The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I am releasing the recommendations of an incident investigation involving the disappearance of an employee from the Bull Arm construction site. The employee disappeared on March 29, 1991 from a tug and at this time his whereabouts are still unknown.

A review of the incident has resulted in no evidence of any violation of legislative requirements concerning occupational health and safety which could have contributed to the employee's disappearance.

It is regrettable that the incident occurred and while there is no evidence of violation of any regulations, my Department has made a number of recommendations resulting from their investigation into the incident. The recommendations are as follows:

That a log should be maintained at all times on the tug boats. All persons entering or leaving such tugs either for work or non-work related reasons should be noted in the logbook;

The Department of Employment and Labour Relations, Occupational Health and Safety Division, should identify and advertise a twenty-four hour number for reporting of accidents or incidents. This number should be serviced by an answering machine outside normal working hours;

Thirdly, the principal contractors on the Bull Arm site should consider identification of a single phone number serviced by an answering machine or answering service for reporting of such accidents or incidents on site.

Mr. Speaker, these recommendations will be implemented as soon as possible and this will make the reporting process, not only for the Bull Arm site but for all workplaces in the Province, much more efficient and allow a faster response should an accident or incident occur in the future. Thank you.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Minister for providing me with an advance copy of his statement. The Minister did not indicate who did the review of the accident. Was it the people at Occupational Health and Safety or the officials in his Department? Exactly, who did the review? The Minister also noted that future accidents should be reported to a twenty-four hour answering machine. The question is, if the accident occurs on Friday afternoon when is the machine checked to see if there was a report of an accident? Simply the reporting of an accident does not indicate that action will take place. The Minister might remember that when the last tragedy occurred it took some time for the investigation to begin once the accident had been reported, and I am not sure how putting a message on an answering machine is going to alleviate a situation such as we had before.

The Minister indicates the recommendations are going to be implemented as soon as possible. My question to the Minister is why can they not be implemented now? We had occasion to visit the Bull Arm site, the land operations, and there is no question in my mind that safety was uppermost in the minds of the contractors there, but if we have such concerns about safety on the tugs and the barges then the Minister should implement the recommendations as soon as possible. In addition to that the Minister might be aware that a number of people in Occupational Health and Safety were eliminated from their positions last year. This year the Department cut down one, two, or three people in that particular division. Instead of reducing the numbers the Minister should be increasing the numbers so that this kind of thing would not occur.

Thank you.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the details of a $1 million expenditure by Municipal and Provincial Affairs under the earlier announced Emergency Employment Response Programme.

This funding is designed to provide immediate job creation programmes to maximize the weeks of work for employment insurance qualification in the coming year.

It will be recalled that when my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour, announced the details of this strategy it was stated that the first component is designed to assist residents acquire jobs that will result in long-term attachment to the labour force providing challenging and meaningful employment. The expenditures being announced today under Municipal and Provincial Affairs are associated with the second component of that strategy -namely to provide immediate job creation programmes.

Approximately $150,000 of this $1 million was earlier announced for recreation-type projects in Labrador.

Today I am pleased to announce that an amount of $408,500 is to be allocated for recreation-type projects in some thirty-one different communities throughout the island portion of the Province. These projects are in the range of between $10,000 and $20,000 and in most cases the funds are to be expended for the upgrading, repair and extension of recreation facilities including community centres, playgrounds, arenas, and ball fields, et cetera.

An amount of $404,000 is to be allocated for Local Service Districts under the Community Water Services Programme of the Department and these funds will be used primarily to extend and improve water supply systems.

Projects ranging in price from $10,000 to $30,000 have been approved for a total of twenty-four Local Service Districts and, as indicated, these funds will be utilized for water supply projects including the construction of pump houses, intakes, extensions to water mains, et cetera.

The total for Municipal and Provincial Affairs projects approved to date amounts to $962,500 and it is likely that another one or two projects will be announced shortly to round out the expenditure of $1 million.

We are all aware that the failure of the inshore fishery in many regions of the Province has had a major economic impact on fishermen, plant workers and the economy in general.

Hopefully, the infusion of these provincial dollars - together with the amounts that have been allocated by other provincial departments - will have the positive effect of generating some badly needed opportunities for employment throughout the Province.

My Department was hopeful of approving and announcing these projects at an earlier date, however, considerable planning was required due to the large number of initiatives. Now that they have been approved they will be implemented in a speedy and timely manner.

Attached, Mr. Speaker, is a list of all the projects approved, including those that were earlier announced for Labrador.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just got a copy - I suppose the Minister knew what was in it, that is the only difference, and I did not - but it was put on my desk just previous to the Minister reading his statement. Having said that, I saw this second part when I just returned from lunch. It was sent out through NIS; the statement was made through NIS and sent out. When the Minister was talking to me about it, I thought it was something new; but looking at this, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing new except for the latter part of it.

Pertaining to the request for funding for municipalities: right after the announcements were made by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning long-term employment, and short-term employment, and meaningful employment, and providing challenging and meaningful employment, some weeks ago, I called the western office of Municipal Affairs in Corner Brook and was told the money was gone and that was the day after, so how can we say that it took so long because the programmes are so difficult and it took so long to go through the programmes it just took too long to do it. I just cannot see it. I was told at that time that all the projects were announced and gone.

I would say that probably there are going to be some of those expenditures not taken advantage of because I do not see what a community can do with a ball field and a playground at this time of the year. Now the arenas and the community centres I can see that could be meaningful, but with regards to long-term employment in the other parts of this particular programme, there is no way, Mr. Speaker, that that can be taken advantage of.

Pertaining to the water services: in some cases and in most cases I cannot see how municipalities are going to take advantage of that. I know in Sop's Arm - I realize the Minister has one here for Sop's Arm in my district - it is pretty well too late to do anything, nevertheless, I suppose they can start shovelling the snow off it, we had six inches of snow Tuesday morning and they can probably shovel the snow off it for now and hope for a mild spell so they can get at it and put the water line in, so I suppose having said that, they may be able to take advantage of it.

I have not had time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, but in his absence I will have to put the question to the Government House Leader, the Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health announced the awarding of a $24 million contract to Trans City Holdings Limited for three new health care facilities for Burgeo, Port Saunders and St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I want to ask the Government House Leader on behalf of the Premier: Since three separate build lease tenders were called for each of these facilities, can the Government House Leader tell us if Trans City Holdings Limited was the lowest bidder on each tender?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, because I am acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I have some immediate knowledge of that process. First of all, a general tender call was put in the paper calling for a variety of proposals. I believe, in terms of the three put together there were seventeen or eighteen proposals received, and they were analyzed. During the analysis process it was decided that the proposals that were strictly wood were not suitable. There was another proposal that involved a tin structure which was not suitable to the purposes, and by the process of elimination, that left the brick, steel proposals which were then examined in more detail. The short answer to the member's question is, I believe that two of the proposals with regard to the wooden structures had a cheaper price.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to ask the Government House Leader, since neither of the three contracts were awarded to the low bidder - neither of the three - I want to ask him if he would confirm information that is circulating furiously, at the moment, in this city, that the total of the low bids for all three facilities was only $18 million, $6 million less than the $24 million contract awarded.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. The information given by the hon. member is not correct. The information given in his question is simply not correct. The decision was made that we could not go with, as I indicated, a tin structure because that would not be suitable. The decision was also made that because of the long-term maintenance costs and the durability, we would not go with wooden structures. So the only proposals that were examined in detail were the ones involving brick and steel. I would like to say to the hon. member that this process was obvious and the tender call was a very general call asking for proposals, and the lowest or any would not necessarily be accepted. In terms of the brick, steel structures that we finally decided upon after examining all of the proposals, the contract was awarded, in each case, to the lowest bidder.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government House Leader can tell us what the specifications called for. What did they call for, brick, tin, wood? What did the specifications call for?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall specifically, but I can go back and get a copy of the thing and provide it to the hon. gentlemen as quickly as possible.

I would also like to point out to the hon. gentlemen, that tied in with all the proposals - these were lease-purchase proposals - a significant factor, I believe, in the awarding of the contract was the cost of money, the least cost. That significantly affected the bottom line. So that if the construction costs on two buildings was $8.5 million or something within that vicinity, or $8 million, then the proposal that had the cheapest money available was the proposal that was, in fact, cheapest, in terms of the lease rate.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: It is an example, I think, of the turning back to the good old Liberal days of cost plus. That is what we are going to see here, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the Government House Leader this: Can he confirm that Marco Ltd. will be the main contractor for the three facilities being built for Trans City Holdings? Secondly, can he advise the House, if he is aware, since the Premier is not here, if the Premier personally met and discussed this particular tender call with the President of Marco before the contracts were awarded? Is he aware of that?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of questions there. I am not aware of anything the Premier may or may not have been doing. I suggest the gentleman ask the Premier that particular question.

The other question involved the contractor that was used by Trans City Holdings, which had the lowest proposal. I think the proposal was in two parts. The first part was using funds which was the significant part, by Confederation Life, who were a major component of this, and I believe they were using Marco as the construction company. I think the principals of Trans City Holdings, if I remember correctly, are two individuals. The majority owner is one, Joe Butler, and the other owner is one, Bill Case.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier also, but I guess in his absence - I understand he is gone down talking to Norm Whalen now to see which other one goes out of Cabinet next week. Since he is not here, I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board if he would have the Premier, or maybe the Department of Justice, table in this House a list of all work that the designated Minister of Justice, Ed Roberts, has done for this Government since 1989?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think that information is public information but I will see to it that we do, in fact, and we will go back beyond 1989 and put together a complete list of the work that particular law firm has done for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the list, as far back as the Minister will go, but to 1989 will be satisfactory to me. I wonder does the President of Treasury Board also know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Ed Roberts did no work for me, that is the only thing I know, when I was in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: He was a Member of this House while I was Minister, most often, I believe he was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder would the President of Treasury Board also - maybe he could check with the Premier, or ask the Premier - what will Mr. Roberts' salary be when he becomes Minister of Justice in January? Will he continue to receive his MHA's pension, which he is receiving now? Or is there an arrangement made so that the new Minister of Justice will receive a supplement similar to what the Premier received when he was leader of the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Good try, Bob. Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite obvious and public knowledge what the salary of a Cabinet Minister is. However, I would inform the hon. Member that I do not know what that figure is. But there is a salary figure to be paid Cabinet Ministers, but I do not recall specifically what it is.

The second point is the MHA pension: there is no way that an individual can receive a pension and serve as a Member of the House. So obviously if a Member is being paid as a Minister in this Government that Member cannot at the same time receive a pension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I know that hon. Members opposite may have different opinions. One of their Members, currently resigned, is getting $65,000 pension from us and $80,000 from the Feds. But we are not about to do that kind of thing, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. (Inaudible) some questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In response to a question from me last week the Minister stated, and he also stated publicly, that the proposed fire service in Mount Pearl will be somehow less safe than the present service being provided because the department at the moment does not have an aerial ladder truck. I just remind the Minister that if it were deemed necessary, which it is not, to have a ladder truck we could buy two out of the savings that we will have in the first year of operation. In fact, we could buy five if the Minister would agree to the 75-25 financing that is given to every other municipality in the Province.

My question to the Minister is this: on whose advice did he make such a statement, that the fire service in Mount Pearl would be unsafe without an aerial ladder truck?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, on the advice of my officials and the Fire Commissioner's office and all those involved in fire protection in the northeast Avalon, and indeed in the Province. But even without that advice it is rather obvious that you cannot protect an area as large as Mount Pearl with inadequate equipment. I would suggest that you do not need a great deal of advice to understand that the two pieces of equipment in place now are not adequate. If you look at Donovans Industrial Park, if you look at the topography of the land in Mount Pearl - I do not just mean the land in one particular part of Mount Pearl, but all of Mount Pearl - the difficulty of the terrain, the difficulty to access various parts of Mount Pearl, and in particular, referring back to Donovans, the difficulty of protecting Donovans Industrial Park, certainly requires a different configuration of equipment than is in place right now. I stand by that statement, I think it is very correct.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find it curious. Donovans Industrial Park, I might advise the Minister, is a modern industrial park and every building in there has a fully serviceable fire sprinkler system within the building. In fact the last fire that was in there, in the Sears Warehouse, the fire was extinguished by the sprinkler system and the ladder truck was not necessary for that.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister might like to think about that statement and on whose advice he gave it. I advise him that the fire equipment that has been purchased by the Mount Pearl Fire Department was purchased totally in conjunction with, and on the advice of the Fire Commissioner, and everybody in knowledge.

I would also like to refer the Minister, Mr. Speaker - I will send him a copy of this letter - to a letter dated September 18, 1984, admittedly some time ago, and it is signed by the Deputy Minister of Justice at the time, the Deputy Minister who was responsible for the St. John's Fire Department. 'It is the view of the St. John's Fire Department that it would not be necessary for any fire department established by Mount Pearl to have an aerial ladder, and at the rare occasion when this would be required in Mount Pearl it would be better provided through any mutual aid agreement that would be reached between the St. John's Fire Department and the Town of Mount Pearl.

