts for health care

facilities to Trans City Holdings Ltd. for $24 million; $6 million more than the

lowest tender bids. Did Government engage a Halifax based company, Hanscombe

Consultants, for $35,000 to evaluate all the bids received for the three

projects, and what advice did Hanscombe Consultants give the Government?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me correct a

misunderstanding that the hon. gentleman obviously has. The proposal was for a

lease-purchase arrangement, and the total cost of the proposal will depend upon

the cost of financing and the final arrangements that are made in terms of the

leasing. It was not a tender call that involved simply the construction of

facilities; it involved a lease-purchase arrangement, which is totally

different, so the hon. Member's introduction is not correct.

Hanscombe Consultants Ltd., I believe, was engaged by the

department to help with the analysis after the information was received from the

people who submitted proposals. The reason this was done, and there are two

reasons, I suppose; one was to get an outside opinion as to what was in the

documentation, because an outside opinion, we felt, could help with the

departmental opinion. The other thing was that we are in the process of trying

to speed up the project so we could get some construction going, and the outside

consultants would help speed up the project. Their particular input, I do not

have the details of what they said, but the conclusions were that under a least

- they examined under two options, I believe, least cost and best proposal in

terms of the overall proposal down the road. In one instance the recommendation

that I have seen from the department, and that involves the Hanscombe input, was

that the best overall proposals were submitted by Trans City; the least cost, I

forget the name of the company, but it was one of the wooden building proposals,

Mr. Speaker. The general conclusion that I am privy to, and that is all I can

tell the hon. gentleman, is that the best overall proposal, and I think the

wording was: combining high standard of construction and engineering combined

with value for money, was the Trans City proposal.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to

the Minister.

Did not Hanscombe Consultants tell Government that it could

not really evaluate the bids because Government specifications were too vague,

and can the Minister confirm that they advised Government to re-tender with more

complete specifications?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not privy to any

conversations that went on in the process. All I can refer to is the

recommendations that come to Government in terms of coming to Cabinet. I have

outlined for the hon. gentleman exactly what these recommendations were. I would

like to remind the hon. gentleman as well that this process was a different

process than has been gone through, than is normal, and that we have been using,

okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: It is a process that is different from the

process that we normally use for the other construction projects, because what

we discovered was, and what we found was, that the process that is in place

involved escalating costs. Month by month as we went through the process the

costs would double, and we were trying to do two things; we were trying to save

the Province money, number one, by preventing escalation; save the Province

money by preventing escalation of cost, number one; and number two, to speed up

an extremely cumbersome process that would result in nothing getting done for

the next year or so.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the process is

different. There is no doubt about that, and I am sure that everyone in the

Province realizes that today. The fact is that the Government's tender call did

not specify the type of construction, or the kind of building materials. When

Government decided, after the bids were closed, that it wanted a steel and brick

building, why did it not re-tender so it could be certain of getting the work

done for the lowest price? Why, instead of doing this, did Cabinet decide to

award the contract to Trans City Holdings against the advice of Hanscombe

Consultants and, indeed, some of their own departmental staff? Why did Cabinet

do that, Mr. Speaker, if it was not so that they could make the thing so vague

that they could award the contract to someone they wanted to award it to? Is

that the real reason?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman once again is not correct in what he is

saying. I have outlined to him in some detail what the advice was to Cabinet. I

had indicated yesterday that I would provide the House today with the kind of

information that was given, all bidders on the project, and it will be here

momentarily. There was a problem in an elevator this morning and some officials

got stuck which delayed me receiving the documentation. I will receive it

momentarily and table it for the hon. gentleman.

I have one part of it which I will put with it. This is - I

do not know - twenty or thirty pages, and the actual documents that were given

were over 100 pages long. So, there was a fair amount of detail given.

I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that this proposal

we are now proceeding with will, in the long run, save the Government tens of

millions of dollars and also, I would like to remind the hon. gentleman, will

create construction activity right now without Government having to put up-front

money in place. I remind the hon. gentlemen that they realized at one point in

time the significance of going a lease/purchase arrangement when they had a

freeze on building construction in this Province. To get around the fact that

they had no money in the budget, they went with lease/purchase on the Grand

Falls courthouse. So, there is that type of advantage to going lease/purchase as

well, Mr. Speaker, to create the activity now and the payments do not start for

a couple of years down the road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister and the Government

rejected the lowest bids of three health care facilities, because they said the

proposed buildings were going to be made out of tin and wood. He gave the

impression that the companies who made up these proposals were fly-by-night

operations, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheap shot!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, it is very cheap

for a Minister of the Crown to suggest that the construction companies in this

Province would build tin buildings for hospitals. It is very cheap for a

Minister of the Crown to do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it a fact that the lowest bids for the

facilities at Burgeo and Port Saunders were buildings made of structural steel

and steel siding? Isn't it also a fact that the Department of Public Works was

advised by the lowest bidder before tenders closed that brick could be used

instead of steel siding at a minimal extra cost?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is not

correct in his implications and not correct in his introductory statement. Mr.

Speaker, I explained yesterday, I believe it was, when the matter was first

raised, that there was one proposal that involved structural steel covered with

steel sheeting, I believe. That -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) covered with tin.

MR. BAKER: Well, structural steel covered with steel

sheeting. There were some proposals of wood. I could get into all the details,

but I do not know if Your Honour would allow me the time in Question Period.

Some of the structures were two-story structures and some were one-story

structures and so on. After an analysis it was determined that to suit our needs

and for the best overall return value for money, combined with construction

durability and so on, we chose a particular proposal which was the cheapest.

I would like to remind the hon. gentleman, as well, that in

the final analysis, because of the nature of the lease/purchase proposal, that

this proposal will, in fact, I believe, end up being cheaper than the wood

buildings, all of the wood buildings, that were tendered. Mr. Speaker, this is

not a comment on the capabilities or the quality of the companies that did the

bidding. I am sure the hon. gentleman realizes, when he was in Government, that

they had to reject many bids from companies and that is no indication that the

company is a fly-by-night operation. We are quite confident that the bids we

received were from companies that were quite capable of doing the work and were

legitimate full companies in this Province and could do a good job.

Unfortunately, there are some winners and there are some losers.

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

supplementary.

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

was in Government, I did not suggest that the construction companies build tin

hospitals in this Province like the Minister did.

Since the bids for the projects in Burgeo and Port Saunders

were $3 million less than the Trans City Holdings Ltd. bid, why did not the

Government go back to the lowest bidder and ask for an estimate of the added

cost of adding brick to the structure instead of steel siding, and did the

Minister do that or the department do that and what was the difference between

the steel siding cost and the brick siding cost?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the latter

part is a difficult

part to answer. I can say to the hon. gentleman that we have explained - he can

wave around all the paper he wants, but we have explained the process that we

went through which was logical and sensible at every step. All bidders had an

equal opportunity to bid on these particular structures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the cost, a factor

that has not been mentioned is in terms of the financing arrangements and in

actual fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: - in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, the bid that

was accepted was really the only bid that had a very definite cost attached to

it. They bid on a square foot basis and therefore can be tied to a definite

cost,

whereas the other bids were not done in that manner. So, Mr. Speaker, we

have absolute, in spite of the fact that the tender specifications were more

general than normal, we have absolute control to ensure that the costs will not

escalate in this particular proposal,

whereas we did not in the other proposals.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I guess they have, when they

are throwing away $6 million on construction, they would have a guarantee with a

$6 million payoff somewhere.

The Government just recently opened a new clinic in Botwood,

made from structural steel and wood siding; a very good facility as far as I

understand. Could not the Government have saved another $3.3 million if it had

accepted the lowest bid on the proposal similar to that for St. Lawrence, and,

since the lowest bidder for the project was under $2.4 million, would it have

cost $3.3 million to substitute brick for wood?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman is

either not listening or does not understand. I will help him out a little bit by

preparing for him for the next session of the House, hopefully over the weekend,

as I did not have time to do it last night, a complete analysis of the costing

arrangements and a description of the cost associated with the proposals. I have

no problem in doing that, everything is quite open.

There have been a number of wooden buildings built in this

Province and they are good wooden buildings; there is no problem with that,

except that the life span, and do not forget we are into a thirty year leaseback

arrangement now whereby at the end of thirty years we take over the building, it

is our building and we then have to consider the cost beyond the thirty years,

and in the analysis that we had done, even though wood buildings have a life

span, they are good buildings, they have a life span perhaps of twenty, thirty

years before maintenance costs start to get high. They are good buildings.

In this instance, the brick/steel in the long-term, was

better, cheaper, more value for money than the wooden structures and it was a

decision we made to save money both in the short-term and the long-term, Mr.

Speaker, and we stand by it.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Government threw away, I think it was over $3 million on

the first two hospitals, and substituting the brick for the steel siding,

according to the contractors who submitted bids, would have cost $250,000, Mr.

