Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 3 December 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 41)
2001-12-03
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 3, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 41
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!
I would just like to remind all members of the House that we are working on
the backup microphone system today, and the earplugs do not work. We are told
that the sound will resonate through the new microphones and you will not need
the earplugs.
With that in mind, admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For many years the Canadian Rangers has been a household name all across
Canada, and nowhere is the Rangers more appreciated than in small communities of
this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the young people in the communities of
Postville and Hopedale, which have formed a Junior Rangers Association. These
young people are taught mapping, compassing, the use of GPS, and survival on the
land.
I think the initiative taken by these young people in these communities
ensures that the tradition of the Canadian Rangers will be around for a long
time to come.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to ask the members of this House to join with me to extend
congratulations to Mike and Mary Norman of Brigus on the occasion of their
Golden Wedding Anniversary. This couple were married fifty years ago, on
December 1, 1951, at St. Patrick's Church, Brigus, by Rev. Father Dr. E. J.
Jones.
They took up residence at Brigus at that time and raised a family of five.
The family has since extended into ten grandchildren and one great-grandchild.
Both these people were from what I call the old school, very hardworking,
determined individuals with strong Christian values.
It was only eight years ago that Mike gave up full-time employment, and had
worked up until the age of seventy-two. Both he and Mary are very active members
of their church and community, devoting countless hours of volunteer service
throughout the years.
On Saturday, relatives and friends dropped by their home to celebrate with
this wonderful couple and their family.
I am sure I join with all members in wishing Mike and Mary a happy Golden
Anniversary and many more years of health and prosperity.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre
recently received a $20,000 donation from the Ronald McDonald Children's
Charities of Canada.
The donation will be used to establish a new Family Care Room at the Health
Centre. This new room will allow family members, especially children, to spend
time with family during hospitalization.
The Burin Peninsula Health Care Foundation submitted a grant application to
the Ronald McDonald Children's Charities of Canada, with the help of Chris and
Debbie Squires, the owners and operators of the McDonald's restaurant in
Marystown.
Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to join with me in expressing
appreciation to Chris and Debbie Squires, along with the Ronald McDonald
Children's Charities of Canada, for this contribution to health care in the
district that I represent.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly to
join me today in recognizing the invaluable work that the Conservation Corps of
Newfoundland and Labrador are doing throughout the Province.
The Conservation Corps is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to
providing youth with training and employment in environmental and cultural
heritage conservation. The Conservation Corps has established a highly visible
and successful track recording in delivering environment and cultural heritage
conservation projects that bring youth together with provincial, national,
international government and corporate community partners.
I would also like to recognize the dedication of the volunteer board of
directors who come from a varying background across the Province. It is also
appropriate at this time, Mr. Speaker, to thank the corporate community who are
responsible for approximately 40 per cent of the cost of operating the
Conservation Corps. The Conservation Corps has established successful projects,
such as the Green Team project, the Climate Change Action group, Environmental
Leadership Program, Alumni and Volunteer Program, and Internship Program, along
with numerous other public educational programs.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it is groups such as the Conservation Corps and others
throughout the Province that are very much responsible for the positive
environmental work and legislative changes that are taking place throughout the
Province today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the two Newfoundland
and Labrador Volunteer medal winners for the District of Bay of Islands: Minnie
Vallis of Meadows and Arthur Vincent Sr. of York Harbour.
Minnie Vallis has been a volunteer for over thirty years. She is involved
with arts, music and church groups, and with the local seniors' club. She has
also been active in youth organizations such as 4-H and Girl Guides. She was
involved in municipal politics for fourteen years and was mayor of her town. She
has served on the executive of provincial and national organizations for people
with disabilities, such as COD, which she currently still serves. She is a very
strong advocate for people with disabilities, in the Newfoundland region. She is
also an honourary member of the Corner Brook Status of Women for her outstanding
work for the women's issues in this Province.