In view of those statements, and in view of the Fire Commissioners involvement in establishing the Mount Pearl Fire Department, including interviewing people in Halifax, would the Minister now like to tell us who gave us that terrible advice?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for officials back in 1984, nor for decisions made back in 1984, or since 1984, concerning the Mount Pearl Fire Department; the establishment of the building, the placement of equipment, and so on. I can only speak for today. Certainly the advice I received says that we need a different configuration of equipment, or indeed Mount Pearl has to rely, which it will rely as part of a regional service, on equipment placed elsewhere of a different type in other buildings and other stations. That in fact is the rationale for a regional fire department. Where five or six stations back one another up you do not need to have aerial trucks in every single building, granted, but you can only have a proper fire fighting service if it is done regionally where one can back the other up and between all five or six stations together they have all the equipment that is necessary for any type of fire.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Let me tell the Minister, as he has been told many times, that it is fully the intent of the Mount Pearl Fire Department to have a mutual aid agreement with the St. John's Fire Department. I do not think there is any dispute about that. The question here, Mr. Speaker, is the need for an aerial ladder truck. Would the Minister like to explain why, all of a sudden, there is such a need for an aerial ladder truck in Mount Pearl? We are now being serviced by the Brookfield Road Fire Station and it does not have an aerial ladder truck. It did have an aerial ladder truck and it was thought to be unnecessary and it has been removed from the Brookfield Fire Station and the special bay that was constructed for it is being used for storage. How then does the Minister justify his statement now that Mount Pearl must have an aerial ladder truck? What foolishness, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has a great ability to twist and contort everything that is said and quoted. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that when I mentioned an aerial ladder truck I meant it in the context of the need for a regional fire fighting department that included all types of equipment. In isolation to a regional fire department, Mount Pearl could not properly protect itself with its existing equipment. In fact I stand by that statement, that an aerial truck is necessary. Several aerial trucks are necessary to properly protect the St. John's region which presently includes Mount Pearl as a partner in that region and a partner in that agreement, which they are now proposing to walk away from.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. I wonder if the Minister would inform the House if his Department is having problems living within the Departmental salary vote, and if it is anticipated that there may be more layoffs in that Department?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it has been a difficult year for the Department of Education. We are not fully within the budget for this year but we are taking action other than layoffs to try to live within our budget. That is our goal this year, Mr. Speaker, to live fully within the budget. We do not anticipate major layoffs, or any layoffs at this point in time.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, part of the Minister's problem is that they do have an $160,000 overrun on salaries, apparently. I wonder if he could tell us if there have been any layoffs, or are any anticipated at the School for the Deaf?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed, and I do not have all the details of this, but I will get the details for the hon. Member, but I have been informed that they do have an overrun at the School for the Deaf and we are looking at ways to deal with it. I will get the information for the hon. member and report to the House on that.

MR. HEARN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would tell us if he is aware that security on buses bringing the students to and from the School for the Deaf have been reduced from two persons to one, making it extremely difficult for one person to carry out the task, as well as setting up an extremely dangerous situation, in light of things that have happened in the past.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing the whole busing system for the Province, and that includes the School for the Deaf. I might say, we have some major problems with busing throughout the Province. There are areas where we can rationalize a service and we are looking at the School for the Deaf in that context; but I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing nothing that in any way detracts from safety. Safety is number one in school busing, and we will ensure that a safe service will be provided for all of our students.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite evident that the minister is totally unaware of what is going on and he is just trying to talk around the answer. Will the minister confirm that his department does have a severe overrun in salaries, and will he also confirm the previous statement that he will not, in light of that, have any layoffs within the department? Will he make that commitment?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall precisely the budget of the department, but it is in the tens of millions of dollars and $160,000 or whatever he said was an overrun is a very small amount at any one point in time. I cannot assure the House that there will be no layoffs but, at this point in time, we do not anticipate layoffs. We hope to live within our budget by making other reductions and other adjustments.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The Department of Fisheries and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations announced a package two weeks ago to deal the employment crisis in the Province. I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the House whether or not his paltry $2 million component to help fishermen and fish plant workers out and about the Province, has been spent yet by his department.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to inform the House tomorrow morning, by way of a Ministerial Statement exactly what has happened to what, regretfully, the hon. member refers to as a paltry $2 million. Tomorrow morning, I will be able to make a statement and inform the House of exactly what we have done with it and some of the benefits that we have derived from it.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware of the severe problems being encountered out and about the Province. We are seeing protests taking place now in a number of communities because people are ineligible for one reason or another under the criteria laid down for the Fisheries Response Program, as it is commonly called. I wonder if the minister could inform the House whether or not he is giving serious consideration to increasing the $2 million allocation, to put another $2 million, $3 million, $4 million or $5 million into the program to take care of some of those very serious problems around the Province.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House now that we are responding in a very positive way to just about every request we are getting for assistance. In fact, I was told no later than an hour ago that of the $1 million we have set aside as a means of topping up fishery-related programs approved by the Federal Government, there is still a considerable amount of that money left, but we are responding favourably to just about every single request we get. Where there has been funding approved by the Federal Government, Employment and Immigration, where people request topping up funding from my department to buy materials, for example, that we are able to meet those requests as fast as they come in. So, to suggest that we need $4 million or $5 million more put into that fund just does not make sense.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: It makes a lot of sense, Mr. Speaker, because what the minister is doing is giving out $10,000 grants about the Province to fishermen's committees, and so on, for materials. And the problem is - is the minister aware that there are hundreds of fishermen and fish plant workers out and about the Province who, up to today, anyway, are told they are ineligible, the criteria is not flexible enough to accommodate them for one reason or another. The fishery has been so bad for the last four or five years that they are now telling those people who have had to avail of the Fisheries Response Program for the last four or five years, that they have no historic attachment to the fishery. So, that is the real problem, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister - in light of that, and because of the requests to the Federal Government, to the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and to Employment and Immigration Ministers, the criteria has still not been made any more flexible. There is a definite need out and about the Province. As members in this House said yesterday, they are being bombarded by telephone calls from their districts. Will the minister consider asking his colleagues in Cabinet for a few million dollars more to take care of some of those very legitimate concerns out and about the Province, so that people will not be cold and hungry this winter.

MR. SIMMS: Very well asked.

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

MR. CARTER: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland, especially the fishermen of Newfoundland, would be better served if the hon. gentleman made representation to his friend in Ottawa, Mr. John Crosbie, because the criteria that has been established, by which these grants are made, was designed in Ottawa and is being administered by a federal department. The Province had nothing whatever to do with respect to setting the guidelines and establishing the criteria for make-work grants.

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you?

MR. CARTER: We are responding, Mr. Speaker, as we are requested to do, by people who get access to those funds, and if there are bottlenecks within the system, as there are - and I will be the first to admit that - then he should talk to his soul mate in Ottawa, Mr. Crosbie, and Mr. Valcourt, by the way, that other gentleman, and ask those gentlemen to maybe relax on their specifications and criteria and do what they set out to do, what Mr. Crosbie promised he would do.

In fact, I should remind the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that when the amount was announced there were some questions raised by certain people in Newfoundland as to exactly what extent it would meet the problem. Mr. Crosbie indicated, 'If it is not enough money, then we will find more money.'

So I ask him now to ask his friend to make good on that promise and provide more money.

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

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

My final supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador is, when is he going to start behaving and acting like the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador? That is the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: John Crosbie may not do everything we want him to do, or do it right, but I tell you one thing, it is not because he does not work and act.

So I ask the Minister of Fisheries: When is he going to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and fish plant workers and get out and about and do something in this Province and access some funds from his provincial coffers to help the people who are out there today, desperate, who are calling in to our offices, some of them, by the way, down and out, some women crying because they do not know how they are going to get food for the next week or two? I ask the minister, what is he going to do about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: I am tempted to say that the question is not worthy of an answer, because he knows as well as I do that the Province is doing all it can to respond to the current crisis in the fishing industry. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has put quite a lot of money on the table. My colleague from the Department of Social Services has provided a lot of money to help alleviate the problem, and the Province is doing all it can.

Again I repeat, if he is not satisfied with the way things are going, then I suggest that he direct his comments to his friend in Ottawa, Mr. Crosbie, and Mr. Valcourt, and ask them to do what they should be doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is to the Minister responsible for Environment and Lands. I would like to ask the minister, would he table in this House copies of water and soil samples that his department has taken from the abandoned uranium mine between Makkovik and Postville?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under advisement and respond to the hon. gentleman as soon as possible.

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

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

A supplementary to the minister: Is the minister aware that in this particular area, between Postville and Makkovik, there are high readings of radioactive material in that area, and is the minister concerned that the Atomic Energy Board has expressed concern and advised people not to go camping or travelling near the site?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am also aware that the various agencies, the Federal Government, Atomic Energy, and Environment and Lands, in Newfoundland, are right now looking at the situation as it applies to the deposit of uranium that had been previously explored.

Mr. Speaker, one should be careful, because when one recognizes that the mine, itself, in that area was a uranium mine - uranium gives off radioactivity. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, where uranium-bearing ores were exposed, obviously, there would be a higher level of radioactivity than there would be in a place where it is not so.

I might also point out, Mr. Speaker, to put some minds at ease, as well, that my reading of reports and statements made in the press indicated that there were core and various mining materials left around, and the impression was given that they were scattered all over the ground. That, Mr. Speaker, is not so.

Radio-active cores and other radio-active material are stored in buildings on the site, so, Mr. Speaker, I just provided that information, which I hope will keep people from worrying any more than they should. But I want to assure the House that the Department of Environment, working with the other agencies responsible for that site, are presently looking at what they will be doing and addressing it, themselves, in future.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is to the Minister of Environment and Lands. It is estimated that it is going to cost between $500,000 to $700,000 to clean up this particular site. Could the minister advise if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be contributing to the clean-up of this particular site?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Department of Environment and Lands will do whatever is right and appropriate to do, but I will take that question under advisement and further address myself to it at a more appropriate time.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, there is time for a short question and a short answer.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Last week, the minister tabled the report of the Review Committee of the Workers' Compensation Board, and one of the discussions noted in it was about the length of time it took to see a medical specialist in this Province. That problem has existed for some time and seems to be getting worse.

Can the minister inform this House if he has any plans now, immediately, not when the recommendations are implemented, to deal with this present crisis? Because injured workers are still awaiting diagnosis and medical treatment and/or benefits?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I thank the hon. member for the question. As he knows, and as it was stated in the House, there is nothing that will change in terms of anyone's claim currently being processed before the Workers' Compensation Commission and the review directs and points out the Government's impossibilities for us and the overhaul of the whole system, which we will look at early in the new year. Anything else that applies to any individual worker being disadvantaged can be taken care of at any time by that worker approaching the compensation system, or if they have a real problem and they would like to deal with it more quickly, many of them have called my office and had it dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with great pride, to present a petition on behalf of the men and women of the Mount Pearl Fire Department. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome them. Most of them, if not all of them, are seated in the gallery behind me. They are a very fine group of young people, and we are very proud of them.

Mr. Speaker, they, on their own initiative, have undertaken to circulate a petition, and I am very proud to present a petition with more than 16,000 names.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Last spring, Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition with some 15,000 names, I think, that was collected in one evening by a host of people who canvassed the City of Mount Pearl. These people, Mr. Speaker, on their own, have knocked on every door, and have more than ninety-nine per cent of the people of Mount Pearl totally supportive of their petition.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the Prayer of the Petition, as I must. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has given notice of intent to revise the City of Mount Pearl Act to eliminate the democratic right of our citizens to own and operate a fire department and;

WHEREAS we will be the only municipality in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that effectively would be legislated out of fire protection and suppression services and;

WHEREAS the citizens of Mount Pearl own the most modern fire station in Newfoundland, and is equipped with the latest state-of-the-art fire fighting equipment and;

WHEREAS independent studies have shown that we can operate our own fire services for $500,000 per year less than the St. John's Fire Department and;

WHEREAS thirty men and women have been hired and are now in a state of readiness to serve their community in the protection of life and property.

THEREFORE the undersigned residents of Mount Pearl petition the Premier, and the hon. House of Assembly, to reject the Government's proposal and allow the citizens of Mount Pearl the democratic right afforded all other citizens of our Province, to own and operate their own FIRE PROTECTION AND SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS.

Mr. Speaker, this is signed by myself, of course, and by over 15,000 other residents of the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have spoken on this issue in this hon. House. I do not know how many times I have to say to this Government that it is the democratic right of the people of Mount Pearl to own and operate their own fire department.

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I referred to a letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice, written in 1984 but valid nevertheless. I would like to quote another paragraph from that letter, Mr. Speaker, from the Deputy Minister of Justice to the Town Manager of Mount Pearl, and I quote, "The Department recognizes the right of municipalities under the Municipalities Act, to establish and run a fire department. Sections 188 to 189 do not, in fact, require the approval of the Provincial Government before a municipal fire department is established."