Speaker. It was $3.3 million thrown away rather than spend $250,000 on the

lowest bidder. There is something definitely wrong with that. The only flimsy

fly-by-night operation in this whole affair, Mr. Speaker, is the Government, the

Department of Public Works, and the Cabinet. Is it not a fact that the

Government set up this whole tender call and deliberately used incomplete

specifications so it could pick and choose the contractor it wanted to do the

job? Is not this whole affair a tricky lawyer's gimmick to get around the Public

Tendering Act and use the Public Work's budget as a Liberal slush fund?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: I am glad to see the hon. gentleman is back.

He made me laugh yesterday, as well. I am sure that the principal in the

company, Joe Butler, will be glad to hear that he is now going to start donating

to the Liberal Party rather than the Tory Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have been noticing, this morning, the interference from

members to my right, particularly the Member for Torngat Mountains, who has been

continuously interrupting. I ask the member to restrain himself while ministers

are answering questions.

The hon. the minister may continue.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As usual, there is a

lot of rhetoric with no substance to it.

Mr. Speaker, we started on a process that would provide some

construction, some much-needed jobs, and provide them in the cheapest possible

manner to the taxpayers of the Province, giving us the best value for money. I

am satisfied we have done that, Mr. Speaker. It would be amusing if it weren't

so sad, that comments like that come from a former minister who presided over

throwing $4 million into a piece of plastic in Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister of Social Services. Is the minister aware of the situation that

presently exists in Goose Bay, where a foster child is being sent back to his

natural parents in Coastal Labrador? From documents I have read and information

I have received, the child is to be sent back to a situation where terrible

abuse has been alleged. Is the minister aware of this specific case?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the specific case

to which the hon. member is referring, but I think he has his facts a little in

reverse, and I would be glad to let him in on the true facts of the matter. The

matter is presently being dealt with in court and probably should be left there

for the time being.

MR. HODDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who has the true

facts of the matter but, certainly, the Foster Parents Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and a lady who has travelled at her own expense from

Goose Bay, who is now in the gallery, certainly feels there is something to be

concerned about, here.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister if he

would consider, by way of an independent enquiry, having a person outside his

department look at this whole situation, because that problem in Goose Bay, from

what I can understand, is a conflict between some of the foster parents in Goose

Bay and his department in that community. I ask the minister if he will look

into these allegations and the problems that exist between various groups in

that area.

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to apologize. With the vagueness of the first

question, I got it confused with another matter. There are a couple of ongoing

matters in that particular area, Mr. Speaker. As for the situation the member

refers to, at the request of his office, I have arranged for a meeting at 12:10

today, with the party in question and the lady he mentions in the gallery. I

will be discussing that particular matter with her if, in fact, she has

legitimate representation to make on the case. It will be placed under review.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of

the Premier, my question will be directed to the Minister responsible for Mines

and Energy. Since the Government came to power some two-and-a-half years ago,

electricity costs in the Province have skyrocketed, in some cases between 25 per

cent and 30 per cent to consumers. Most of the higher costs to consumers was

caused directly by the Government when it decided to phase out the PDD system

and the 1 per cent surcharge on Hydro loans. Now that Newfoundland Hydro has

applied for another 3.9 per cent increase, would the minister, in conjunction

with his Cabinet colleagues, cancel the surcharge in order to avoid a large

increase to consumers, at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, since the subsidy was

cancelled, Hydro has only received one increase, that I am aware of, that was

directly related to the cancellation of the subsidy, and that was approximately

- I can't remember the exact figure now - I think it was approximately 4 mils,

about a year-and-a-half ago. Other rate increases that have occurred since that

time have had nothing to do with the cancellation of the subsidy. They have been

increases to light and power, they have been changes to the rate stabilization

fund, reflecting changes in oil prices, or other matters that affect the rate

stabilization fund.

The other major, and most significant, increase to the price

of electricity in the last year-and-a-half or two years has been the addition of

the GST, last January 1, at 7 per cent.

In the application that Hydro are now making, related to the

subsidy phase-out, they are asking for an increase that will be 2.2 per cent at

the consumer level for those on the integrated grid on the Island of

Newfoundland. That is not a very large increase.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro, in

conjunction with asking for the rate increase, are also asking for $9 million to

be taken from the rate stabilization fund to apply against the deficit for this

year. The drawdown from the stabilization fund was necessary to avoid an even

larger increase of approximately another 11 per cent, or 11 per cent in total.

Did the Government discuss with Hydro what it might do to avoid such a large

increase at this time? And, did Government advise Hydro to dip into the rate

stabilization fund, at this time, to avoid a much larger increase to the

consumer?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, we had no discussions with

Hydro on what they should do. Hydro operates independently and is regulated by

the Public Utilities Board. The suggestion has come from Hydro, itself, as to

the way to moderate rate increases.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, is the rate drawdown from the

stabilization fund not just a temporary manoeuvre so that they wouldn't have to

go for a bigger one at this time? And it is obvious, because they said 11 per

cent. And won't rates increase after this to try to replenish the stabilization

fund? In order to help the consumer, does the Government have any strategy to

avoid electricity rate increases that are now spiralling out of control?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I disagree that electricity

rate increases are spiralling out of control. I think, this year, we have seen

things come under control because of, particularly, the low price that Hydro has

had to pay for the Bunker C that it uses at Holyrood. That is the reason for

their moderate request here, only 2.2 per cent at the consumer level for a rate

increase this year. So I don't think things are spiralling out of control at

all.

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

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

also is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. When this Government came into

power in 1989, it was on the slogan of Fairness and Balance. If Hydro is allowed

what they requested, does the minister realize that communities serviced by

diesel generator - for example, I have here a St. John's customer's Hydro bill

for a number of kilowatts. That Hydro bill will increase $6.15 here in St.

John's on a month, but, for the same number of kilowatts, a person living in

Nain will have to pay $46.87 more. Where is the fairness and balance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the details of the

bills he is comparing. I think it is very unfair to compare a bill in Nain with

a bill anywhere on the interconnected grid. I agree with him, that the bills for

Nain and other areas that are on remote diesel are the highest rates in this

Province. Presently, remote diesel costs three to four times as much as the

amount that is being collected in the bills in these particular areas. That is

why there was a subsidy, and that is why, right now, there is a

cross-subsidization from the other rates around the Province to cover the extra

costs in these particular areas.

In this particular request that Hydro has made, they are

saying that above 700 kilowatt hours per month, they would ask for a 10 per cent

rate increase in the extra, over and above 700. For the average home in this

Province that is not using electric heat, 700 kilowatt hours is an adequate

amount. That amount is at the same rate as everybody else on the Island pays on

the interconnected grid. So anyone who is just having electricity for lights,

fridge, television, and ordinary things, without requiring electricity for

heating in these remote areas, should be able to get by on the same rate as the

rate in St. John's or Corner Brook or Gander, as examples.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Finance.

A couple of days ago, the minister advised us that his budget

deficit now on current account would be some $95 million, which is $41 million

more than he estimated in March. His revenues are down by $52 million, $25

million in shortfall and provincial taxes, primarily RST. In view of this drop

in RST, is the minister now still considering harmonizing RST with GST? Is he

not concerned that to do that would cause a further consumer revolt against RST

and cause the revenues from RST to drop even further?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is very interested in what we are going to

do, and in due time all will be revealed.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, I am very interested, and so is the rest of the

Province. In fact, they are scared to death with that Minister as Minister of

Finance.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister claims that his expenditures are

$11 million below budget, but that is due entirely to a $28.4 million favourable

variance in the cost of servicing the provincial debt due to interest rates. In

other words, Mr. Speaker, his whole improvement in expenditures is due entirely

Is it not true that expenditures on all other headings, other

than interest payments, have actually increased by $17.4 million? Would the

minister like to tell us which departments have gone over budget, and does the

minister expect those departments to continue spending over budget for the rest

of the year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resultant of $11 million below budget is a combination of

a whole series of figures, some up, some down. I just highlighted in my

statement the other day, one of the more prominent ones. Some expenditures may

be up a bit, as in the job creation program, and others are down. But no one

should look forward to any trend in that.

MR. WINDSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

for a short supplementary and a short answer.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not true that the minister's budget deficit has

increased in six months by 60 per cent over what he projected earlier in the

year? Can he tell us that that budget deficit will not increase by even more

before this year is over?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee anything, because a large

amount of what we do - and I mentioned that in my statement - depends upon the

way equalization works in the next while. There are a couple of points that we

are a bit nervous about. We included in our estimates the other day just about

everything we knew about. So, I am not worried that the estimate will be off by

very much. The main unknowns in it might be what would happen under equalization

take. We have tried to estimate, from published figures that are available, what

these might be. So I believe that our estimates are as close as possible.