Arthur Vincent Sr. has been volunteering locally and regionally for more than
thirty years. He is active in church and community organizations and has
undertaken leadership roles in the Lions Club and the 4-H Club. He has served on
the local harbour authority and the Outer Bay of Islands Round Table. He is
Deputy Chief of the Beniots Cove Indian Band Council, and is the former mayor of
his town where he served on the council for many years.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in recognizing the
contribution these two volunteers have made to this Province and in particular
to the Bay of Islands. I am sure their contribution is not finished because both
are still very active. They have certainly made a difference in their towns,
which are much better places because of their involvement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Statements by Ministers, the Chair
would like to welcome to the gallery the Combined Councils of Labrador
representatives: President, Mr. Graham Letto; Mr. Ford Rumbolt; Mr. Nathan
Moores, and Trina Whalen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the Members of the House of Assembly
with an update on the status of the feasability review with Alcoa regarding the
Lower Churchill Hydro Project and the possible establishment of an aluminum
processing facility in the Province.
When government entered into this arrangement, we agreed we would not
participate in negotiations with any of Alcoa's competitors while the
feasibility study was being completed. However, we did continue to move forward
with our own work plan to investigate all options to develop the Lower Churchill
Hydro Project.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that on Friday, November 30, Alcoa
provided us with the results its feasibility review. We are in the process of
reviewing this information and identifying any issues which may require further
clarification with Alcoa.
Mr. Speaker, the challenge of arriving at a favourable development option for
the Lower Churchill has been before this and preceding governments for almost
twenty-five years now. Any project that leads to the development of the Lower
Churchill must provide maximum benefits to the people of the Province.
Once we have completed the review of the feasibility study, Cabinet will then
evaluate the results in context with other possible options for the development
of this resource. Government will subsequently report to this House and the
people of the Province on the outcome and whether we intend to proceed further
with this company on the development of these potential projects.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a curious statement and I am somewhat bewildered by what it does not
say. Yes, it is true the feasibility study is complete. It would be certainly in
the interest of the people of this Province, and all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians would like to know exactly what the thrust of this agreement is.
What direction are we going in as it relates to the development of this very
important project?
I would like to make another point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The minister
mentions in his statement that the government continued to move forward with
work plans to investigate all options. Well, I ask the minister, what does that
mean? We recall, in March of 1998, when there was this great launch with respect
to discussions with Hydro Quebec at the cost to taxpayers of almost a $500,000.
I ask the minister: Where are we with respect to these discussions with Hydro
Quebec? Is Hydro Quebec now off the table? Will he, in due course, let the
people of the Province know exactly where we are on this very important project
with respect to any ongoing discussions with Hydro Quebec?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly are hopeful that progress will be made, that there will be an
aluminum processing facility in Labrador, and that the Lower Churchill will be
developed.
The statement says that the development must provide maximum benefits for the
people of the Province. I would like to go one step further and say to the
minister that it must provide maximum benefits for the people of Labrador and
people who live in close proximity to these developments; not the way that
things are today where many young people in Labrador have to leave, or remain
unemployed in the area, while workers from all around the Province and the rest
of this country are coming in and taking jobs that they are quite qualified to
do but are unable to get them. I say to the minister, provisions should be made
to ensure that the people of Labrador get first crack at any employment
opportunities arising from developments within Labrador.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to tell the House that last week I attended a Federal Provincial
Territorial Housing Ministers conference held in Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the outcome of these discussions. In some
urban areas of this Province there is a need to construct additional low rental
accommodations; however, we must also protect existing investment in housing,
some of which is in need of extensive repair. The original concept of this
program addressed only new construction, but we were successful in arguing that
there is no point in investing in a new supply of housing if we are not going to
protect the current supply.
The framework that was agreed to by all jurisdictions on Friday provides
considerable flexibility. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation will
commence bilateral negotiations with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
in the near future with the aim of defining a group of programs that will
address differing housing needs throughout the Province.