The only approval which is required is with respect to the making of fire regulations. Therefore the decision to establish a fire department is ultimately that of the municipality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was in 1984. I could refer to another note a little later -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - since the Minister says: well, that was a long time ago. Let me refer to a Minute of Cabinet, C-68 of 1988. It says: directed that the Department of Municipal Affairs is authorized to assist the Town of Mount Pearl in the establishment of a fire hall, and so forth. Let me read that into the record. So let there be no question that not only does the City of Mount Pearl as it is now have the right under legislation, under the City of Mount Pearl Act, as it did under The Municipalities Act when it was a town, to own, operate and establish a fire department.

It certainly has a democratic right to do so. The people have spoken loudly and clearly. The petition circulated last year against the proposed amalgamation scheme, which included not only the taking away from the people of Mount Pearl their fire department but taking away in fact the very City itself and making it part of the City of St. John's. People spoke loudly and clearly last spring, Mr. Speaker, and they have spoken loudly again on this specific issue of owning and operating their own fire department in the City of Mount Pearl.

Now the Minister can stand up and make all the statements he wants about the lack of safety of the proposal because there is not an aerial ladder truck. He is talking through his mouth, through his jaw, through the top of his head. He says he is saying that on the advice of the Fire Commissioner. I for one do not believe him. The Fire Commissioner's advice was not only sought, but all other fire departments established, totally in conjunction with the Fire Commissioner, who as we have just confirmed in Bill 53, I believe it was - it was debated here and it has had second reading; it has not yet been given final approval in this House - who is the officer of this Province who has the responsibility and the authority not only to advise the Minister, but to advise municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have another opportunity, but I take great pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the citizens of Mount Pearl and on behalf of the fire department, and ask it be referred to the department to which it relates, some 16,000 names.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and make a few comments in support of this petition by the Member for Mount Pearl. Some 16,000 signatures, I think, were collected by the firemen in the City of Mount Pearl. A significant number, when you are talking about a population I believe of - what? Twenty-three thousand, 24,000 people in all?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Something like that in total. To have 16,000 signatures passed to a Member collected by the firemen themselves, I do believe, says something as far as I am concerned for the citizens of Mount Pearl, and more specifically on behalf of the fire brigade and the fire department in the City of Mount Pearl.

What I cannot understand about all this - here is a Member on this side of the House representing the City of Mount Pearl. We have a Member on the other side of the House representing a part of the City of Mount Pearl, a significant part, I might add, when you are talking about, I think, 25 per cent to 30 per cent. I cannot - and can any other Member in the House? - today picture themselves sitting in this Chamber and getting up and so forcefully, arrogantly, and dictatorially telling a city which he represents, 25 per cent of the people, that: no, you are wrong.

There is a principle here, Mr. Speaker. Democracy, I thought, was always supposed to give people a choice. In pursuing democracy over the years one of the acts that was instituted, a specific act, one that pertains to the City of Corner Brook, another that covers all other municipalities in Newfoundland, The Municipalities Act, and more specifically, The City of Mount Pearl Act, to incorporate the City of Mount Pearl.

In that Act, Mr. Speaker, there is Section 215 which states categorically and quite clearly that the City of Mount Pearl has the right to put into effect a fire department in their own community, in their own city. Not only do they have the right, Mr. Speaker, but it is a democratic right and one that should be based on principle, if nothing else, and morality if you want to carry it that far. They are paying their way. They have not asked for monies. They are paying their way and the citizens of Mount Pearl are saying that in the signatures that are on the Member's desk today and in the work done by the firemen in the City of Mount Pearl. They said it in spades when they put their name on it, that we have that democratic right. We are willing to pay. Nowhere on that petition, nowhere in the past two years did I see a request from the citizens of Mount Pearl asking this Administration to give us X number of dollars so that we can operate our own fire department. I did not see it in the past, I do not see it today, and I suspect we will not see it in the future. If someone can give me, and tell me, the rationale behind telling a community, town, or a city in this Province: I am sorry, ladies and gentlemen, you do not have that right. Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned earlier, I believe in response to a question from the Member for Mount Pearl, that they had some kind of a mutual agreement, pertaining to a regional fire department for the City in conjunction with St. John's. Why did not the Minister, I asked this question yesterday, why did he not bring in the Regional Services Board Act? It went through the House last year and we had to invoke closure because the great rush was on, the stampede had started, and then all of a sudden the House closed and to this day the Regional Services Board Act has not even been proclaimed, let alone anything else done with it. Now, that to me, again, Mr. Speaker, begs some questions and more importantly deserves some answers. If the Regional Services Board Act was in place and the citizens of Mount Pearl, or the City of Mount Pearl, the council in Mount Pearl, wanted to, in conjunction with the City of St. John's, put into place a regional -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this petition has been taken up over a number of days and people have been asked to sign the petition from not just Mount Pearl but from all over the area, people not necessarily directly affected and knowing very little, if anything, about the issue. I understand that a lot of comments from people who have signed the petition, to people who are asking that they sign, is that: we know very little about this. Of course, they signed it anyway. I think that comment is very pertinent, Mr. Speaker. It is true of a lot of petitions, of course, people often sign petitions not often knowing very much about what they are being asked to sign. I think it is very unfortunate that the people of Mount Pearl, in this case in particular, are being badly mislead by their city council and by their Member, I might add, badly mislead. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that this House of Assembly in the Spring of this year passed resolutions and made a decision that we would have a regional fire department for the northeast Avalon, as we have right now, Mr. Speaker. We have in place right now a regional fire department. We are not creating something new. The only change is that it is moving from provincial jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the municipalities in the northeast Avalon to be administered by the City of St. John's. Now, that was clearly the intend of this House in the Spring. Now on the face of that, in spite of that, and in defiance of the House, the Mount Pearl council decided that it would defy the Government, ignore the resolution that was passed, and proceed to hire a Fire Chief and firemen, or firepersons, if you like, for the City of Mount Pearl Fire Station.

I see that, Mr. Speaker, as being grossly and completely unfair to these people. I hope they were forewarned that there was, indeed, a regional fire-fighting service imminent, decided upon by this House, and that their employment would be short-lived. Mr. Speaker, that is the fact of the matter. Is that not the fact? Is it not true that this House passed that resolution? I believe it was.

If that is true, Mr. Speaker, the Council of Mount Pearl is defying this House and that is very unfortunate and very unfair to the people of Mount Pearl, in particular, the people of Mount Pearl and, more specifically, I guess, the employees who have been hired under false pretences. And I hope they were not hired under false pretences, I hope they were told that, in fact, a regional service was imminent, would be in place on January 1st, and their employment would be short-lived, because those are the facts; this House decided just that. And I don't know whether they were told that or not, but I certainly hope they were.

This House made a decision, the right decision, to continue a regional fire-fighting service with stations throughout the Northeast Avalon, positioned to back one another up, to support one another in the event of a fire, and to provide the best fire-fighting protection for the Northeast Avalon. That decision was made and confirmed by this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker, we have a regional fire-fighting service in place right now, and we have had it for some time, under the jurisdiction of the Province. We are making the simple change of moving it over to municipal jurisdiction and authority, where it should be.

The Province should not be in the business of fire-fighting. It is not in that business anywhere else except for paying its share of protection of provincial buildings; other than that, it should not be in the business of fire-fighting, so we are moving out of it, in the Northeast Avalon, as, in fact, we are not in that business elsewhere.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Government's intention and this House's intention, more importantly, is clear and has been clear and, in defiance of that, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for a part of Mount Pearl, I might state -

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

MR. GULLAGE: - and the Council of Mount Pearl continue to defy and mislead to the point of suggesting that they are not going to have a fire department. Of course, they are going to have a fire department, except that they are going to continue to be a partner in a fire department that they are a partner in now and paying their share of now, and want to walk away from now. It is totally unfair to their people, unfair to the people of the Northeast Avalon, unfair to the taxpayers of this Province, unfair to the people they have hired - totally, completely unfair and in defiance, worst of all, of this House, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to take leave to introduce a second petition, the wording of which is similar, Mr. Speaker.

This petition is from the people of Elizabeth Parks sub-division in the Town of Paradise, not from people in Mount Pearl. And let me address the minister's statement that 'somebody has been misleading people', Mr. Speaker. What an insult to the intelligence of the Fire Department! What an insult to the intelligence of the people who have signed these petitions!

Let me read to you the question that was put to the people at the door and I quote: 'I am a representative of the Mount Pearl Fire Department. We have started a petition which we intend to deliver to the Premier of Newfoundland, showing support of the people of Mount Pearl, having, owning and operating its own Fire Department. Would you like to show your support by signing our petition'?

I don't think there is anything misleading about that. The prayer of the petition is very clear as to its intent; the minister is insulting the intelligence of people who sign petitions. I tell, the minister, these people are not sheep, like the backbenchers opposite, Mr. Speaker. They are not sheep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The minister tries to tell us that this House passed a resolution by the majority vote, that is true, but he is misleading this House. People over there were told how to vote. If there were a free vote, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, you would probably have a different vote. The backbenchers over there are not allowed to go to the washroom unescorted. That is the kind of government they are operating over there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition from people from a neighbouring municipality, supporting the people of Mount Pearl, supporting the Mount Pearl Fire Department - the minister tries to tell us it is because they are not involved. They are involved. Because they know by having a fire station in Mount Pearl that there will be a better level of fire service in the region. The minister says: `Well, we are not doing anything, we have a regional fire department now.' Yes, we do, operated by an impartial authority, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, what the minister is proposing is not a regional authority. It is a St. John's Fire Department, to which other municipalities are told they will subscribe, of which other municipalities are told they will receive service, that they will pay for that service, and that the City of St. John's will decide how much they will pay. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is taxation without representation, forcing on the people of Mount Pearl a fire service owned and operated, controlled and administered by the City of St. John's.

My colleague was quite right. Why didn't the minister use the regional services bill? If he could show us one reason why a regional fire department is so much better - Is it so much better? How come we don't have it in downtown Toronto? How come we don't have it in other major municipalities across this Province? How come we don't have it in Halifax - Dartmouth?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We don't, Mr. Speaker, we have a mutual aid agreement. Experience across Canada has shown, in fact, that in many cases, mutual aid agreements can be far more effective and efficient than a regional fire department. But, as my colleague pointed out quite correctly, the people of Mount Pearl have never said, We don't want to be part of it. Show us that it is the best system for this region, show us that it will be operated efficiently, at a reasonable cost.

But when the minister says: `No, you can't have your own fire department. The City of St. John's will have authority over the City of Mount Pearl. The City of St. John's will decide how much you pay. The City of St. John's will charge you $600,000 a year more for service than it will take to operate your own fire department,' that is $20 for every man, woman and child in Mount Pearl. It represents 11.5 per cent of the total taxation paid by the people of Mount Pearl. For what? For the same service, owned and operated by another municipality!

Now, what is democratic about that? Where are the efficiencies, where are the economies of scale the minister is always talking about when he talks about regional authorities and amalgamations? Where is the economy of scale in charging the people of Mount Pearl $600,000 more? Where is the arbitration report dealing with the salaries and wages of the St. John's Fire Department? Why has the minister been sitting on that for a couple of months? Would the minister like to confirm that once that comes down it will be $800,000 additional a year that the Mount Pearl people will be asked to pay for their own fire service?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: I take great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, and great pride, in tabling this petition on behalf of the people of Elizabeth Park.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for Pleasantville for welcoming me home. I would welcome the hon. the Member for Pleasantville to his feet now, to have a few comments on what this minister and this Government are trying to do to the people of Mount Pearl.

I am surprised, or disappointed, I guess, that the member representing the people of Elizabeth Park, which I believe to be in Mount Scio - Bell Island district - I am not positive but I think so - is not here to stand up for what the people in his district would like to see happen to the fire department in Mount Pearl. He is away on Government business, I don't doubt that, but he should be here to have a few comments on what the people of Elizabeth Park would like to see happen to this fire hall.

The petition that was just presented on behalf of Elizabeth Park and the petition presented a few minutes ago, with 16,000 names, are among the largest petitions that have ever been presented to this House of Assembly on issues, and they are very important issues to the people who live in these districts.

When the minister was answering the question about who recommended an aerial ladder to the minister, saying that Mount Pearl should have it, Mr. Speaker, it just happened that I was minister of that department for a short time - albeit a short time. But the major issue at the time was the Carmichael Report. The accounting company - Touche Ross, was it not? or one of them - did the report, Mr. Speaker, and I had many discussions at the time with the Fire Commissioner, and I happen to be familiar with what his thoughts were on the Mount Pearl Fire Department, at that time, and on the Carmichael Report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Woods Gordon.