I might add this, Mr. Speaker, that we have been quite

prudent in the two or three years that we have been here, very prudent in our

operations. Had we been spending money, like the drunken sailors opposite, we

would really have a serious problem. Last year, we came to grips with the

deficit of this Province. The members opposite did not come to grips with it,

and, as a result of that, we are in a very good budgetary position, compared,

for example, to Ontario.

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

I said that the hon. member could have a short question and

the minister, a short answer. I think both requirements have been fulfilled.

Question Period has expired.

Before moving to routine business, on behalf of hon. Members

I would like to welcome to the House today sixty Grade IX students from St.

Peter's Elementary School, Mount Pearl, accompanied by their teachers Mr. Arnold

and Mr. Duggan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question

about the tender documents for the health care proposals and I did not have

them, and I did not have them earlier today, and I promised I would tell hon.

Members exactly what this was.

I am prepared now to table - I just received it a moment ago

- the information that was given on one of the clinics. This one has an

introductory paper of twenty or thirty pages plus a functional programme for the

health care centre of 110 pages. I believe the St. Lawrence one was 145 pages,

and the other one was 112 pages. It covers administrative support services,

nursing services, getting into a lot of detail in terms of what is needed,

diagnostic and therapeutic services, and the allocations made for public health

and home care, mental health sections, staff facilities including everything

that the staff needs in a building, resident patient situation, exactly what is

needed,

summary of staffing and a complete

summary of the space requirements.

This in fact makes a functional plan. This is what was given

to the bidders on the project, and I promised the House that I would table these

documents today so, Mr. Speaker, here they are. A similar package was done for

the other two as well, in one case much larger.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to introduce a bill, "An Act

Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections and Financing," carried. (Bill No.

55).

On motion, Bill No. 55 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow, by leave.

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4. Before proceeding with order 4, on

behalf of hon. Members again I would like to welcome to the galleries today

fifty Grade VI students from St. Edward's Elementary School, Kelligrews, I

believe it is, along with their three teachers, Ms. Marilyn Butler, Miss Marie

Deacy and Mr. Joe Pumphrey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4.

MR. BAKER: I was wondering if, by leave, rather than

going through the same process so many times, we could do orders 4 to 11, they

are all third readings?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders 4 through 11? Agreed?

It is moved and seconded that orders 4 to 11, which are third

reading of various bills, be now read a third time. All those in favour, 'aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'? Carried.

The following bills read a third time:

"An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, 1985, The City

Of Mount Pearl Act And The Municipalities Act." (Bill No. 11).

"An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act, 1975."

(Bill No. 28).

"An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Geographical Names Board

Act, 1974." (Bill No. 43).

"An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act."

(Bill No. 20).

"An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act." (Bill No. 21).

"An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act."

(Bill No. 35).

"An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial Foundation."

(Bill No. 41).

"An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The

Prevention Of Fire." (Bill No. 53).

On motion, bills 11, 28, 43, 20, 21, 35, 41, and 53, read a

third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

MR. BAKER: Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 12.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I will not take too much more time on this particular Bill.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to see a number of young people in the

gallery today, and it is interesting that we are speaking about this particular

Bill. This particular Bill, Mr. Speaker, will have some effect on those young

people as they begin to grow older because I would say looking at those young

grade six students that a lot of them love to go fishing, or as we call it,

trouting. But, Mr. Speaker, if this Bill goes through the Legislature, many of

those young people who like to take their fishing rods and their thigh rubbers

and go out walking around the ponds and rivers in our Province may not be

allowed to do so if

section 7.2 in this Bill is allowed to stay on the Order

Paper.

So I want to say to those students as they grow older: what

you are enjoying today, you may not enjoy after this Bill goes through, because

this Government is intending to stop people from moving around those ponds

because all of a sudden someone will build a cabin on this pond, put a wharf

out, and you will not be able to get around it. They are going to stop you from

doing what you enjoy best, and that is fishing.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. WARREN: It is true. I say to my hon. colleague for

Exploits it is true, and he knows it because he is part of the Cabinet that

wants to do this -

Section 7.2.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to you, Your Honour, that we would be

willing to let this Bill go through very fast if

section 7.2 is dropped. If

section 7.2 is dropped I will stop right away, Mr. Speaker, and let this Bill go

right through, because by dropping

section 7.2 of the Bill then at least we are

assuring the Newfoundlanders and the Labradorians that their access to the

rivers and ponds in our Province will not be obstructed.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. friends that in New

Brunswick, with the rivers and ponds, we saw what happened. Now you have to go

and buy a permit and pay all kinds of money in order to go fishing to get a half

dozen trout to cook for breakfast, and this is what is going to happen here, Mr.

Speaker. You are going to have the people on the Gander River or out on the

lakes saying: yes, you can fish here, but you have to pay so much money. That is

what is going to happen, and we are not going to put up with it, Mr. Speaker, we

have no intention of putting up with it. We are going to stay in this

Legislature until every available means is used up by us, as the Opposition, to

stop this Bill. We know at the end of the game that you have your thirty-two or

thirty-three members, that you people will do as you did with the bills before

the Legislature started.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to say what you are

going to do. You are going to ram this down the throats of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, that is what you are going to do because as Government, naturally

you have the majority and you are going to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was approved by the previous

government.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this Bill was not approved by

the previous government!

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, how could a bill be approved if

it never came into the Legislature! I ask my colleague, Mr. Speaker, to look at

the Order in Council.

Mr. Speaker,

section 11: I would say to the Government, Mr.

Speaker, that in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we have a number of

surveyors, and I believe the surveyors in our Province have to be wary of

section 11 because it could happen. There could be adverse claims and the

surveyor could be left two or three years down the road with probably having to

pay to the Crown a substantial amount of money. Mr. Speaker, we are planning to

bring in some amendments to

Section 11. There are other sections in this Bill to

which we are planning to bring in amendments. In fact there will be fourteen or

fifteen different amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not welcome back my

colleague for Bonavista South. I see he is sitting in a chair now that he is

keeping warm for somebody. He is actually in the hot seat that he is going keep

warm for two months, then he is going to have to move somewhere else. I welcome

him back and I want to congratulate him on his temporary appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: It is only until after Christmas.

MR. WARREN: I am sure, as my hon. colleague said, he is

only there until after Christmas so enjoy it while you have the chance.

I am glad my colleague is back because he and I, my colleague

for Humber Valley, and the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island went around the

Province and at five different locations held public meetings. I believe it is

fair to say that my friend as Chairman did a real good job and every submission

that was presented to us said: do not take away our God-given right. That was

the theme of every submission that was given to us, do not take away what we

have enjoyed for years and years. That is to get our fishing pole, to get our

thigh rubbers, to go out and walk around the ponds and rivers and fish if we

desire to do so. Unfortunately what is going to happen with this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, is that this right is going to be taken away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong! Wrong!

MR. WARREN: That crowd over there says, wrong, wrong. But

yesterday when the Minister introduced the Bill the Minister said it only could

happen with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now, that is the

Cabinet, with the approval of the Cabinet, so whenever the Premier, and the

Premier is a one-man show, whenever the Premier wants something done he is going

to do it regardless of the other twelve or thirteen sitting around the table. He

will do the same thing here as he is doing with the Mount Pearl Fire Department.

It is pointless to say it is not going to be done because it is going to be

done. If the Premier wants it done it is going to be done regardless of whether

the Minister of Social Services likes it or not. There is no such thing as a

team approach, it is a one-man approach. It is the same as back in the 60s when

Joey Smallwood ran the show by himself and now we have a Premier who is doing it

the same way.

AN HON. MEMBER: You loved Joey Smallwood.

MR. WARREN: Yes, I say to my hon. colleague that Joey

Smallwood is a great man. He is a great Newfoundlander. I only wish my hon.

colleague for St. Barbe could be as popular as one pair of his shoes were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

Section 7 (2) of this Bill it does give Government the

authority to change anything they want to change. And that is what we are upset

about, that, those young people up in the gallery today, who are used to the

enjoyment of going with their families for a picnic, a cup of tea around a pond,

will have that taken away from them because of the attitude of this Government.

I said earlier that I was willing to stop speaking on this

bill if this Government would delete

section 7(2) - that is all we are asking,

delete 7(2). If Government are not interested in deleting 7(2), I want to move

the following amendment, seconded by the Member for Humber Valley:

That the motion for the second reading of Bill (22), which is

before the House of Assembly, now be amended by deleting all the words after the

word 'that', and substituting the following: 'That Bill (22), "An Act To Revise

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

The Province," be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time,

this day, six months hence.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: May I see the amendment, please?

The amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise me

how much time I have left on this amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: We will check from the Table and let the

hon. member know momentarily.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all we are asking this Government to do now is

take this bill and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which motion?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on the motion I

just presented.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is speaking on the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is speaking on the six-month hoist.