The overall funding will be matched on a 50/50 basis by the Province and CMHC.
Mr. Speaker, these programs will assist Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to
access safe, suitable and affordable housing. I feel strongly that this
investment in housing for the more needy segment of our population will enhance
the effectiveness of programs and services provided by my colleagues in Health
and Community Services and in Education. In more ways than one, suitable housing
provides a firm foundation for a healthy society.
In closing, I must state that this framework agreement is good news for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I can assure this House that we will
work tirelessly to maximize the benefits attainable under our bilateral
discussions with the federal government.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement just before
the House opened today.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we applaud and appreciate anything that is going to
be done in the way of housing for this Province. Certainly, with the point the
minister made, there is no point in investing in a new supply of housing if we
are not going to protect the current supply. We also agree with that, I say to
the minister, but we also know, people on both sides of this House get calls on
a constant basis from our districts - as late as this morning - and we do know
that the need is greater than ever, Mr. Speaker.
We also know that when we call these offices in our areas, Mr. Speaker, we
are dealing with applications since 1998 and maybe even back as far as 1997, so
there is a big backlog. The minister knows that, he knows that the need is
greater than ever, and he also knows that in rural Newfoundland and Labrador the
situation with prosperity grows dimmer every day, especially in some of the
smaller communities. We have to address this problem and we will certainly
applaud any initiatives and any programs, Mr. Speaker, that the minister can
define in addressing a very serious need in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is certainly welcome news, that there will be an opportunity for special
housing programs for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one of the issues in my
own constituency, and I know members get numerous calls from people who are
desperate for affordable housing, in some cases accessible housing for those who
are disabled, seniors, and single parent families. There is a very, very large
series of problems, not only with accessible and affordable housing, but also
with some of our existing units.
I am glad that the minister has been able to achieve some flexibility in this
program. By my calculations, if we get our share per capita, there should be
about $12 million from the federal government. If the minister is going to match
that, we can have a substantial program.
I hope it is also the beginning of a national housing program which is so
badly needed in this country, and we cut it out in the last five years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize today if I have a bit of a flu. I think the hon. the Premier has
a cold as well. So if we sound a little raspy or a little nasally, don't
adjust your sets.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: A little bit. I played a little bit of hockey there.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.
Premier, is it acceptable behavior for a minister of your government, in
particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to say on one day
that government is in negotiation with the federal government for a takeover of
the wharves for $400 million, and to say on the following day that in fact there
are no negotiations, when he knew the difference?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For anyone who is interested in the information, the minister has made it
perfectly clear what has occurred. The history of it, so everyone should know
in divesting of airports, ports and harbors and other services. They have
successfully divested of some airports across Canada, some in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and they came to the provincial government and also initiated a
discussion with respect to ports and harbors, which never successfully concluded
because we were interested only if the price was right. The price to this date
still is not right, in our view.
The discussions are still ongoing but really not very active, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question that I asked the hon. the Premier was if he felt that was
appropriate behavior in saying one thing one day and another thing the next. As
well, he also reversed his position by stating that the federal government had
initiated the negotiations, and on the following day he said the provincial
government had initiated the negotiations. Is that appropriate behavior as well,
Mr. Premier? He has reversed his position twice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand what is in the best interest of everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador and all of us in this Legislature is to make sure we know the facts of
the matter and the actual basis of what is being discussed. The facts are
perfectly clearly in the public, and they have been made perfectly clear, that
there is no dispute. The Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting - and I am
sure he is not because he knows the difference - that the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador initiated these discussions, because we did not. It is
a federal initiative. As a matter of fact, in my last visit to Ottawa I was
not been very active in this discussion lately, ever since there has been a
disagreement on the price.