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

I know the Fire Commissioner very well, he is a very honourable man, and I would like to see him make a public statement on this issue, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that he is muzzled by his minister. He cannot make the statement that he would like to make on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, if he makes the same statements that he made to me when I was minister, I am afraid it will prove that the minister's remarks today, that the Fire Commissioner recommended that Mount Pearl should have an aerial ladder, will be shown to be false, unless he has had quite a change of heart.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing, in this case, again, as it was when he started the whole amalgamation issue, is illegal. It is illegal for the Government of this Province to force a municipality to submit to another municipality providing the service for fire-fighting. It is the right of every municipality in this Province, under the Municipalities Act, to have their own fire department.

The St. John's Fire Department covers most of my district, Mr. Speaker, but I have a volunteer fire department in the Goulds, a group of people who are very upset with what is happening to the fire services in this Province. If I thought it would do any good, I am sure that I could have a petition in by next Monday on the same issue that comes from Mount Pearl, and from Elizabeth Park, on fire services when amalgamation is complete and the Goulds fire department is dissolved, maybe. Maybe there will be people staying in the fire hall.

The Mayor of the City of St. John's says the Goulds fire hall will be manned. I don't know where they are going to get the money for it or the people to man it, with the layoffs.

But, Mr. Speaker, what the minister is doing is illegal, and I don't know how you get that through to him. He can pass any motions or amendments or whatever he likes in this House of Assembly, because they have the majority but, according to the laws that he operated under when he became minister, according to the Municipalities Act, what he is doing is wrong.

Now, Mr. Speaker, he has the power to change those laws. And when we had the votes on him, he certainly had the support of his backbenchers, but according to the comments that I heard on NTV, last night, Mr. Speaker, it is probably a good thing that these votes are not occurring in this House today, because the backbenchers over there are finally awakening to the fact that they have no say in what happens in this Province - zero say. They can get elected as many times as they like, Mr. Speaker, they can get elected for the next twenty years, but if 'King Clyde' doesn't want them in Cabinet, he will go out and pick Norm Whalen, next, down on Water Street, Mr. Speaker, and then he will go for Tom Hickman. Tom got his pay-off, today. I understand Tom got his pay-off this week. For all those brown bags that Tom brought into this building over the last five years, he got his pay-off this week. He got an $8 million pay-off. I hope he did not pay the Premier that much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this petition, of course, from the people of Elizabeth Park and the member's comment that even though outside the jurisdiction of Mount Pearl, the City of Mount Pearl supports the petition. I still would repeat what I said earlier, that people sign petitions without full knowledge, and how can they be expected to have full knowledge of the facts? They certainly are not part of the process. Councils and governments are elected to be properly informed, to research and come to conclusions, and make decisions. It is very difficult for the man on the street to know as much about a particular matter as a council or a government that is involved every day, and dealing with the issue on a greater scale.

Indeed, I would suggest that the wording of this petition that was presented to the people of Elizabeth Park is very misleading. It gives the intent, if I heard the words correctly from the Member for Mount Pearl, it misleads with the intent that it says that the people of Mount Pearl would like to be given the right to have a fire station, Mr. Speaker, a fire station. I think it reads something in that context - as if to imply to anybody considering signing that petition that they do not presently have a fire protection service. That is the clear implication; that there is no service in place now. You could not take it any other way. So if you were in Elizabeth Park, and considering signing that petition, and somebody requested of you a signature to support them in having a fire station, and you were thinking in your mind: well they do not have one now, so sure, I will sign that - naturally, we want to see you with a fire station, everybody else has fire protection. But that is misleading, Mr. Speaker. It is to imply that they do not have a service right now, and that is wrong. They are as much a part of the northeast Avalon and the St. John's fire fighting service as St. John's is, as Wedgewood Park is, as any of the other partners are, Mr. Speaker, and the implication is that they are not, which is false. They are paying their share now, and they are part of a regional service. The way the council is pursuing this matter, and the Member for Mount Pearl, is to imply that: no service exists, so let us open our fire department because we have no fire protection. Mr. Speaker, this is totally and completely wrong and misleading - totally misleading - as it has been all along.

It is getting to the point now, Mr. Speaker, where I think the truth is going to have to come out. I do not know how it is going to happen, but as much as I repeat these facts over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to be getting reported. Nobody seems to be saying what the truth is - that there is fire protection in place right now. For Mount Pearl to be misleading the people in suggesting they do not have fire protection, 'give us fire protection for the first time', as if 22,000 people are living in Mount Pearl and no fire protection exists, this is totally and completely ridiculous. It is in place right now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the question was: why did the Government not proceed with a regional services board? If we go back to the hearings process, the feasibility process itself - the hearings were part of that - Mr. Speaker, the municipalities in the northeast Avalon did not want a regional services board. They clearly said to me, and to the commissioners: we do not want to have another level of government in between the municipalities and the Provincial Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true! Not true!

MR. GULLAGE: We do not want that layer in between, and they clearly said that to us, and to me as a Minister. They did not want a regional services board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

MR. GULLAGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, when we made our decisions on configuration of the northeast Avalon, when we made decisions after the fact, sure, because a few were displeased with decisions, 'oh, please give us a regional services board,' but they never wanted it. They never wanted a regional services board. They did not want that level of government as they perceived it, a level of government in between themselves and the Province. They did not want it. So, Mr. Speaker, we did the wise thing in any case. Whether they wanted it or not, Mr. Speaker, we made the right decision - to save the taxpayers of the northeast Avalon, and of the Province, millions and millions of dollars in administrative expenses by not creating that extra level of government, Mr. Speaker, by not creating it. With an administrative structure already in place in the largest municipality in this Province, the City of St. John's, fully capable of handling regional services, and costing out on a per capita or other reasonable basis-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that structure was already in place. Why duplicate it with another structure in between the municipalities and the Province? It is totally unnecessary, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like leave to present a third petition.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this petition is similar in wording, but again it is from a different area, and one I would suggest the Minister may be familiar with. It is from the great historic City of St. John's, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it happens to be from the Cowan Heights area and the rest of the area represented by the Minister in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, there are not only a couple of names on it; there are 5,452 more of the Minister's constituents, 5,452 more. Mr. Speaker, 94 per cent of the people polled in that area spoke out and said: We agree with the City of Mount Pearl. The Minister can play all the games he wants and say we are misleading the people, Mr. Speaker. No, we have not misled anyone, Mr. Speaker. We have given the truth. It is the Minister who is talking out of the side of his mouth.

Mr. Speaker, every household received from the City of Mount Pearl, circulated to their door, the Mount Pearl, Special Edition, which gives all of the details.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who paid for that?

MR. WINDSOR: The City of Mount Pearl paid for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers of Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The taxpayers of Mount Pearl paid for it, and were proud to pay for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. member opposite who is a member of Mount Pearl should be on his feet and speaking in favour of his friends and neighbours. He is a low black sheep on his street, Mr. Speaker, because he has not got enough fortitude to stand up and say what he believes over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to take his place, and remind hon. members that when we are speaking to petitions that we speak to the material allegations of the petition, and not get into unnecessary debate.

I ask the hon. Member to keep his remarks to the material allegations of the petition.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right, but it is so much fun taking shots at them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister, that the information as it relates to fire protection was spelled out in great detail, a full page of detail, the chronological history of everything that has taken place. Nobody has ever said that we do not get fire protection from the Brookfield Fire Station. Many times I have stood in this House and thanked the men of the Brookfield Fire Station for the service they provided in the past. But the reports that have been done, that the Minister has in his possession, done for Government, done for his Department, every one of them clearly point out the need for a station in Mount Pearl. There is no dispute about the need for a fire station in Mount Pearl, none whatsoever. The dispute, Mr. Speaker, is about the administration of that station being forced down the throats of the people of Mount Pearl against their will and causing them to pay $600,000 more a year for a service they can provide for themselves. That is what this is about.

Regional services, Mr. Speaker, was not something that the people of the northeast Avalon did not want. What they did not want was the Minister's concept of the City of St. John's being the great regional authority and dictating to other municipalities in the region. That is not regional services. That is dictatorship, Mr. Speaker. That is what this Government is used to. That is how they run their own Government, and they want to run municipalities like it. I say to you, it is not acceptable.

I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of this Government. The Premier, in a letter delivered to our fire chief two days ago says, 'Theatrical moves by the Mount Pearl City Council.' He refers to, 'I am having great difficulty treating your letter seriously.' A letter from the fire chief! 'I am having great difficulty. Entirely fabricated against good sense, good judgement and the stated intention of the Legislature.' This, Mr. Speaker, is how the Premier of this Province and his Government are dealing with these petitions, three now in total, signed by more than 22,000 people. Mr. Speaker, this is the largest petition, the three of these combined, ever presented to this House of Assembly.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, will have to answer. He may not listen to his constituents now. There are 16,000 names from Mount Pearl, and I would submit that probably 5,000 or more are from the Minister's district. There are 5,400 more in this petition from the Minister's District. There are 10,000 of the Minister's own constituents telling him he is wrong, and there are 12,000 or 13,000 more residents of Mount Pearl and Elizabeth Park in the Town of Paradise who tell him he is wrong. The fire commissioner tells him he is wrong. The fire commissioner's report, that the Minister refuses to release, recommends the City of St. John's operate the St. John's Fire Department, the City of Mount Pearl be allowed to operate its own fire department and other volunteer fire departments be allowed to expand as appropriate and when affordable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: That is the commissioner's recommendation, and this Minister refuses to follow it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Member for Mount Pearl, or for part of Mount Pearl would raise the matter of the Mount Pearl Special Edition which I could not believe, Mr. Speaker. About three days prior to seeing that in full living colour, about a dozen pages - I do not know if I got a letter or not, I saw a comment in the paper that the Mount Pearl council was implying that Government was responsible for the difficulties with their forthcoming budget. They were going to have great difficulty with their forthcoming budget. Only a week prior to that, again, after supposedly holding it up and again accusing me, accusing the Government, if you like, I approved $5 million for a new arena, gave approval to borrow for $5 million. Here is a council, Mr. Speaker, that is blatantly political at the best of times.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Mount Pearl to restrain himself and to give the Minister a chance to respond to the petition in the proper manner. I think the Member for Mount Pearl was afforded that courtesy and I ask that the same courtesy be afforded the Minister.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: They had no problem finding the money for that glossy edition, a piece of propaganda really, is what it was. They had no trouble finding that but they are going to have great difficulty balancing their budget and, of course, we are responsible for that. That is where Mount Pearl comes from for most things, that council in Mount Pearl that is espousing propaganda most of the time, and trying to imply that the Minister is responsible for anything that goes wrong in Mount Pearl. They are not responsible for their own acts, the cannot handle their own budget.

Mr. Speaker, talking about the fire station in Mount Pearl and the fact that there is no dispute about a fire station in Mount Pearl -obviously because there is a station in Mount Pearl. Anybody can go in there and physically see it, but, Mr. Speaker, that station was put there, I believe, at the same time that the Member was part of a Cabinet and saw that it was put there, I would think. Am I guessing right?

Instead of saying: we want a station to be added to the St. John's Regional Fire Department, which you are already a partner to, Mount Pearl, I want to put that station in there to be for Mount Pearl. Let us withdraw from the regional system. Let us not be partner to a system we are already partner to, and paying our share of, and best of all part of a union agreement. Two and a half years ago did the City of Mount Pearl not sign a union agreement with another union while already a party to the union they have an agreement with now? Is that true?

MR. WINDSOR: That is absolutely untrue.

MR. GULLAGE: It is true.

MR. WINDSOR: Mount Pearl has never signed any agreement with you or with (inaudible) union.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to please keep to the material allegations of the petition. I realize the intensity of the moment but this is not a period for debate, it is to talk about the material allegations in the petition and I ask the hon. Minister to please keep his remarks to the petition.

MR. GULLAGE: Obviously the fact disturbed the Member greatly.

The final comment I want to make is this. Think for a moment about the fact that I represent a good piece of Mount Pearl, about 25 to 30 per cent, I believe. Mr. Speaker, right from the beginning of this debate some two and a half years ago, when I first became the Minister, I maintained the position that we should have a regional fire department and that Mount Pearl should be part of that as it is now, and that would be maintained. I said that to the City of Mount Pearl, and to the council of Mount Pearl particularly, because that is who I have to speak to, talk with, and discuss these items with. A regional fire fighting service, as you are part of now, is the way it should be. It is the best way to provide fire protection and your station should be part of that system. Granted, yes, we need the station in Mount Pearl. The station is there now and it should be operative. I offered to operate that station and man it two and a half years ago. It has sat vacant ever since because the Mount Pearl council said: we do not want you to man it, we will not let you man it. And that is wrong.

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

I have heard the Member for Mount Pearl say that the Minister told a direct lie. That is unparliamentary and I ask the Member to withdraw, please.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are quite accurate and I do withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs may continue.

MR. GULLAGE: So, Mr. Speaker (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the hon. Minister's time is up. Sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Just let me finish my comment? By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave! No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There has been no leave given, so -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: You give leave? Sorry.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs may finish.