MR. WARREN: That is right, Mr. Speaker, and, in fact, if

Government would agree to a six-month hoist, I would stop now and we could have

a vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: It is up to the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree to (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, if he would agree to a six-month hoist, I

would stop now and we could go ahead and vote. All we are asking this Government

to do is put this bill in the garbage can. That is what we are asking, because

we feel that this bill is going to hurt Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

want to enjoy their freedom. It is taking away their freedom. Now, for

two-and-a-half years they have been trying to bring a bill similar to this into

this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to answer the question the hon. member addressed

about his time. The hon. member has half an hour - a half-hour from when he

started a moment ago, because now, he is debating a new question; he is debating

the amendment, so he has the ordinary debating time of half an hour.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I, and I think, our Party, and I am sure the third Party in

this House, would like to know why this Government is so determined to bring a

piece of legislation into this House, that will not help most Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. Unfortunately, the only people this bill will help are those

who have cabins and small wharves on the ponds and lakes in our Province, who

want to stop people from walking around the ponds.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, that is true, because it gives

this Cabinet the authority to allow those people to put up whatever kind of

fence they want. Now, how can a person make it any more clear than that? That is

a fact, and that is why we, as a former government, would not bring in this

bill.

Mr. Speaker, the old bill in this legislature has been here

for fifty years. Why change it? Nobody in the Province is saying, We want to

stop other people from coming around the ponds. That is not what we want.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague from Bellevue, down

in his district there are many famous ponds and rivers. In fact, I guess it is

fair to say that I spend a lot of time in that area. I do a lot of fishing and

trouting in that area. But, Mr. Speaker, it would be a sad day when I go down to

Gull Pond, if someone has a cabin there and I am not allowed to go around that

pond to my favourite fishing hole because he is going to try to stop me. Mr.

Speaker, it is going to be a sad day, but that is going to happen with this

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WARREN: Yes, it is going to happen. Because all that

has to happen, Mr. Speaker, is for the person who owns that cabin to submit a

request to Government, and when the request comes to Cabinet, the Premier will

say, 'Oh, my goodness, that is one of my buddies who helped our campaign, so we

have to help him,' and the Premier decides, and it is done. It is just as simple

as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right.

MR. WARREN: Let me say to my hon. colleague, it is right.

This bill does give a person who owns a cabin on a river or a pond, the

opportunity to protect not only his own property, but to stop other people from

walking around that inland water, and that we do not agree with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Exactly right, Mr. Speaker, but it was never,

never done. So why change it? Why try to fix something that is not broken?

That's what this Government is trying to do, fix something that is not broken,

and unfortunately, that is very bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Potential for abuse is all it is.

MR. WARREN: Well, that is exactly what it is there for.

It is a bill to be used for those only who could afford it. That is unfortunate.

And I know that my colleague for Bonavista South, when he has the opportunity to

speak to this bill, will tell all the stories we heard throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador. He will tell you that every person who appeared before a

committee, without exception, said, 'We want our freedom.' Mr. Speaker, we know

that this Government does not have the word freedom in their vocabulary. Because

the people of Mount Pearl want their freedom to have their fire hall, but this

Government is saying no, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Let me say to my hon. colleague that he has

only been in Cabinet now a month-and-a-half, and he already knows that the

Cabinet is a one-man show, and that person will decide to do what he thinks is

necessary, not what the other twelve or thirteen think who are sitting around

that table. In fact, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was in Mount Pearl and

he got upset. He was so upset that he walked out afterwards and would not even

talk to the media. Shame, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am wondering if we have a separate debate going on. I think

the House only allows for one. The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains, and now quite clearly is hearing loud debate. If the debate

were low one could tolerate it, but it is very loud debate.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could have the attention of the minister

responsible for this particular bill, I will go back to

section 7(2)(a).

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong?

MR. WARREN: I want to just go through -

Section 7(2)(

a) says: "where an applicant demonstrates that a

grant, lease or licence of the land is necessary for the purpose of an

industrial undertaking and the grant, lease or licence would not cause undue

injury to the rights of others." Now, Mr. Speaker, going to (c): "to enable a

municipality to engage in water and sewer works and to permit the construction

of public roads;"

Now, I have here in front of me a regulation pursuant to

Section 6 of the Environmental Assessment Act for the proposed Swift Current

power development, in your district, Mr. Speaker, a power development on the

Piper's Hole river. Now, we are talking about

Section 7(2) and here we have a

proposal for the Piper's Hole river, in a community in the district of Bellevue,

where the hon. member, the Speaker, now serves.

Mr. Speaker, do you know that this particular river is one of

the few rivers in Placentia Bay that is a licensed salmon river? Here we have a

proposal now - and this minister has not called for an environmental study. All

he asked is for written comments and then he will decide afterwards.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Decide now! Decide now! Don't wait until

afterwards! Decide now to do it! Mr. Speaker, this is what is wrong with this

Government. Here we are, with one of the few salmon rivers in the Placentia Bay

area, and all this Government is doing is putting a little note in the paper.

Hopefully, nobody will notice it. But we are talking about a fishery in our

Province that is decimated, that is, the salmon fishery. And here they are

inviting proposals for the Piper's Hole hydro development.

So we can see how dangerous this bill is in not giving the

people of our Province their rights and freedoms. You know, Piper's Hole has a

Provincial park, I believe - and my hon. colleague can confirm that - a day

park. And let's be realistic, a lot of people visit that particular park. But,

for two years, if this construction takes place, we are going to have a piece of

our Crown lands, a piece of our sacred territory that people enjoy, once again

been taken away from them.

So this Government has one ambition. And it is not what is

good for the people, it is what is good for this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to clue up now because I know members

on the opposite side -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no, no, no, no.

MR. WARREN: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to give up now

because later I will be bringing in a number of amendments. However, I want to

say that it is going to be a sad day in this Province when I must say to my

daughter, or even her family, that they are not allowed to go to a particular

pond because so-and-so has a cabin on that pond and he has been given a permit

to control that particular pond or river. That is what this bill is going to do.

It is going to be able to give permits to individuals, in our

Province or outside our Province, to a particular pond, and all of a sudden, a

pond where at one time I went fishing and trouting, I will not be allowed any

longer. That is what we are scared about, that Newfoundland and Labrador will be

cut up into little pieces, a pond for so-and-so, a lake for so-and-so, and those

who want to go out and enjoy themselves will not be able to do so.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

MR. WARREN: No, no!

MR. SIMMS: He is speaking on the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an amendment before the House and

if the minister speaks now he is speaking on the amendment.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was aware of that.

I had no intention or no desire to close the debate. I would not have done it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I now recognize the hon. the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to have this

legislation debated from now until doomsday. I have to say this, Mr. Speaker: I

have know the hon. the Member for Torngat since - I think, we go back to 1979

when we first met. We ran together, we were elected, and we both served in the

Opposition. Eventually, the hon. member had a change of heart and felt he would

be happier on the other side. I consider the man a gentleman and we have been

friends. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, and I have to tell the hon. the Member

for Fogo, and the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, and the hon. the Member for

Port au Port that either one of two things is happening in this House today, as

happened yesterday, either the member is incapable of understanding the bill,

either he does not understand it, he did not read it, or, with the support of

the hon. members I have named, he is deliberately misleading the people of this

House and the people of Newfoundland. It is one or the other. Mr. Speaker, that

is a dangerous tack.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is probably both.

MR. FLIGHT: Probably both.

MR. R. AYLWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the

minister just suggested that the Member for Torngat Mountains is deliberately

misleading the people of this Province and, indirectly, the members of this

House. To suggest that a member of this House is deliberately misleading has

been ruled many times to be out of order. I ask that you suggest to the minister

that he should withdraw such remarks as unparliamentary.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was not following

the debate closely, however, my understanding is that this was an either/or

proposition which is perfectly acceptable. If the acting, acting, acting House

Leader on the opposite side wants to interpret it that way, then I suppose that

is his choice. If that is what he is willing to accept as the meaning of it,

then he is quite free to do so. This was an either/or statement and there was no

definitive statement made about deliberately misleading the House, Mr. Speaker,

so I would suggest to Your Honour that because of that there is no point of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: In the estimation of the Chair, the minister

did indicate that the hon. member was deliberately misleading the House and I

would ask the hon. minister to retract the remark.

MR. FLIGHT: I have no problem with withdrawing. I have no

desire to cast aspirations, and I withdraw. However, Mr. Speaker, let me

rephrase it: He is inadvertently misleading the House. He does not know that he

is misleading the House, but that says volumes about the hon. member, though,

Mr. Speaker. The risky part here for the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, who

is a well-respected legislator, Mr. Speaker, in his district, in this House of

Assembly, and in the Province, if he finds himself in a position where he has to

support some of the statements that have been made in this debate by the hon.

the Member for Torngat, that credibility is going down the drain, Mr. Speaker.