MR. GULLAGE: (Inaudible) comment on the same item I was raising, Mr. Speaker, that it is unthinkable, if you really think it through, that a Minister who represents a good part of Mount Pearl would do something not in the best interest of his own people and taxpayers, and, Mr. Speaker, I have not done that. From the beginning I have maintained the right stand and I have maintained that stand throughout the last two and a half years. In the best interest of the people of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I take great pride this afternoon in standing in this Legislature to support the petition so ably presented by my colleague for Mount Pearl, on what has become a very sensitive, and a very vocal, very high profile public issue.

As one Member of this Legislature, who has followed this debate both inside and outside this Legislature very closely, I cannot believe what we have witnessed here again this afternoon. For the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to stand in his place, a Minister who represents part of the City of Mount Pearl, to accuse the fire fighters who went around with the petition of hoodwinking the public, that the people did not know, trying to get them to put their name on a piece of paper without knowing what they put it there for, I think that is very demeaning, I say to the Minister.

I do not think that is necessary. That as sensitive and as emotional as this issue has become that we should (Inaudible) going on here.

MR. GULLAGE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that. I did not mention at any time the fire fighters who were taking up the petition. No mention at all of those fire fighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order, just a point of difference.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister said was those that went around with the petition. Now who went around with the petition, I ask the Minister? The fire fighters. That is who went around with it. The people were very well informed who signed the petition, I say to the Minister. Just as well informed as the people out and about the Province are informed about the total bungled amalgamation issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: What we are talking here is a bungled process that the Minister has bungled from Day 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't stand success!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, I love success.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Didn't have the guts to do it? Mr. Speaker, I have the guts to do anything, if it is right. I stand in this Legislature because of a principle of democracy. The people of the district of Grand Bank could have just as easily sent someone else here. They chose to send me.

The people of Mount Pearl have chosen. The other thing I say to the Minister is that in meetings with the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Mount Pearl, they have always spoken very supportively of the regional concept. But this Minister did not want a regional concept. He came in here and passed the regional services bill, forced it through this House by closure, which his side put through the House.

We had the regional services bill that he could have done what he wanted to do with, and the City of Mount Pearl would have been receptive to it. They are not against the regional service. But they are against the process that the Minister has followed and what he has done with it. It is just terrible what he has done with it. They do not mind paying for it. But they want some say in it. That is what the City of Mount Pearl has told me and Members of this caucus when we have met with them.

MR. SIMMS: At a reasonable price.

MR. MATTHEWS: Exactly, at a reasonable price. But they do not want the City of St. John's sending in the tax bill and saying: pay up Mount Pearl or else, when they have no say in the service whatsoever. That is what it is about, and I am sure that deep down within the Minister - I think what the Minister is doing here today, he is doing it against his will. I tell you, if I were in his position, I would tell the Premier where to go on this issue. I would not sit there and take it and be embarrassed and humiliated by my very own people who sent me into this legislature. I would not put up with it, Mr. Speaker. And I honestly think I know the hon. gentleman well enough to say that what he is doing, he is doing against his will. And we know what happens when you are in Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. If you are not willing to do what this minister is doing today, you have a choice, and that is, to leave the Cabinet.

MR. FLIGHT: Is that the way it was?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that's the way it is with every Cabinet, but I say to this minister, that there were people in our Cabinet who would have had the guts to leave on the issue.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You would have, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, you are proving my point. There were people with the intestinal fortitude to leave, and I say to the Minister of Development, he should bite his lip or there may just be a few more from outside coming in yet. There just may be more coming from outside to take over some front benches over there, if they can ever get elected to the legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rose today to support the petition presented by my colleague on behalf of the thousands and thousands of people who signed it, the same thousands and thousands of people who chose in the last general election whom they were going to send to this legislature, the minister being one of them. They will choose again in the next general election.

All I say to the minister is, there is still a possibility of resolving this issue, and if the minister would go in and sit down with the City, they can work things out. I am still convinced it can be worked out without being dictatorial about it and without doing something which is obvious today, by the names in the petition my colleague has brought in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that it can be accommodated without getting into one mess, and that is what we are seeing here, a big mess. I ask the minister to reconsider and, in the final analysis, to believe in democracy, listen to the wishes of the people and do what they want.

MR. BAKER: Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province." (Bill No. 22).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased that it falls to me as acting Minister of Environment and Lands, to proceed with and to introduce for second reading Bill No. 22, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province".

Mr. Speaker, this is really a consolidation of various pieces of legislation under which Crown land, in this Province, would be administered. This act will consolidate administration under one act and allow for the repeal of the following acts, which I will read from the back of Bill 22. The following acts, under this legislation, Bill 22, are being repealed: The Abandoned Lands Act; The Administration and Control of the Crown Lands (Transfer) Act; The Crown Grants Act; The Development Areas Act; The Labrador Lands (Reservation) Act; The Land Development Act; and The Veterans Land Settlement Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are no substantial changes in this bill from the previous legislation. As I said, it is purely a consolidation of all existing Crown lands, or acts under which we administer Crown lands. The main purpose is to consolidate existing legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, one cannot stand up and debate Bill No. 22, without referring to the debate that took place on Bill No. 53, and every member of the House will remember the debate - the debate in public, the debate in committee stage, the debate in Question Period. I did not participate in that debate, I sat and listened. I heard the Opposition rail against and decry the bill; I listened as they jumped all over the bill; I listened as they encouraged public opposition to Bill 53; I listened, when the loyal Opposition misrepresented what Bill 53 really meant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very protective of their rights of free access anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very proud, as a people. We appreciate, and we are very jealous, of our right to hunt and fish, unrestricted. That is the way it was, it has been our way of life, and that is the way it will remain. Newfoundlanders would be very concerned and would resent very much, and would vigorously resist any effort or any attempt by Government or anyone else to restrict that access. Mr. Speaker, as the debate raged on Bill 53, I sometimes wondered if we were not inadvertently or otherwise actually restricting access. Were we denying people rights that they felt were theirs traditionally and historically?

As more and more concern was expressed by the general public, by interest groups, by individuals, spurred on by the Opposition, this Government, out of a concern and a desire to protect the traditional and historic rights of people, said: 'Look, let's revisit this piece of legislation. Let's see if there is any basis for the concerns being expressed, for the concerns being encouraged by the Opposition.' And we did. We recalled the bill and made changes. I will get to those changes later.

I would like, at this point, to remind this hon. House that the previous minister, the now hon. Member for Naskaupi, made a commitment that if changes were required in this bill, changes would be made. I am pleased to announce that he made good on that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: But what is most important about Bill 53, Mr. Speaker, which is now Bill 22, with very minute changes, is that during the process there was a great revelation. I was not aware as this debate raged on Bill 53 - and I doubt very seriously if many members on this side of the House of Assembly were aware; I know that members on the other side were aware, because most of the front bench was in the Cabinet - that this Bill 53 was really not our bill, it was their bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: A previous Cabinet, of which the hon. member was part, approved the legislation and it was to be on the Order Paper in the spring of 1989, with not one dot, comma, word or letter changed, not one. It was to be on the Order Paper in the spring of 1989, Mr. Speaker. It would have been tabled and enacted by that Tory Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: But, Mr. Speaker, one has to remember, a very significant event took place in the spring of 1989. There was an election and these great protectors of people's rights were defeated. Yet, after they were defeated - and here is the key point that every person in Newfoundland should know - they railed, protested, criticized, tried to whip up public opposition, to what, in effect, was their own legislation! Every word, comma, clause, and full stop in that bill was Bill 53.

So, in that debate that raged around the Province, that they encouraged, they were pious, sanctimonious, self-serving. They displayed the classic example, on this bill, of hypocrisy, a classic example. Mr. Speaker, that may be unparliamentary, and if it is, I am prepared to withdraw it. But there is no question what it was. What happened on Bill 53 was the depths and heights of hypocrisy.

But, now, I intend to be kind and say that they, the sanctimonious, pious, self-serving, self-righteous Members of the Opposition had a collective seizure of amnesia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: They actually forgot that it was their bill, approved by their Cabinet, ready for tabling in the House of Assembly. Because, Mr. Speaker, if I am not prepared to believe that and say that, then how else can I explain their disgraceful performance on Bill 53? It can't be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: We will get to the changes.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is history, and now we have Bill 22. Let's look at it as it relates to access dealt with in clause 7, which will probably be the clauses that get debate here. When this is over, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank suggested there be a public debate or that we should go make our case. I will be prepared, when this is over, to defend Bill 22 to the general public. I will be prepared to defend Bill 22 to the general public in the member's district, any other district, or any other room in Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's look at what happened in Bill 53 as it relates to clause 7. Clause 7 guarantees that on any land bordering a lake, pond, river, seashore or foreshore that is granted, leased or licensed will provide for a reservation of not less than ten metres wide unless the grant specifically says otherwise. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about what grants can specifically say otherwise. In other words, what I just read says that ten metres of land from the waters edge will not be included in the grant, lease or license unless the grant specifically or expressly states otherwise.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me read clause 7. "Where Crown lands that border on a lake, pond, river, the seashore or foreshore are granted, leased or licensed under this Part, it is considered, in the absence of an express grant, lease or licence of those Crown lands, that a strip of Crown lands not less than ten metres wide around and adjoining the lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river was not intended to pass and did not pass to the grantee, lessee or licensee."

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's go to clause 2, if you want protection. And this is what we will debate in public, if it comes down to it: "No grant, lease or licence of a strip of Crown lands around and adjoining a lake, pond, seashore or foreshore or along each bank of the river that is otherwise reserved under subsection (1)" - in other words, and the reservation, "shall be issued without the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council..." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is where the hypocrisy comes in, here is where the rights of access have been protected to a greater extent in Bill 53 than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, in the existing legislation, I, today, as the acting Minister of Environment and Lands, can, by ministerial discretion, issue a permit to occupy from the water's edge to any property I wish. I do not have to refer it to Cabinet. That is the way it has been for thirty years. This very day, my assistant deputy minister is issuing permits for wharfs and boat houses all around Newfoundland by right of my authority and my discretion under that act. And now, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that we are going to take that discretion away from the minister. Every application that will affect the reservation, the foreshore, the seashore, the area of the lake, will be subject to approval by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now, you talk about protection!

Let's talk about protection, let's talk about people's rights, Mr. Speaker. Not only have we gone that far with Bill 53, we have gone farther. This legislation identifies -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your Cabinet said yes.

MR. FLIGHT: No, they did not approve one as good as this. They approved Bill 53, this is Bill 22.

Now, Mr. Speaker, not only in our desire to protect the rights of the citizens of this Province to unrestricted access, not only have we said that every application received in Newfoundland and Labrador must be subject to the approval of the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, for all-time, not only have we done that, we have identified, the kinds of applications, the kinds of structures, what undertakings, the Cabinet can approve. We have tied Cabinet's hands. This legislation says, Mr. Speaker, and I will read - and this is done out of our great fear, not a very great probability, but out of the great fear that one day these people will be back here again, and they will have the same legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me read clause 7. Here are the undertakings, conditions, and the structures that a future Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, - not a future minister like these people lived with for seventeen years - a future Cabinet. Here are the exceptions where they are allowed to issue a grant, lease or license: after the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - not a minister, not an assistant deputy minister, not a director, as have, indeed, approved lands on the foreshore. Here is what they are: (a) "where an applicant demonstrates that a grant, lease or license of the land is necessary for the purpose of an industrial undertaking and the grant, lease or license would not cause undue injury to the rights of others;" (b) "to enable a person to carry on aquaculture;" which we all agree, Mr. Speaker, holds great potential for economic development in this Province; (d) "where a structure that is being used as a residence and was erected before the coming into force of this section intrudes on the reservation," - and only to the extent that an existing building intrudes - " to the extent of the intrusion only;" and (e) "for the purpose" - now, listen, Mr. Speaker - "of giving a licence only for the construction of boat houses and wharves to the extent that they intrude on the reservation." Now, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council must do that, not the minister or the deputy minister.

MR. WOODFORD: Who got the (inaudible)?

MR. FLIGHT: Come out in the public, 'Rick', and debate this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this legislation - talk about guaranteeing the rights of people: "A grant, lease or license under subsection (2) does not convey exclusive hunting or fishing rights". I want to talk about hunting and fishing rights, Mr. Speaker. "A grant, lease or licence issued under paragraph (2)(d) or (e) shall not permit a grantee, lessee or licensee to restrict access to the reservation on the part of the general public by erecting a fence or by other means."

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at how we made it a little tougher. Let us look at how we have protected the rights of people to free access around ponds, rivers, and streams a little more. "An applicant for a grant, lease or licence under subsection (2) shall publish a notice of his or her intended application in the Gazette, 1 local paper and 1 weekend edition of a paper having general circulation in the province at least 2 months prior to making the application." Now, Mr. Speaker, not only must the Cabinet approve the application and deal with it, but the applicant must publish his intention to apply within two months. How much protection, Mr. Speaker, are hon. members going to stand up and demand? How much more can be done, when you consider that for thirty years, Mr. Speaker, the minister had the right to issue permits to occupy right to the seashore?

I understand the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains is going to stand up shortly. There is no better way it can be done, Mr. Speaker, that a Government can accommodate, can allow for the type of development that is in the public's better interest, such as I have outlined, and yet, at the same time, guarantee the public's right to unrestricted access. The public's right to unrestricted access cannot be guaranteed or protected to a greater extent than is provided for in Bill 22.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about outfitters, because that was the big issue. The hon. Members of the Opposition went out and stirred up confusion and misinformed people about outfitters. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, most outfitters' titles are in the form of a permit to occupy, issued under Section 21 of the present act. Mr. Speaker, I have the present act with me, and that act, Section 21 -and the member can look it up - says and notwithstanding anything else in this act, the minister, if he so desires, can issue a permit to occupy right to the water's edge. So the minister of the day, Mr. Speaker, I, today, as acting Minister of Environment and Lands, can issue a permit to occupy to every outfitter in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't do it.

MR. FLIGHT: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the ministers, it was not done; but it could be done. The debate here focused - and what the Opposition tried to do was convince the general public that we would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Speaker, it is gone. The Member did not hear me. The Member did not hear me. It is gone. That is the purpose of this act, to do away with the legislation that would have restricted the rights; that gave a minister or an official of the minister, unrestricted abilities.

This act, Mr. Speaker, takes away the discretion from the minister to issue permits to occupy. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, remember the big deal made about outfitters?.. not only that, it was not identified for the Cabinet. Cabinet cannot approve a permit to occupy, or a lease, or a licence, or a grant to outfitters. Outfitters, hunting and fishing outfitters, are not identified in this legislation as one for which Cabinet can approve a grant. Mr. Speaker, so much for the argument that the intention of the legislation was to allow outfitters to build fences right to the shore, and restrict access for fishermen or hunters.

Mr. Speaker, one could go on and on, but I am not going to delay too long. I just want to make another point or two. I want to make a point that the Member for Labrador will find very interesting. He may know, or he may not know, that the Labrador Lands Reservation Act covers approximately 20,000 square miles of western Labrador, an area approximately one-half the size of the island of Newfoundland. Titles issued in that area are issued under the old Labrador Lands Reservation Act rather than under the Crown Lands Act. What is the significance of that, Mr. Speaker? What is the significance? The significance is that there is no provision under the Labrador Reservation Act to maintain a reserve around lakes, ponds, and streams in Labrador. I would be curious if the hon. Member for Torngat would have known that. I would be curious to know if the hon. Member for Torngat knew that under the existing legislation that we have lived under for the past thirty years, that there was no reservation permitted or allowed for under that legislation; that any grant, lease, licence, or permit to occupy, included right to the water's edge on 20,000 square miles of land in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: It does not matter. The hon. Member lived with it for seventeen years and did not bother to protect the rights of his people in Labrador. Why did the hon. Member not spot that three, four, five, or six years ago? Why did the hon. Member not have it included in Bill 53, the Bill that his Government drafted. Why did he not protect the rights of the people of Labrador in Bill 53?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: A bill approved by the Cabinet and about to be brought into the House, if they had not lost the election. How come, Mr. Speaker? He was in the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, he was Minister of Forestry and Lands for a short time. He should have known. So where was the great protector of Labrador rights in this particular case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, since this bill repeals the Labrador Reservation Lands Act, this goes with it. From now on, Mr. Speaker, when Labradorians apply for a piece of land on a river, or anyone applies for a piece of land in Labrador, the reservation will be there, because now the grants will be issued on the basis of Bill 53 - a good Liberal piece of legislation designed to protect the rights of Newfoundlanders to free access.

Mr. Speaker, where was the Member that he did not protect the rights of Labradorians? Mr. Speaker, after this legislation is proclaimed there will be another 20,000 square miles of Newfoundland and Labrador that the general public will be guaranteed right to access around rivers, ponds, and streams.

One could go on, Mr. Speaker, but the only real issue in this legislation was Clause 7, the right of unrestricted access. We made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, that we would go out and determine whether or not there was any sense of denying people rights of free access. We went out, and there was none, Mr. Speaker, and I have gone through it; however, Mr. Speaker, changes were made. This Government agreed to make changes to protect to the maximum extent possible; to make sure that nobody in Newfoundland would ever be denied. Wide open Government. To make sure that no Minister would ever cause a Newfoundlander or Labradorian to be restricted - restrict access around ponds, rivers and streams.

As I said earlier, this Bill is a consolidation of various Acts under which Crown land is administered in this Province. The Bill has gone through the public review process by way of the Legislation Review Committee. Most of the changes made in Bill 53, if not all, are the result of the recommendations made by the Legislation Review Committee.

Now before I sit down I would like for us to take a second to defend Crown Lands. It is a fact in this Province that the Crown Lands Division comes under a lot of criticism. You hear people everywhere saying: it takes two years to get a grant, it takes two years to get a lease, those guys are not doing anything, the application is sitting on their desk. Well let me give you some facts. But first let me say this to you: Crown Lands is getting a bum rap. All Crown Lands does is accept the application, process the application, and when they are ready to issue the grant they issue the grant.

What we have in Newfoundland - and that is being reviewed right now, I can tell the hon. House - is a situation where if an individual applies for a piece of Crown land, we have what they call the referral system. If Works, Services and Transportation has a reason to consider the application, there is a referral that goes out. If there is a possibility of a bit of mineralization, a referral goes to Mines. If there is a possibility of Health having a problem with it, a referral goes to Health. Poor old Crown Lands sits there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Poor old Crown Lands sits there waiting for the referrals to come in. If those referrals are not in in six months there is nothing they could have done about it. So it is sort of a bum rap and I want to tell the House that we are looking very seriously at revising the way that applications for Crown lands are processed. But in spite of that let me say in defence of Crown Lands that the average processing time for registration to a decision these past two years, since this Government has been here, is approximately seven weeks. Seven weeks from application to processing, and either approved or refused.

Mr. Speaker, these past two years, 1990-1991, 3,051 applications were received by Crown Lands; 2,729, a full 89 per cent, have been approved and the title granted, whether it is lease, grant or (Inaudible). Eighty-nine per cent of the applications received in 1990 and 1991 have been dealt with, processed and approved. That is these past two years. Titles approved under this Administration since April 1989, applications received, processed, titles approved - 7,000, 7,000 in two years. It would be interesting to compare that figure with the numbers that were approved by the previous administration prior to - in the seventeen years they were there.

So, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister would allow me this moment. I thought it was the right pause, so I decided I would come in to announce the questions for the Late Show:

The first one is: the Member for Humber Valley states his dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs with regards to the institution of regional services boards;

The second one comes from the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, stating his dissatisfaction with an answer given to a question put to the Minister of Education, re: the School for the Deaf;

The third one is from the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand Bank, stating his dissatisfaction with an answer given by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries regarding the fisheries emergency response programme.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In closing I want to say that this is progressive, enlightened legislation. I am sure there will be a spirited debate. I look forward to it, and I am prepared to answer any questions that might arise. But in the end I am sure that the hon. House of Assembly will enact this legislation and they will do it confident and secure in the knowledge that it is designed to and does indeed protect the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians inasfar as the administration of Crown land in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to move second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House in debating this bill in Second Reading. However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has caused me to make a couple of comments, in particular when he started out by saying that the former government brought in this bill. Let me say to my hon. colleague, that we, as government, knew that this bill was dangerous to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we decided not to bring it into this Legislature.

MR. FLIGHT: Not so.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. gentleman that that is true.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Sir.

MR. WARREN: We had no intention of bringing that bill into this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. And let me say to my hon. colleague, now I can finally see, Mr. Speaker, what this Government is up to. Back a couple of years ago there were accusations made about brown paper bags coming into this Legislature, into this House, and into this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, I never (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe we know who this bill is going to protect. This bill is going to protect the people who supplied the brown paper bags. This is what this bill is trying to do, support the wealthy people in this Province, support the people who want to control the lakes and ponds.

We saw an example today, Mr. Speaker, of a tender being awarded for three hospitals. By who? Mr. Speaker, it is an example of what this bill - that is who controls this bill, the Premier of this Province, on behalf of those people who have been putting something in brown paper bags and bringing it into this Legislature, into this House, and into this building.

DR. KITCHEN: What do you mean? What is in the brown paper bags?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, he should know what was in there. On many occasions there were some loonies in it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is what this bill is trying to protect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you (inaudible), or what?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said it was the outfitters we were concerned about. The outfitters were one of a group of many people in this Province who were concerned about this bill. Mr. Speaker, the word should go out through Newfoundland and Labrador to all those people who enjoy fishing and enjoy going out with their rod and trying to catch half a dozen trout to fry for their breakfast, word should go out to them now, that this Government is going to stop them from walking around a pond.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen is -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Come on, ask your question.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague from Eagle River - and I want to be very fair and very kind to him - that, if he has not got sense now to grow up and behave like a man, he should go somewhere else. Because ever since he came into this House he has been acting like a child. I guess when you act like a child and you look like a child, therefore, you must be a child.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He was the one who commented on NTV last night about young people going into Cabinet.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting that my hon. colleague from Eagle River is one of the people, one of the four backbenchers who would not tell who they were, who made some comments about: I do not see why I cannot get in Cabinet. I deserve to get in Cabinet. There is no Minister for Labrador. My hon. colleague has been scratching on the Cabinet door now for the last two months. I would suggest to my hon. colleague that he take the opportunity to get up and speak against this Bill, because down in his district on the Pinware River, my friend, let me tell you, once this Bill goes through your constituents will be stopped from using the Pinware River. That is an example. So why don't you speak up on behalf of your constituents?

The same thing on the Forteau River, where many of your constituents go up daily and fish. But all of a sudden this is going to stop because of this Bill. So speak on behalf of your own constituents, stand up on their behalf. Let me say the same thing about Sandwich Bay. Those are the people whom the Member needs to stand up on behalf of, not the Tom Hickmans of this world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, how interesting, yes, the same crowd wanted to buy the government store in Makkovik. The Department of Development asked them to put a request in, requested them to make a proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, so this is an example of what the hon. gentleman is trying to talk about. Anyway, let me go back to the Bill and say to my hon. colleague that we have had the old Act, the old Bill, in existence since Confederation - actually, before Confederation. The old Bill, the old section - and I say to my hon. colleague that the hundreds and thousands of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who have traditionally all their lives enjoyed their relaxation, going out to the ponds, rivers and lakes, and going around those ponds at their leisure, - and all of a sudden the Minister decides it is going to be up to the Cabinet now to either allow the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian whether he is allowed to walk around that pond or not.

Now it is most interesting. I refer the Minister to two particular sections, and I would like to refer him to the present Bill. Because the first starting off, Section 3 (2), and I say this to the Minister, and I will read what Section 3 (2) says. "The minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, issue a lease to a person of an area of Crown lands...." Okay, so we stop there. So the Minister is saying in Section 3 (2) - and that is a lease for a period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Okay, that is fine and dandy. Now the Minister is saying anywhere in Newfoundland, but with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor, okay? Subject to the approval. Now let's go to Section 7 (2). Let's look at - what is the Minister doing here? Now in Section 3 (2) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, will you kindly tell the hon. gentleman from Eagle River either to shut up or get out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has requested silence so I would have to enforce that rule.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Now let's go from Section 3 (2) to Section 7 (2). Section 3 (2) says: "the minister may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, issue a lease...." Now, in Section 7 (2), the Minister is saying: "No grant, lease or licence..." can be issued "without the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council...." So in one section he is saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. gentleman, this is a grant!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: In one section it is only a lease, which is for a period of time; on the other hand it is a grant that is for life, eternity! - he is giving it to him. Mr. Speaker, look, I just today had a long conversation with some legal advisers. They are telling me that all you are doing, I say to my hon. colleague, is causing hardship for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the sake of a very few rich people. That is what you are doing.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my hon. colleague that I can tell you why this bill is coming forward, because the Premier was determined before the last provincial election to have the bill changed, that is why, and this is the second time now it has come before this Legislature. The Premier has been determined, not the Minister, the Minister is doing what he has been told by the Premier, the same thing with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. They have been told the same thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we get into clause by clause, I have something like eighteen or nineteen amendments that I will be bringing forward to this bill and some of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, are very, very appropriate. Earlier, the Minister spoke about the old Bill as it pertains to the Labrador Lands; he said earlier I might not know too much about Labrador and its lands, but let me say to my hon. colleague, that in this bill from cover to cover, there is not one mention whatsoever of any protection for the two native groups who are negotiating land claims with the Federal and Provincial Governments.

In fact now as we speak, we have the Native Association, The LIA, sitting around a table on the first floor in this building, negotiating land claims with the Province and the Federal Government. Could the Minister tell me what section in here protects that piece of property that they are discussing? Could the Minister kindly tell us? No, there is not one thing in there -you can give a grant of land though!