The same thing applies to the hon. the Member for Port au Port, the hon. the

Member for Kilbride, the hon. the Member for Fogo, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern, and the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Any

person, Mr. Speaker, who understands what this legislation is doing, and

understands the law as it existed prior to this legislation, who would support

the hon. Member for Torngat risks losing every bit of credibility he has, and

risks being accused of supporting the revelations or the thoughts of a fool

because you cannot see both ways. You cannot read this legislation, and you

cannot be aware of what was in the last legislation, and then support what the

hon. Member is saying. It cannot be done. So what is going to be interesting,

Mr. Speaker, is to see how long the hon. Member for Fogo, and the hon. Member

for Kilbride, and the hon. the Member for Humber, and the hon. Member for Port

au Port, and the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern are prepared to support

this charade. That is going to be the test, Mr. Speaker.

Now let me start again, Mr. Speaker. Under the existing

legislation, a minister, without any regard for Cabinet, can issue a permit to

occupy or grant or lease anywhere he wants in Newfoundland. Now that is what the

existing legislation says, and it is happening. Every day it is happening. My

ADM of Crown Lands - Director of Crown Lands - is issuing every day now along

the seashore, along lakes, a right to build a boat house, a right to build a

wharf - the foreshore, the seashore -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes! Anywhere. It is happening every day.

AN HON. MEMBER: The seashore?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, the seashore, the foreshore, along the

lakes, along the rivers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the right to occupy which gives

the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: No, but here is the point - the hon. members

will appreciate this - here is what it says today. Mr. Speaker, to guarantee, to

enshrine forever peoples rights to unrestricted access so people - it does not

matter who they are - will not build and restrict, and bar off the reservation

we have.

Right now the minister of today, under this legislation, has

the right to issue a permit to occupy to anyone to do that - the minister. What

this legislation does is - on the basis there may be abuse in that - some

minister may decide, in the future, to issue a permit to occupy. That would give

that person the right to bar off the reservation. Now it must go to Cabinet. The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council now must make that decision. Every applicant must

indicate publicly two months prior to making his application.

Now that is protection he never had before. The Cabinet

itself must decide whether or not he will be given a permit to occupy, lease or

grant, and the Cabinet, under this legislation, has identified the kind of

structures or the kind of undertakings that even the Cabinet - under this

legislation the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not have the

legal right. They would have to change this legislation. Any future Cabinet

would have to change this legislation in order to allow an outfitter, for

instance, to put up a structure that would bar access.

Under this legislation, except for the structures and the

undertakings identified, there can be no grant, no lease, no licence issued for

the underfoot reservation along rivers, ponds, lakes, streams, seashore or

foreshore. Now what do you want? What can you have?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave it alone.

MR. FLIGHT: Leave it alone! If you leave it alone you are

running the risk that in five years from now a minister might use the same kind

of logic that the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains was using this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: There will be no reservation left in

Newfoundland, if he uses the type of logic that the hon. Member has used today.

He could chose under this legislation to permit, to grant a permit to occupy

every piece of land around every lake in Newfoundland. How stupid. How stupid,

Mr. Speaker. This legislation is enshrining forever, protecting forever, the

public's right to unrestricted access. Now what else can you have? So, Mr.

Speaker, if the -

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't understand the Bill at all!

MR. FLIGHT: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't understand the Bill at all, do

you?

MR. FLIGHT: I do understand the Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. I would

hope there are people listening to the hon. Member's debate about this

particular Bill. He tells me I do not understand the Bill.

So I am amazed that the hon. Members stand, and indicates

anyway - no one has spoken yet - but they indicate that they support the kind of

- and I will tell you why! The Member for St. John's East Extern should

understand why they have taken this position. When this Bill was tabled in the

House of Assembly last year everybody assumed, the Opposition jumped on the

bandwagon, they encouraged public opposition, they ridiculed the Bill to a point

that Government decided to take the Bill back. But the fact is this. That that

was not - this Bill 22, or the infamous Bill 53, was not our legislation. It was

their legislation, it was their legislation! It had gone through Cabinet!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not!

MR. FLIGHT: It had gone through Cabinet, Mr. Speaker!

Bill 53 had gone through Cabinet, had been approved by the previous Tory

Cabinet, and was going to be tabled in the spring sitting, 1989, and enacted.

That is why the hon. Member for Torngat is so exercised now, and that is why he

is putting on such a show and such a charade. Because it was their Bill. The

hon. Member for St. John's East Extern would have some credibility today,

standing up and debating this Bill and making amendments or suggesting changes,

he would have some credibility for the simple reason, when the Bill was tabled

it was the first time he saw it. No Member sitting on that side that was a

Member of that previous government will have any credibility criticising this

Bill.

It was their Bill. There was not one change, not a comma,

word or letter changed. It was passed by their Cabinet, ready for tabling in

1989, and now and last year they decided to jump up and criticise their

legislation. They forgot it was their Bill. They sensed that there would be some

- everyone knows that Newfoundlanders are very jealous and very protective of

their rights to unrestricted access. Everyone knows that. They recognized that

and decided to piggyback on the kind of - and they did it. They were successful

to the point that this Government decided to pull back the Bill and to determine

whether or not there was any basis for the criticism. The Bill has been subject

to full total input through the Legislation Review Committee. The changes were

made as a result of recommendations by the Legislation Review Committee after

travelling this Province.

So I ask the Member for Torngat, what are you trying to

prove? Who are you trying to fool? Who are you trying to bluff? Why are you

trying to mislead the House of Assembly? Why are you trying to mislead the

people of Newfoundland?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, there may have been some

question about the Member's credibility in certain issues prior to this one.

There will be no doubt after this particular debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WOODFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have heard it all.

Yesterday the Minister got up in this House and I have to admit, I do not like

to do it very often, that he gave one of the best speeches ever I heard since I

came into the House of Assembly in 1985. No question. I am talking about

delivery, not content.

You know what they say, your best offence is a good defence,

or you can put the reverse. Boy, did he ever go on the attack. He put me in mind

of a pit bull with rabies. I mean, you could not go handy to him. He was there

at every punch, he was going back and forth. Muhammad Ali had nothing on him.

The arms were swinging and the fists were going, and he was grabbing for papers

and he was - no doubt about it, he was in full flight!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the content

was as good as the delivery yesterday, we could sit down today; no need for

debate; no need for six month hoist; no need for anything. We could get up

today, put this through, and be gone out of here in a few minutes. But every

time the Minister opened his mouth this morning, Mr. Speaker, again he started

what he did yesterday. He was just like one of those John Deere backhoes; every

time it put the digger down, he was digging the hole deeper. Every time he

opened his mouth, he was getting in deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

Now, to get to the substance of the Bill, after praising the

Minister, one of the things the Minister harped on yesterday was the Opposition

did this, and the Opposition did that. Again this morning he said, Mr. Speaker,

the Opposition members went around this Province and incited fear in the hearts

and minds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Opposition?

AN HON. MEMBER: He was not paying attention.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister had to do

as much research on the hearings that were held in the legislation review

committees as he did on

Section 7.2 of the proposed legislation, Bill 22, he

would not have had a word to say on that this morning. I will tell you why, Mr.

Speaker. I will tell you why. The first meeting that was held down here, in

Holiday Inn, St. John's, was attended by my colleague, the Member for Torngat

Mountains; the now temporary Minister of Justice, Mr. Gover, from Bonavista; the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island; and the Member for Lewisporte, Mr. Penney.

After the opening, Mr. Power from Crown Lands gave his opening statement and so

on. After all this happened, who was the first speaker? - I recall - I was not

there. That was the first meeting that I missed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it an Opposition member that started

this all off?

MR. WOODFORD: Was it an Opposition member, Mr. Speaker?

Was it the Chairman of the Legislation Review Committee at that time, the hon.

Member for Bonavista South? No. Was it the Member for Torngat, Mr. Speaker? No.

Was it the Member for Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker? No. There was one other member

there, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, and what did he do?

One of the first questions that he put to Mr. Power, and one of the first

concerns raised, was concerning

Section 7.2 of the then Bill 53. Now I know

there are times when hon. members look and listen to the hon. Member for Mount

Scio - Bell Island that they think he is probably in Opposition, because he is

almost in opposition to anything over there, being a backbencher. He may not say

it in caucus, and he is not the only one at this time, but he did ask the

question, and he was the first one who raised the fears concerning

Section 7.2 -

the very first member. That is not opposition. That is not creating fear, and

instilling fear, and I do not know what, into the hearts and the minds of

Newfoundlanders. That is fact, Mr. Speaker. That is fact. That is when it all

started. That is when the Wildlife Federation got involved. That is when SPAWN

got involved. That is when all the rod and gun clubs in the Province got

involved. That is when Opposition members, Mr. Speaker, when they had their

turn, started to ask some questions pertaining to Bill 53. Every member, bar

none on that committee, Mr. Speaker, bar none, from that day on, and I have to

give the other members credit on the Government side, bar none around this

Province, every meeting they stood fast and said that there is something

radically wrong with

Section 7; Subsection 2, really, that is the one. There

have been other concerns, and I will allude to those as I go on, but that was

the main one. Everywhere we went, 100 per cent - 100 per cent of the hearings

around the Province - I do not know if other members can recall, but I cannot

recall one person getting up and agreeing with this particular

section of the

bill.