The Minister can give a grant of land anywhere in this Province now for himself or the President of Treasury Board, or the Member for Eagle River or myself. The Minister, can now, at the present time, and he will with this Bill, give me or anyone else the free will to go inside Postville or Hopedale and start any kind of a business I want to, and here we are at the same time sitting out there in the collective bargaining room talking about land claims for the native people. Now, Mr. Speaker, where is the Minister's concern about these negotiations? There is not one thing in this Bill, not one item to protect the land claims that are being negotiated by the aboriginal people of this Province with the Provincial Government and the Federal Government.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has already been determined; it has been determined by them for years, eternity, it is their land, the land belongs to them, they lived on it all their lives - the land all along the north Labrador coast. I say to the Minister, he should be ashamed of himself asking, what land? He knows what land; he knows the land that they have been living on and getting their livelihood from all their lives.

I am ashamed the Minister would be so ignorant in not knowing what land, and this is what this Bill is all about. I say to my hon. colleague, we stopped the Bill from coming through. Let me also say: when I was in Cabinet, we were the ones who sat down with the LIA and started the land claim negotiations and that is why this Bill did not go any further, because they had concerns -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Minister to restrain himself.

MR. WARREN: I know, Mr. Speaker, as soon as you can find one little flaw of which he is not aware, he gets upset and that is understandable.

Mr. Speaker, the big question that we have to ask is, why this piece of legislation? I think that is the big question we have to ask, and the Minister has to answer this question. Why can we not allow the people in Newfoundland and Labrador to go to their favourite fishing spot, or go and walk around a pond down in Baie Verte - White Bay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: But I say to my hon. colleague - in fact there are two new colleagues in this Legislature since this last bill was debated - so I say to my two hon. colleagues that you should talk to your constituents down in Ming's Bight and down in Wild Cove, and just ask them if they are concerned that somebody is going to some day, because of this piece of legislation, come in and build on this piece of property, and are going to throw a makeshift wharf out into the pond. He has his house right here, the wharf goes out there; a fellow is walking down the side of the pond, a young fellow from Ming's Bight, and when he gets down as far as the wharf he cannot get past it. He cannot get past it, and it is going to take him about half an hour to walk up over the hill and come in on the other side in order to fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) guarantee (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not guarantee it - this Bill gives the Cabinet authority to do it. So, Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not guarantee it. What I am saying is that it does not guarantee it, and what is going to happen to your friend in Ming's Bight is that he is going to be upset. He is going to be upset because the Minister of Environment and Lands is allowing this piece of legislation to go through.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague; let me say to my hon. friend here that I thought I was only going to spend about ten or fifteen minutes, but I would think that I am only just starting now. In fact, it is only just another ten minutes before 4:30 arrives, and even then I will still have about another thirty minutes. I am allowed to speak for a full hour, so if you want to put up with me for an hour, by all means I appreciate your staying and listening.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister said earlier: My Deputy Minister is over there issuing permits to anybody who wants them, every day, to anybody who wants them. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I could tell him that he has had an application over there now for the last two years, from a person in Postville, for the grant of the piece of land that he has his house built on, and he cannot get it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Your office already knows it. Your office will not allow him to have it. So, Mr. Speaker, there is just an example of what the Minister is trying to talk about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) helicopter ride.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentlemen know about the helicopter ride. In fact, not only do the hon. gentlemen know about it, everybody knows about it, because it appeared in Hansard when the hon. gentleman from Eagle River spoke about it.

Mr. Speaker, I must say it was one of the best rides I ever had. The Deputy Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, Dr. Peters, travelled along with me and showed me all the operations of Abitibi-Price and Bowaters, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, I learned a lot. I learned a lot about the forestry operations in this Province. I would say, Mr. Speaker, it was a much more valuable helicopter ride, seeing this particular piece of land in Newfoundland and Labrador, than the ride that my hon. colleague from Eagle River had, he went out to Rigolet and spent ten minutes and came back again. Mr. Speaker, I would say that at least I learned something, but my hon. colleague from Eagle River - and I could tell about another trip-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Oh, not too long ago. I think he probably didn't learned very much from the trip, other than taking the ride, and if the hon. gentlemen want to know about the-

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the cost?

MR. WARREN: The cost? I am sure the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture would be able to get that for you. I do not think that is any problem, because it was done by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. They arranged the charter through Air Services. It was all done there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) $7,000.

MR. WARREN: Seven thousand? Quite possible, quite possible, yes

it is quite possible. I have no idea. It could be even more. In fact I would say it was probably more than that because they had to pay my salary for that day, too, so I would say it was more than $7,000. Is there any problem with that? Does the hon. gentleman have a problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. WARREN: I see. Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I have to laugh at the hon. Member for Port de Grave, the wood stove himself, Mr. Speaker. I want to go to a section in this particular Bill. Would the Minister look at Section 36, Mr. Speaker? Does the Minister realize what this piece of legislation indicates? This piece of legislation - and I say this to a lot of my colleagues - probably every one of us in this Legislature is going to be affected by this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: By this Clause?

MR. WARREN: By this clause, yes, Clause 36 (1). I would think all of us, through our family relations - all I am saying to you now is that Clause 36 is going to be a problem. What Number 36 is doing is taking away from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians something that a lot of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: I cannot believe what I am hearing.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon Minister that what this piece of legislation is doing is taking away squatters rights. There are people around the bays, in the coves and that, who earned their living on a piece of land that they always owned, that their grandfathers owned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you do that?

MR. WARREN: I do not care what you said I did. What I am saying to the Minister is that this is wrong. It is wrong, get rid of the Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you when your (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it never came up in this House and that is what I am trying to tell the Minister. The Minister is sick, it never came to the House and it would not come to the House because what is happening now is that somebody down in the hon. Member's district, down in Buchans, who has been living there for years and years, and now all of a sudden No. 36 is going to cause problems for those people. I hope that the Minister will take notes and come back. If the Minister can satisfy us that this Bill is not going to affect John Jones down in Tickle Harbour, whatever the case might be, who has a residence that has been passed on to him by his father or his grandfather, if that is not going to affect him, if the Minister can assure us of that, then we have no problem with going along with it, if it is true. At the present time this Bill does effect squatters rights.

Mr. Speaker, I know I have more time left and I realize that -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have six months or so left.

MR. WARREN: It could be six months. In fact it could only be six hours. That is what we do not know, and I suppose it is good that we do not know that. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman who used that comment just then - no, Mr. Speaker, I consider you too much of a gentleman to repeat those kind of words. The hon. gentleman did say those words but it is only natural, that is what comes from the mouth of a little babe.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to resign are you?

MR. WARREN: He is now asking about my resignation. I understand my colleague is going to run for the Labrador seat Federally. So if that is the case, I might resign my seat in the Legislature too because I have a feeling I will be inclined to take up that offer. I can see the hon. Speaker has a smile on his face; he must be a little bit relieved that I did not mention Bellevue. So I say to my hon. colleague, it depends on what happens with my colleague for Eagle River and on what happens over there, however, I adjourn the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Today being Thursday and on the motion for adjournment I call on the hon. Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I was asking the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, why he did not go with a Regional Services Board for the northeast Avalon in particular and I also included in my question, Mr. Speaker, why the Act was not proclaimed yet, after going through the House last Fall.

As I recall, last Fall, I think it was little over a year ago that we had the Bill on Regional Services Boards here in the House, Bill 38, I think that is what it ended up to be, and in that I took it for granted at that time, and I suppose a lot of other municipalities and councillors in the Province took it for granted at that time, that if this particular Bill was instituted, albeit it was against a lot of the wishes of the municipalities in the Province, not because of the actual Bill itself, but the intent of the Bill, the contents of the Bill versus what was already there.

The Minister had power under the Municipalities Act, and I believe it was part three under the Municipalities Act, to institute a Regional Services Board pretty well anywhere in the Province, except, and I do not know what was in the City of Mount Pearl's Act or the City of St. John's Act; but under the Municipalities Act he had that right under part three, to institute a Regional Services Board anywhere in the Province.

However, under that particular Act, under part three of the Municipalities Act, under the establishment of the region, the Cabinet Order was subject to a feasibility study and public hearings under the Public Inquiries Act. Now the difference between that particular Act and the part of the Municipalities Act and the Regional Services Board Act, was that the Cabinet may by order designate any portion of the Province as a region. There was no provision for public input, feasibility studies or consultation with municipalities. That was the difference between the Municipalities Act and the new Regional Services Board Act that the Minister instituted last fall.

There were a lot of other concerns pertaining to that Regional Services Board Act, one being that the number of councillors under the Act was set by Cabinet. Under the other one, the Minister now determines the number of board members other than the chairman; that is the only difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, no. I did not mean to underline only - because there is a great difference; there is a great significant difference between what was there under the Municipalities Act and what is there now under the Regional Services Board Act.

I can go on with regards to the board members appointed by Ministers, from councillors nominated by municipal councils, the Minister may appoint any person without nominations, and that to me, Mr. Speaker, is wrong, I said it at that time and I say it today. The intent of a Regional Services Board is a good one. I said that from day one, I say it today and I would suspect that well into the future I will be saying the same thing, that it is a positive step, but having said all those things and having debated the Regional Services Board Act in the House last fall, when it did go through I was taking it for granted at that time that the Minister was about to institute some Regional Service Boards around the Province. So that in fact it would take some of the pressure off the Minister himself. It would certainly take pressure off the Minister himself, because a lot of the municipalities that were designated for amalgamation would, I presume - and I know for sure in some cases - go along with the Regional Services Board. Now under the new Regional Services Board Act they would not, because they were against that. But a lot of municipalities in the Province really, on their own, have agreements in place whereby they can minister to their municipalities and their constituents in their municipalities the services that are expected of any municipality in this Province.

It is working with regards to fire departments, recreational services and structures and especially with regards to incinerators in certain areas around the Province. Municipalities have that in place. I know in my area alone - I speak from experience - that we have some of those agreements in place and it is working very well. But given the choice between amalgamating and Regional Services Boards and so on, municipalities had a tendency to take, in order to keep their own autonomy and name and so on, would rather go with the Regional Services Boards then they would with amalgamation.

So one of the questions to the Minister, and I do not think he answered it yesterday, I do not think it -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: If I might just for a second, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last comment first and work back from there. The Member made the comment that if given the choice between amalgamation and a Regional Services Board, councils will choose - I think he said most of the time - a Regional Services Board.

We are presently dealing with some thirty groupings of communities throughout the Province with amalgamation. We are about halfway there in terms of agreements. They would prefer - and I am speaking I think for all thirty, I cannot think of an exception - to come together by way of amalgamation rather than a Regional Services Board. They represent a large portion of the population of this Province, put together.

So I think it is fair to say that given a choice, municipalities would rather be formally together. Because they are so small now and so fragmented. Populations in Newfoundland as we know only average about 500 to 600 people per community. We have very small communities, population-wise. We know from our research which took place a couple of years ago now, across the country, across Canada, that it takes some 1,200 people - 1,200 is a magic number across Canada; a very consistent number too - to have a viable community. Viable in the sense that you can provide the broad range of services that people are demanding. Now of course you can operate a community with a lot less than that, but in terms of making it reasonably efficient, where you can have proper equipment and staff in place, at least one full time staff, hopefully more, 1,200 is the magic number.

Over the last two and half years, this amalgamation process I believe, particularly the feasibility portion of it, and the hearings and the amount of dialogue and discussion that has taken place with the mayors and councillors and staff, has led communities to the conclusion that in fact coming together and amalgamating into a larger community makes a lot of economic sense, a lot of good administrative sense. I think if any of us were to talk to a lot of the communities that are targeted for amalgamation you would find that their attitude is very, very positive, contrary to what you hear in the press and in some communities, some councils, and they are very much in the minority. I can think of perhaps a half dozen communities where, for their particular reasons, mostly parochial self-interest reasons, they are against amalgamation with their neighbours. But that is very much the minority and gets portrayed in the press as the majority. The press tends to - too bad they are not up there - at the best of times focus on the negative. Of course we all know that because we live with it every day as elected politicians. I find that very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because amalgamation, indeed, is a very positive thing. It is helping the communities. Those that have already amalgamated are finding that it is working marvellously well. An example is Grand Falls - Windsor, the first one we accomplished. I think if you talked to any resident, elected person, or any staff person in that new town of Grand Falls - Windsor you would find they are very, very happy with amalgamation. It is a real success story. To the point, Mr. Speaker, I say without fear of contradiction, that they have become ambassadors for amalgamation throughout the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: And they have been just marvellous about talking about the benefits to their community. So, Mr. Speaker, it is very positive.

As far as Regional Services Boards are concerned, yes, the legislation was necessary, and we have not yet used the legislation, Mr. Speaker. We will no doubt use it. I gave some examples the other day when I mentioned central Newfoundland - the need of a Regional Services Board eventually when we get the Federal Government to finally say that they agreed to three specific proposals that were put forward: the Placentia area for a breakwater, and Grand Falls - Windsor and Bishop's Falls for a water treatment plant, and of course Corner Brook for much needed improvements there. When they finally say yes in Treasury Board federally, yes, proceed, even though they previously agreed to it, and as far as we were concerned it was all signed, sealed and delivered, when they eventually agree, Mr. Speaker, we will have to put in place, in my opinion, because of the numbers of people involved, the size of the project, we will have to put in place a Regional Services Board to properly facilitate that agreement between the three municipalities and the Province and the Federal Government. So we will, indeed, use that legislation. I am just giving one example where there is no doubt about it in my mind, we will have to put it in place, and I am sure the communities will want to have it in place. So the legislation is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Regional Services Boards per se, and regional governments - and I am going to go back to the northeast Avalon now in terms of the previous debate, if you like - Regional Services Boards are very, very important where you have large populations and a lot of communities, and I will use the Toronto area as an example, where they found it necessary, because they have five relatively large cities with adjacent boundaries, to set up a regional government. It was not the preferred route, but because of the enormous population in that area, they chose a metro Toronto council as a vehicle, if you like, to come together and cost-share and deliver regional services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister's time is up.

MR. GULLAGE: But that is not viable, Mr. Speaker, when you have a very small population in the northeast Avalon of some 150,000 people. Clearly it is better to put the regional services under an already existing administrative body, the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes I would like to welcome to the House this afternoon on behalf of hon. Members the Mayor of Bishop's Falls, and the delegation from the council of Bishop's Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave notice that I was not satisfied with the answer to my question which I posed to the Minister of Education. I am not sure whether or not it was the proper thing to say or not because I really did not get an answer to my question. The Minister apparently really did not know what he was talking about, and tried to talk his way around answering the question. I noticed him scurrying off after Question Period and I presume he has now gotten some facts and figures, and he might be able to relieve some of the concern that exists about the state of finances within his department.

Your Honour, being involved in education for such a number of years, I am sure will be very concerned with the answer, because it seems as if we are leading to a greater demise within the Department of Education, a Department which Your Honour knew and I knew so well, two divisions actually, which operated very well during previous years, which now have been brought together and really downsized and downgraded. The services have been disrupted and so on by the present Administration, and we hear that there may be further cuts coming. The Minister admitted himself that he is having problems with his budget, especially the salary budget. That means that jobs are at stake. The Minister, if he is having trouble this time of the year, with half of the year yet to go, in order to meet his budget demands, as undoubtedly the Premier will want him to do, the Minister is going to have to do some fancy manipulation within the Department in order to do that.

We understand that, especially the School for the Deaf, a facility and an agency which the Minister seldom sees or visits, or concerns himself with apparently, is in severe trouble. They have had to curtail operations considerably to the point where a number of the staff have been put in positions where it is very hard to function, and where it is extremely dangerous for them to operate.

I would ask the Minister if it is factual, as I did earlier, that he is having severe difficulty in meeting his commitments under the salary budget, and if so, is he going to try to address it by looking for more money, or is he going to lay off more people, or fire more people in the department, because people were fired there also in order to meet the deficit, remembering that the Minister administers the department that reaches out into every nook and cranny in this Province, and that the contact that is so necessary and so important, has been lost over this last couple of years. Conditions are getting worse. People in the field now find it extremely hard to get in touch with the decision-makers, because the lines of contact have been disrupted because so many people have lost their jobs. Hopefully, the Minister is not going to go on this continued tear of eliminating positions, especially at the primary, elementary, and secondary level. The Minister, where he has paid attention to the Department, has always been at the post-secondary level, and he talks about his White Papers and consolidations of institutions and all of that. He seems to have forgotten entirely the primary, elementary and secondary level.

So hopefully the Minister, as I said when he scurried off, got some pertinent information, and he can tell us that it is not factual that there is a concern, that he is not in that great difficulty that he himself said he was, that he will find a way around it, that no people will lose positions, and everything will improve rather than be downgraded as we see happening.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have some real good news for the Member. I know he does not want to hear this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: But the Department of Education is on budget as of today. Mr. Minister of Finance, how about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good!

DR. WARREN: The Department of Education is on budget as of today. Now tomorrow, there might be a few dollars here and there. I think the Department of Education budget is about $780 million or $790 million, the total budget. Every day we might be a bit under or a bit over. But the good news is that we are on budget, Mr. Speaker.

Even better than that is that we are doing exciting things in education. Do you know the other day someone suggested to me: in these difficult times why don't you put together a brochure outlining all the exciting things that are going on in Newfoundland education? I may even do that. Now, we have to find a bit of money to do it. We may list all the things that have been done in the past year or two in Education. The scholarships and the student aid, and all the new programmes, cooperative education, enterprise education, special needs students, help for the gifted, on and on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. I am tempted, you know, to put on paper all the accomplishments of the last two years since I have been the Minister. Should I do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Should I do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it!

DR. WARREN: I should do it? Okay, I will do that. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the School for the Deaf. I have visited the School for the Deaf more often in the past two years than the Minister visited during his whole term. I will take him out to dinner if he proves, if he can demonstrate, that he visited the School for the Deaf more often in his term than I have in the last two years. I will take him out to dinner. That is an offer. I have visited more schools in the last two years in this Province than the Minister did if he had been there for seventeen years. Last year I visited forty-four schools in every part of this Province, a school a week on the average. Do you know what people continue to say, Mr. Speaker? People continue to say: Mr. Minister, it is the first time we have had a Minister of Education in this school or in this college. Thank you for coming and listening. We are excited about what is happening in education, we are excited about what is happening in the School for the Deaf. And do you know that is only half the story? We still have two years left in this term and I tell the Member we are going to do many more exciting things. The future is ours, Mr. Speaker, and I am looking forward to it.

(Audio trouble)

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

It was quite interesting, Mr. Speaker. My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Fisheries, but I must say to the Minister of Education, before I start on my fisheries speech, that it was interesting. It reminded me of "The Twa Corbies" when I saw the two Ministers shaking hands over there, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance, and I suppose if every one of them stood in their place this afternoon they would tell us that every department is on budget over there, when just earlier the week the Minister of Finance had to get up and cry again and say we have a $95 million deficit. It would not surprise me one bit, but having said that, this afternoon I questioned the Minister of Fisheries on the Fisheries Emergency Response Program.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not going to do it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, for the last two years his budget has been slashed by $5.1 million and it could probably be cut by another $5 million because we have not seen anything in the last three years except to blame everything on Ottawa. Besides that there are some very serious problems out and about the Province with the fishermen and fish plant workers who, through no fault of their own, did not have enough landings this year, or enough work at the processing plants as a result of low landings, to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. I want to say to the Minister, realizing that his Department put $2 million into more or less a material component to help fishermen's committees and projects get a bit of materials to help people work. At the time that the announcement was made of the $2 million from the Provincial Department of Fisheries, I said at that time it was an insignificant amount when you look at the crisis that was taking place in the Province. I want to say to the Minister that Members on both sides of the Legislature have been bombarded in the last number of weeks by fishermen and fish plant workers who are ineligible really under the present criteria, as laid down by CEIC, they are being rather inflexible. Consequently, there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of fishermen and plant workers around the Province who don't know where they are going to get income or dollars to get through the next number of weeks and, particularly, through the winter, so I wanted to ask the minister, would he consider going back to his Cabinet colleagues and to Treasury Board and talk to his Minister of Finance, to see if the possibility exists for getting another few million dollars to try to help out some of those hardship cases out and about the Province who do not qualify presently under the federal Fisheries Response Program. His component really is for materials to top up the programs so that people can do some meaningful work, but the actual employment end of things is the real problem.

I have had calls over the last twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker, from people actually crying on the telephone, I say to the minister. I have never experienced it before. We have had some rough times; I have had a lot of calls every year, at this time, from people trying to fit into the Fisheries Emergency Response Program, but never have I seen the numbers that I have seen this year. And a lot of it is because the resource crisis was greater this year, the landings were less, there has been less work, and the other compounding problem is that CEIC has been more inflexible this year in accommodating people on the program. So, my request to the Minister of Fisheries was, would he have a serious look. First of all, is his $2 million component spent? - that was my first question - and, if so, would he undertake to let the legislature table where the $2 million has been spent, where the money has gone. He tells us he will have something for us tomorrow, on that, which I appreciate. But, more importantly, for those people out and about the Province who cannot get to work, who do not know how they are going to live, to get through Christmas and the winter, would the minister seriously consider going to his Cabinet colleagues and asking them to come up with a few more million dollars to take care of some of those people who don't know where to turn.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries, before I sit down, that you may as well go and look to get the money through your Fisheries Employment Program, because if you don't, then the Minister of Social Services, who is not here today, is going to have to take care of those people in the next short while. So, you are going to pay through the nose one way or the other, and I contend that it would be more meaningful and more fruitful if the Minister of Fisheries could come up with some dollars to take care of those people by putting them to work over the next number of weeks to qualify them for unemployment insurance benefits to get them through the winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the minister, I wonder if hon. members would permit me to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, a Council delegation from the rural council area of Valleyfield, Badger's Quay and Pool's Island. The delegation is comprised of Mayor Earl Spurrell and Councillors, Edgar Winsor and George Feltham, and the Town Manager, Harry Winter, from the historic district of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it did not take the Province long, last summer, to realize that we were heading into a crisis in the fishing industry because of the low catches that were being experienced by fishermen early in the summer. As the summer progressed, of course, we knew that we were heading for a rather bleak year. With that in mind, of course, we immediately initiated meetings with the Federal Government, with the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Crosbie, to enlist their aid in coming up with an emergency package that would tide Newfoundlanders over, at least for this year.

We continued our discussions, Mr. Speaker, with the Federal Government and put forward to them a number of very worthwhile and meaningful proposals for job creation. Mr. Crosbie made it quite clear at the beginning that he was not prepared to announce any such program until the fishing season had come to an end. We found some problem with that, because even though the fishing season did not end in Notre Dame Bay until maybe mid-September or late September, we knew, of course, that in Labrador such was not the case, and the fishing season there ended long before it came to an end in, say, Notre Dame Bay or Bonavista Bay. Consequently, people were left in a state of uncertainty as to what would happen. Where would they find money to keep body and soul together? So we kept impressing upon the federal minister the need to take immediate action.

Mr. Speaker, eventually he did come to the Province, and along with myself, convened a news conference in the Radisson Hotel and announced, at that time, their plans to tackle the problem that was obviously looming ominously.

Prior to his first conference, the minister called me on the telephone, twenty-four hours prior to his conference, and pretty well alerted me as to what he would be saying the following day. I asked the federal minister what did he expect from the Province. Mind you, all along, the Province indicated to the minister that if a proper response program was put in place and if we were given a chance to have some input into the decision-making process, then the Province would be quite happy and willing to share the cost. So, in the course of our telephone conversation, I asked the federal minister what he expected from the Province, and he said $2 million, 'If the Province is willing is to put up $2 million, then we will put up the funds that are necessary to tackle the problem. Two million dollars - we will put up the rest.' He mentioned then, I believe, a total amount of thirty-odd million dollars, which included, of course, the Maritimes. Of course, I went to Cabinet, and Cabinet gladly and willingly offered to find the $2 million. That was the amount, Mr. Speaker, that was required of this Government by the Federal Government.

We immediately, then, came up with our $2 million, and we wanted to make sure that the money was spent in a meaningful way. So we took $1 million and put it into a herring subsidy program, and the other $1 million, of course, is being used now to top up, to provide funding to enable people who qualify for assistance under the federal Department of Employment and Immigration - we would then top it up by providing the necessary funds to enable them to buy materials, to facilitate the programs that were being approved by the Department of Employment and Immigration.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing. And I do not know of a case where we have refused to make topping-up funding available. Pretty well every request that we have received, where there has been Employment and Immigration funding, we have provided the necessary topping-up funding to facilitate the program. In fact, tomorrow, I am hoping to make a statement in the House, outlining in some detail precisely what we have done and where we have done it and the effects that it has brought about.

The hon. gentlemen opposite make things sound so simple. If I had listened to hon. gentlemen last summer, the Province would have been forced into the position of underwriting the entire cost of responding to this problem. That was what they were trying to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: In one breath they get up and complain about the lack of funds to pay civil servants, or to keep hospital beds open, or classrooms operating; they complain about that and then, in another breath, they try to cajole and embarrass the Government into taking on expenses and funding programmes over which we have no jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave! No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow morning I am going to call first of all a few of the formalities, the third readings that are on the Order Paper. Then we will get right back to the delightful debate on Bill 22. I look forward to hearing the Member for Humber Valley. I always enjoy listening to him and I am sure he will acquit himself well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No, he was speaking, I believe. Oh, he is not finished yet? Well, I am looking forward to hearing him, anyway, at some point, and I am sure I will.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.