One of the questions and one of the witnesses who appeared

before the committee felt that the Government did not need the broad power

conferred on it by

Section 7 (2), Bill 53, and feared that such power could be

used to erode the traditional rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

unimpeded access to the freshwater bodies of the Province.

'The following testimony before the committee is

representative of the concerns felt by the public'; that is the public position

paper on a meeting that was held in St. John's and the Newfoundland Federation

of Wildlife, Mr. Rick Bouzan, February 20th, 1990, r-13.

Mr. Speaker, 7 (2): the question I always ask in committee,

of Government members, and I asked on several occasions of the Premier himself,

is why? Why, Mr. Premier, do you want this

section in the Bill? You can do what

is necessary and what is needed in this Province with what you already have; you

can do with putting in other sections as you had there before. Mr. Speaker, why,

the bottom line was, why, that is all. A simple question, why 7 (2) was needed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have they answered that yet?

MR. WOODFORD: No. This is the problem, Mr. Speaker, I

have not had an answer. Nobody can answer it. Why, why did we go on the last 500

years and never had a problem? Why, all of a sudden do we need

section 7 (2)? I

am not questioning the Act, I am questioning other parts of the Act; they have

been addressed, some by the Minister himself and I must say he did a very good

job by the Federation of Agriculture and the NLPA, but there is this one

underlying question that was never answered.

If there is an answer for it, why can we not be told as

Opposition and Government Members, and let this Bill pass. We cannot get an

answer, Mr. Speaker, and that in itself is the problem. That in itself lends to

suspicion and lends to, I suppose, that something devious has been done. Maybe

it has not, but why not tell us why we need

section 7 (2). If you can answer

that question - I asked the Premier as I said, on several occasions and the last

time I asked him he said to me: Rick, he said, we are going to fix up 7 (2), we

are going to fix 7 (2) and I said, how, Premier? He said we are going to add

some more sub-clauses to it and that should address your problem with 7 (2).

I said, no, Premier, it will not. I said, by adding to 7

(2) you only create more problems; every clause you add, you add a problem. If you

cannot address 7 (2), how do you rectify a, b, c, d and e because one addresses

the other?

MR. HODDER: The Minister is not even listening, look!

MR. WOODFORD: Currently, from one particular member, and

this is very timely I think, because he says: currently the legislation

authorizes Government to grant license of ownership to industries which, to

exist at all, must have direct and control access to waterfront property. Such

enterprises are clearly described within the existing statute and for the

current amendments to have been suggested at all - this is very important, Mr.

Speaker, this particular statement -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not deny it.

MR. WOODFORD: - and it was told by pretty well everybody

MR. HODDER: (Inaudible) conversations going on over there

like that, I mean that is -

MR. DOYLE: The Minister is not even listening.

MR. WOODFORD: This particular statement, Mr. Speaker,

says it all. For the current amendments to have been suggested at all, we must

suppose that non-conforming applications are either extant, not extent, extant

or expectant. Now that to me, says it all.

If that is the case, and that is not coming from Opposition,

this is not coming from Government Members, this is coming from people,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are respected in their given organizations,

who are well respected around this Province, appearing before a committee and

telling it like it is, asking legitimate, sound questions, thought out

questions, and not getting an answer. All because of one particular section, 7

(2).

Now, Mr. Speaker, this tells me something else as well. How

come, if such a small section, one

section of

an Act, 7 (2), that is causing a

Government so much trouble, it must be worth an awful lot. It must be very

important. It is supposed to be a little trivial

section of a bill that is not

going to cause any problems, and no one has to fear, how come it is not left

like it was? Even get rid if it!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You could do that, very simply, with the

stroke of a pen, Mr. Speaker. Do not be so stubborn. I mean, you are supposed to

be flexible. The reason for the institution of the legislation review committees

was to go around this Province and give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the

chance to have some input. A good thing. I respect that decision, it was an

excellent decision to have the legislation review committees. In this particular

case, I can speak from experience, I was on it, I sat there, I listened, I took

part, and it was an excellent exercise. Excellent.

But you can set up all the review committees you like. You

can set up a committee for every bill and have someone on it going around this

Province. But if we are not as legislators going to take some advice and show

some flexibility and take some of the ideas that are being offered by those

people - not from me, forget me, forget the hon. Member for Torngat, say to

those people: look, we have listened, we are taking your concerns into

consideration, and now we are going to try to address it.

Instead of this what they have done - and let's call a spade

a spade - is just add clause after clause and made -

MR. FLIGHT: On the recommendations of the review

committee!

MR. WOODFORD: Of the review committee? - the Government

Members outvoted the two Opposition Members speaking on behalf of the

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who spoke before the committee! That is where

it came from. And I - never mind the trouble - I will speak for myself. When the

time comes I am quite capable of speaking for myself, sir, and I will defend

myself on this issue whenever necessary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you know, talking about - the Minister

could give permission to occupy. He is saying he could do it before. The

Minister can always give permits to occupy. But he could not give a grant, lease

or licence to anybody in this Province on any adjoining lake, pond, seashore or

foreshore, or along any bank of the river that is otherwise reserved under

subsection (1). Number one (Inaudible) "shall be issued without the prior

approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and only under the following

circumstances...."

I mean to me now they can now give a grant, a lease. The

Cabinet can give a grant or a lease. Now what is coming next? They will soon be

giving - when you come back on Monday this will probably be sold. I do not know.

But the Minister, yes, he could always give a permit to occupy - this is what

has to be clarified. Let's not get caught up in politics. Let's forget the

political part of it. Nothing might ever happen. If it did not happen before, it

happened in certain cases, we were going along for 500 years on our own, no

problems, everybody was looked after. But now the danger with this is that we

are going back to the colonial times. To feudalism.

We are going back now to the days when Britain - and over in

Britain when the kings and the queens controlled the rivers and the lands and

the seas and the seashores and the ponds and lakes of Britain. When the peasants

were allowed out of their compounds for a day a week, and a few hours a week,

they went out around and they fished in little holes and muddied waters and no

more and could not touch any more. The lords, kings and queens, they fished, oh

yes, but the peasants could not go in. Those people, our ancestors, came over

here for freedom. They came over here to get away from that and to get clear of

those autocratic and dictatorial ways.

They came to this land and they found freedom, democracy, and

lakes, rivers and ponds that they could fish from. That they could walk any

shore, and after 500 or 600 years they found

Section 7 (2) in a particular bill

in this Province that could otherwise be interpreted. I am not saying it will

happen, I am saying the potential is there for it to happen. Why have it there?

Why with the stroke of a pen should it happen?

Then you can go on and carry that right throughout Canada - I

do not have to tell hon. Members. Members here today know what it is like to go

to another province, especially the Miramichi, and get a licence. When you walk

up the river, fishing, and you have to cut your line because of a fence or a

boat house or a wharf out into the waters. Don't walk around here. "No

Trespassing" signs up. Stay out, keep out. That started as a very innocent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in Newfoundland?

MR. WOODFORD: In New Brunswick, in the Miramichi. But,

Mr. Speaker, talking about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's how it started!

MR. WOODFORD: In talking about the past something else

comes to mind. The Minister is talking about a Minute in Council that was there

the previous administration, and if it was, two wrongs do not make a right. It

was not brought to the floor of the House, it was not debated, it did not go to

a legislation review committee. But something else that is factual, can anybody

remember, I wonder - even hon. Members opposite - the early days of the 'sixties

when a premier of this Province, namely Mr. Smallwood, wanted to sell to private

enterprise the Gander River?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you cannot remember either.

MR. WOODFORD: The Gander River! And one other river,

Portland Creek on the northern peninsula. To private enterprise. Not so long

ago. I suppose a long time, it depends on how old you are. I cannot remember it.

But I have been told - and looking at the history books, there is no trouble to

see it, looking at some of the papers that were written. And when the people got

up against it - can you imagine where we would be today? We would be worse then

what they had in Britain with the kings and queens - I know we have another king

here, but that does not justify giving everybody the right around any lake,

river or pond in this Province. That is what happened then. Gander River

specifically, and Portland Creek on the northern peninsula were two of the

rivers that were going to be sold to private enterprise.

Well that was stopped, and that was brought to my attention

for the third time by - now that the Member for Gander is walking in - Mr. Mike

Barron with the Rod and Gun Club in Gander. That's the person who brought that

to our attention again and showed that he was very concerned. He says that it

appears to be well orchestrated and politically connected. Now I do not know

what the man - those are his words. Mike Barron from the Rod and Gun Club in

Gander. Those were his words and not mine, they are someone else's.

Comments like hidden agendas. Why is it necessary? Now you

can go on on comments and quotes that were made by individuals around this

Province whenever we appeared at those particular hearings.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, well that question came up as well.

Where did it come from? Did anybody or any organization ask for it? If they did

not why is it there, why is it necessary? All those questions, just a few simple

questions, that could be answered, that would solve a lot of problems. Maybe it

is jumping to conclusions. But you know what it is like, every Member knows what

it is like, when an issue becomes an emotional issue. You cannot fight emotion

with logic.

MR. FLIGHT: Who's making it emotional (Inaudible)?

MR. WOODFORD: Who made it? Your own Members!

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Your own Members made it emotional, Mr.

Speaker. And if the hon. Member does not know the first member who had something

to say about it, refer to January 25th, 1990 r-5 of the proceedings of the

Resource Legislation Review Committee.

Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to

section 7,

which is the reservation of shoreline. Am I to understand that the Act currently

guarantees that there will be a minimum of ten metres around any pond or lake,

that will not and cannot be granted to an individual or any other body

corporate. Is that remaining or am I to understand that there will now be

provisions that will allow an Order in Council to grant land all the way to the

shoreline? Whose comments were those, Mr. Speaker? Jim Walsh, the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island.

The reply, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. I will not read the first part as it

is not necessary but I will get to the sum and substance of his answer: Right

now, Government cannot grant title to the reserves. Under the new Act, under the

Act, the Government can in fact grant title to the reserve with the approval of

Cabinet. That is the answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a bit different from what you

said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well regardless of what he said, I will

give the gentleman - okay, I will say that that was wrong, but the point being

made is that, we, as Opposition Members, are instilling fear into the hearts of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but we did not bring it up.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister rose to speak about comments

made by the Member for Torngat Mountains, he used the words, not the Member,

incapable, incapable, to the Member for Torngat Mountains and anybody else who

thinks so, including me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I do not care what you say about me, I have

an opportunity; I am sitting as a member in the House of Assembly and I can

defend myself. I can take it and I can give it, that is our profession, but that

says something else, Mr. Speaker. It is an indictment and it is a slur on every

witness who appeared before those committees.

You, by telling us sir, that we do not know what we are

talking about, are saying the same thing to the people, the witnesses who

appeared before those committees, without exception, 100 per cent of the people

who appeared before this committee, not half, not a fraction, not even a whimper

of opposition, nothing, 100 per cent were in favour of this particular clause.

Now that is saying something to the witnesses and the people who appeared before

this committee all around this Province. They had concerns and they thought they

were legitimate concerns and it is not coming from the Opposition, and the

Minister is going to find that out sooner rather than later, that it is not just

coming from the Opposition, and I would be the first one to say, I said it in

the House before, I said it today and I will say it again. Maybe there is no

need for being worried, but why have it there, we did not want it before, we do

not want it today and we should not want it tomorrow.

If someone could answer that underlying question and tell me

and every other witness who appeared before this committee around this Province,

why it is there, why it is needed, then, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and in

fact I will probably move that this adjourn and we can all take the vote and go

home. But this is not the case, the hon. Member for the great district of the

Strait of Belle Isle is anxious now, I must have said something that really got

to him altogether; he is biting at the bit.

I am not the only Newfoundlander and Labradorian who does not

understand it. It is a matter of

interpretation I suppose if you really want to

get down to it, but when it comes to a matter of

interpretation, why is it you

have it there? Tell us why you need it? You just said that you always had

permission to occupy. Now, you are giving a grant, lease or licence. You have

the right now to give a grant, lease or licence. I would venture to bet, Mr.

Speaker, that if a poll was taken of each and every member opposite this morning

that 90 per cent of the members over there would be in favour of what I am

saying.

Why is it in there? I am sure members opposite, the

backbenchers and some of the ministers, do not know why it is there, they just

do not know, or why is it so important to leave it there? I mean, we can get up

and talk for a week or a month on Bill 22, but the bottom line is there is one

particular section. The Minister addressed a lot of the other sections, but the

only

section - and I find this very ironic - in the whole bill that the Premier

himself was interested in, is 7 (2). I asked about the other sections that we

had concerns with, the Federation of Agriculture, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Sawmillers Association and so on, but he always came back to

section 7 (2), and

that tells me something. That leaves, even in my mind, Mr. Speaker, a reason for

concern and a reason to think that there is something devious.

Out of all the changes in this Act, and there are many, Mr.

Speaker, some good changes and some bad, nevertheless even some of the bad

changes people can live with. The Federation of Agriculture can live with them

and the Newfoundland Sawmillers Association can live with them. Even the paper

companies, Kruger and Abitibi Price, were asked, the exploration companies and

so on, and they had concerns. The Minister of Mines and Energy seemed to be in

favour with what the Minister is saying.

Mr. Speaker, Dan MacInnis, Vice-President of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Exploration Association, what did he say? Just one short paragraph

on what he said. They represent a very sizeable group of people in this

Province, and a very influential group of people in this Province. Middle

paragraph: (Inaudible) views the legislation as a hindrance and restriction of

access, via shoreline, to geoscientists and prospectors in the conducting of

routine exploration programs.

Now, is that opposition? That is not opposition, that is

coming from very - we do not have to talk about politics. I could get up here

and forget what I want to say and just table a wealth of information from

witnesses on what they said and what they gave. I do not have to say anything

about my opinions. This is all coming from very reputable people, and they are

concerned. That was dated February 14, 1990.

So, it is not only me, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of

questions to be asked and concerns that those people had, and still have today,

because those people were asked the same question. This did not come after the

addition of new clauses. This was mentioned in the review committees. After the

second or third committee this was mentioned. It is not something new. Those

same people were asked, 'What if we added different sections?' They said,

'Absolutely not!' They said the same thing that I am saying, adding other

sections to it only creates other problems and makes matters worse. That is what

happens.

Members are going to say: Well, we did change it. We added

certainly sections. But this was told to Committee members and they knew upfront

what was being added. They knew after the fact what was added, and they were

still against it. There is all kinds of documentation here from organizations

around the Province pertaining to this particular problem.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are other problems in the Bill,

but the Minister has been approached with some of those problems and some of

them have been addressed and some have not, but to the point where organizations

in this Province can live with them. This is the only really outstanding clause

in the whole Act, and that is 7 (2). When it came out first it contained 7

(1) and 7 (2). The ten meters that was in the first one, that is all was ever there.

There was nothing else there in 7(1), not a thing. That is all was ever in it,

and now there are all kinds of clauses. To do what? Right on down to 7(

e) to do

what? One underlying question, why is 7(2) needed? That is the bottom line. I

can get up and fearmonger, or attempt to fearmonger. The Minister can get up and

come back and say you are wrong, but tell me the answer. Tell the people out

there in Newfoundland and Labrador today the answer. Why do we want 7(2)? Why

does the Cabinet want the approval to give a lease or a licence? It is a very

simple question. I can understand why they want one to give it to a farmer over

the twenty hectors, or something like that, I can understand that going to

Cabinet. I can understand having the say on going anything less with regards to

a lease but I cannot, for the life of me, see anything in this that would make

me satisfied, and give me the peace of mind that there is nothing wrong. To me

there has to be something wrong, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Gander talked about

this before, his constituents have talked to him about it, some of the people I

mentioned here today. He knows as well as I do that there is something wrong

with 7(2). It might go on for another 100 years and nothing will happen, but it

is leaving the opportunity there tomorrow for somebody to come in and put

Government on the hook by saying, you can do it, it is there, and Cabinet has

the right and the approval to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about

this amendment which has been put to this legislation. The reason I want to say

something in defence of this Bill and explain why I am against the amendment is

because I find it difficult to believe what I have been seeing happening in this

House over the last few days. Hon. Members who are normally reserved and

logical, for example, the Member for Torngat Mountains, who I have never seen

before go off in such a frenzy, and the Member for Humber Valley who is normally

very reserved, and when he says something he says it with a logical progression

of events. There seems to be an air of emotionalism over there this morning, Mr.

Speaker. They are totally carried away with their emotions. They are blinded to

all sense of reason. They will not listen to common sense. They are flittering

around like a swarm of bees who have had their habitat invaded. They have gone

crazy over there. I served in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for four years and

I was proud of the role that the Opposition had to play. The role of the

Opposition has been recognized over the past hundreds of years in the British

parliamentary system. The role of Government is to bring legislation before this

hon. House. The role of the Opposition is to point out to the population where

the weaknesses are, or where the perceived weaknesses are in that legislation.

The role of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is not to create red herrings and let

them become the issue. This is an unworthy role for the Opposition to play. In

other speeches we have heard here this morning I have heard red herrings

creeping in. For example, the last Member who is normally a very sensible,

reasonable Member, started talking about selling rivers, started talking about

the access to the Miramichi. Mr. Speaker, these are issues which are good, solid

issues but totally irrelevant to this Bill. If there was an attempt made to sell

a river in this Province I can guarantee the hon. Member that this is the

Government that would be against such a regressive move. When hon. Members over

there try to defeat this Bill which is before the House let them do it based on

facts, based on truths, and not on emotional frenzies. What we are seeing, Mr.

Speaker, is an attempt by an Opposition who has lost sight of its real mandate

and is trying to turn this very important issue into a political issue. I

probably do not expect much more than that from the hon. Opposition, but the

people of this Province certainly deserve better information than that, because

what is being fed out to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, is absolute

total nonsense, it has nothing to do with the Bill which is before us today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, no one in this hon. House is more cognizant

of the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to have access to our bodies

of water, our rivers, the seashore, and to our ponds and lakes. I grew up in one

of the more remote parts of this Province. I am the owner of several shotguns, I

am the owner of a rifle, I hunt, Mr. Speaker, whenever I get a chance. I would

suggest that at this very minute my brother, who I normally hunt with, has

already left and gone down to his camp for the weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have your licence?

MR. DECKER: No, I do not have a licence this year, but I

got my moose last year, I will have the hon. Member know. So I am as familiar

with access to the lakes, rivers and oceans around this Province as any other

Newfoundlander and Labradorian is, and I am proud of the access that we have to

our rivers, lakes, and streams, Mr. Speaker, and I would bemoan the day when

these rights were taken away. But let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that during

the years that I have been hunting and fishing, and that I have been accessing

the rivers, ponds and lakes, there are certain things that I have seen which are

at the seaside. I have seen wharfs; I have seen slipways; I have seen outfitters

on some of our lakes, Mr. Speaker. These things are there. I have seen fallouts

from water and sewer projects; I have seen hydro development plants; I have seen

dams. These things exist! How in the name of goodness did they get there, Mr.

Speaker? How did they get there? Did they grow? Did they fall out of the sky?

No, Mr. Speaker, they were put there because there was a mechanism in place

whereby permission could be given to the people of this Province to build dams,

to build wharfs, to build things which impede access to riversides. It was

common sense. It had to be done. But who gave the permission, Mr. Speaker? The

power to give this permission was entrusted to the minister; one person, man or

woman, one individual had the right to give permission.

Section 7.2, which hon. members are trying to make the

emotional debate about, which the Opposition is going at such an emotional

frenzy over, Mr. Speaker, to which the Opposition is acting like a swarm of bees

because their hive has been kicked over,

Section 7.2 will now make it the duty

of not one person, not one minister, whether it be a woman or a man or whatever

the case might be, this authority now is taken out of the hands of a single

individual and put into the hands of a committee. That committee is Cabinet. It

is put before a group of men and women duly elected, the cream of the crop in

this case, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak for the past; I cannot speak for the

future, but at this moment the people of this Province have chosen the cream of

the crop, and have entrusted us with the duty of enforcing the laws and the

regulations of this Province, Mr. Speaker. The cream - the very cream which has

floated to the top.

Just before this last election we saw the calibre of our

Cabinet Ministers go to an all time low, but in the collective wisdom of the

people of this Province they turfed such nonsense out, and they said, 'we want

nothing short of the best,' and they chose the cream of the crop, and they put

us around that table, Mr. Speaker. Not only that, just as an aside, while they

picked the cream of the crop they also picked another seventeen or eighteen

cream and put them right behind this cream. In moves the other cream, Mr.

Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: At one time, Mr. Speaker, the minister in his

own right could give permission for a dam to go on the Exploits River. The

minister in his own right could give permission for a wharf to go on Canada Bay.

The minister in his own right could give permission for an outfitter to go up on

Lake Benoit or up on one of the lakes back in the heart of the country - the

minister in his own right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down on Eagle River.

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, down on Eagle River the

minister could do it in his own right. Just think how things could have happened

in some former Cabinet, not in this one, but in some former Cabinet where the

minister of - well, let us say the Member for Torngat Mountains has a friend who

wants to put an outfitters cabin up on the Eagle River down in the district of

my good friend for Eagle River. The Member for Torngat Mountains could go up and

say look: poor old Joe up there, boy, he gave the Party a couple of thousand

dollars last year, we have to do something for poor old Joe; he wants to put up

an outfitters cabin and if this becomes a public issue, there is going to be an

outcry, you know how things are and probably Joe will not be able to get his

cabin there, so how about just signing this piece of paper?

Pouf! Pass it along there Garfield boy, whack the signature

on! That is how it was done and that is always a possibility. Now, the chances

of that happening around a Cabinet table where you have fourteen or fifteen

people who are concerned about the delivery of people's rights in this Province,

the chances of that happening, Mr. Speaker, are an awful lot less than they are

when one single individual has the right to make that decision. So, Mr. Speaker,

what we are doing, we are correcting a mistake; we are correcting a problem and

we are taking this right and this responsibility out of the hands of one and

putting it into the hands of a group of people, which fits in so nicely with

democracy; which fits in so nicely with the way we do things in this year 1991,

since we have had such a change in the Government a few years ago.

Now, for us to vote for this amendment would be to delay the

implementation of this bill another six months. Now what is that saying? What

that is saying, Mr. Speaker, is, at the moment we have an imperfect system in

place, whereby a single individual, one person, can decide to dam the Exploits

River; where a single individual can decide to put a network of brothels up and

down the Trout River in the Strait of Belle Isle district. That is what is

happening right now; where a single individual can make a decision.

This amendment would say let us keep that, Mr. Speaker, for

another six months and the hope is that when these six months are up, the hon.

Member for Torngat Mountains or the hon. Member for Humber Valley would get up

and make another amendment and move for another six months, and the intent is

that they could do this by six month intervals for the next ten years and the

people of this Province will still be deprived of this progressive legislation,

that is what will happen, that is what they are up to; so, Mr. Speaker, I am

chafing at the bit as hon. members rightly pointed out. I am indeed chafing at

the bit to speak against this amendment and to get up and vote against this

amendment.

I do not know if there is a procedure whereby you can vote

against an amendment more than once, but if there is, I will be trying to seek

that loophole, so I can vote against this once, twice, three times because this

has to be defeated in perpetuity. This has to be defeated with such a resounding

defeat that it will never raise its head again in this hon. House of Assembly;

we cannot allow this to-do. We must defeat this amendment and I call upon my

colleagues in the back benches and I call upon my colleagues in Cabinet, stay

close to the House of Assembly; do not go to your districts on the weekend

because you might not be able to get back here on Monday morning in time enough;

stay in town on the weekend and when the vote is called, let us rush in and show

the people of the Province that we are not satisfied to stand another minute,

when this indignity is being perpetrated upon our fellow Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

We are going to take power out of the hands of the one

individual and put it into the hands of a committee, where it can be discussed

with reason and rationally, therefore I call upon all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to join with this great Liberal Party and defeat this amendment at

the very first opportunity we get because it takes power from the one and it

puts it into a committee and that is the democratic process, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I hope that hon. Members on the Opposition will see the

folly of their ways and stop this silly debate, stop emotional arguments and sit

down and listen to a bit of common sense and reason and defeat this silly

amendment as fast as we possibly can, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I too, Mr. Speaker, would like a few words pertaining to this

Crown Lands Act. I think everyone will agree, the Crown Lands Act had to be

revamped, because there were a lot of things in the Crown Lands Act, of old,

that were outdated and had to be changed. My prime concern in the whole act, Mr.

Speaker, is

section 7(2), and I wonder why some of the backbenchers are not

speaking on it. Why are some of the backbenchers not speaking on it?

MR. EFFORD: Speak for yourself. (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Listen to him! He got up the other day to

give the Minister of Fisheries a big talking to, and when he got up he didn't

have the guts of his convictions and never did it. He sat down and never opened

his mouth. Now, he is over there shooting off his mouth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I ask that gentleman to be

quiet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Two ministers got up and talked about

emotion. Emotion! Well, the Minister of Health, if that wasn't emotion! I almost

had motion sickness!

AN HON. MEMBER: Theatrics, I call it.

MR. PARSONS: Theatrics, no, I accused one of the hon.

ministers before, of theatrics, and I am not going to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the bill, itself, and the

problem I have with

section 7(2). I was surprised at the minister who presented

the bill when he tried to defend it. I mean, that

section 7(2) is indefensible.

There is no way you can defend it. The Minister of Social Services says there

is.

Apart from the political side of it altogether, I have seen,

in my own district, through squatter's rights, where fences have gone right to

the water, in fact, out in the water, and over the years those ponds were

available, but now they are not, because the people will not allow you in them.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was illegal then.

MR. PARSONS: It was illegal then, exactly. If this bill

contained something to tell me that the squatter's rights could be challenged

then, I could say, perhaps there is a point to it, perhaps there is some good in

this bill, but it doesn't. Before, with squatter's rights, they could never get

a grant, they could never get a lease; but

section 7(2) now allows Cabinet the

right to give that lease or grant.

Now, I want to go back to the Minister of Health, again. The

point he was making was that, before, it was decided by the minister

responsible, and now the decision is goi