Again, it is not an initiative that was ever put forward and promoted by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an initiative of the Government
of Canada that they are trying to proceed with all across the country. They have
were interested in divesting of; they have done that. They are still discussing
some in other provinces, not in Newfoundland and Labrador. With ports and
harbours, they haven't really been back to us lately because we disagreed with
them, not on the concept but the amount that they were willing to offer. There
has not really been much of an active discussion or negotiation in the last
little while.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, isn't it in fact true that your minister reversed his position
when he was confronted by a reporter who said that the federal government had
confirmed that negotiations had been off for six months? Isn't that why he
reversed his position?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador has an interest in this because there are several communities,
municipalities - the City of Corner Brook, the Town of Botwood in my own
district - that are interested in this particular initiative because they would
like to see some additional work done on the ports and harbours, and the wharves
within the ports and harbours, in the communities in which they live. They
continually ask the provincial government as to whether or not this divestiture
initiated the response but they have not been very aggressive lately and they
have come nowhere close to discussing a price range that we would ever
contemplate on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, all of us, just as the Leader of the Opposition does, answer and
respond to questions from the media every day because we are in the business of
trying to give information. We do that quite gladly, quite openly, and we will
continue to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, not only did your minister indicate that he
was in negotiations on Thursday, he had the money spent on Thursday.
Do you think, Premier, that it is appropriate for the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation to be making public statements on bond ratings,
interest rates as high as 15 per cent, and allocation of monies towards the
deficit? Do you think it is appropriate that that minister should be speaking?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer to that should be very self-evident. The minister is sitting in
his seat as the minister. He has made the comments publicly. I think, in fact,
we have a better understanding of the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador today
than we did on Friday of last week.
Mr. Speaker, the issues are ones that are valuable to be spoken about. I
would suggest, if the Leader of the Opposition were to ever become the head of a
government in fifteen or twenty years time, he will have to judge himself as to
what his ministers - if he ever gets to name any - are allowed or not allowed to
do. I understand, in a group headed by the Leader of the Opposition, that you
are not allowed to speak in public unless it is cleared by the Leader of the
Opposition. The ministers here are free to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, my concern is the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. Who do the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe? Do they
believe you, when you are in conflict with the Prime Minister over equalization?
Do they believe you, when you are in conflict with the Deputy Premier over a
debate on Voisey's Bay? Do they believe you or your Minister of Finance when
she says September 11 is a problem, or do they believe the minister when he is
in conflict with himself? Who do they believe? Tell us, we just want to know.
Who do we listen to, on what day of the week? That is all we want to know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, he does not have any serious questions today. The information with
respect to ports and harbours is in the public domain. The full information is
now available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what is
important to this government, Mr. Speaker, dealing with issues and not trying to
grandstand and make political hay out of circumstances, which is the only
interest that has been shown here, now the third week, by the Leader of the
Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me ask some serious questions. Premier, have you ever done a cost
analysis? Have you ever done a cost analysis of the break-even point on wharves?
At what point should this government sell out the future of the Province and
take over the wharves? Tell us what the numbers are! That's a serious
question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There was some work that was done. It obviously did not reach a successful
conclusion. Mr. Speaker, there is no sell out of anything in Newfoundland and
Labrador by this particular government, and will not be. That is what the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador can be assured of in every single decision that
this group takes. There will be no sell out, and that is a guaranteed fact, Mr.
Speaker. You can count on it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there are no current, active day-to-day
negotiations with respect to ports and harbours. If there are serious
negotiations, again, like in discharging any of the responsibilities that we
have, we will give a full accounting of any decision that is taken with respect
to ports and harbours to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to this
Legislature. There is nothing to give an accounting for at this point in time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, there is nothing to give an accounting for. You were negotiating a
possible sale of the wharves of this Province to the federal government, but
there was no accounting done. Just like bulk water, you never bothered to do any
economic viability. Is that the case, Premier? Is that what it is all about?
Let's get down to the nub of this. Why are negotiations falling down on
clawback and equalization on the sale of wharves? Why are you having a problem
with the federal government? Does it have anything to do with the fact that your
two senior ministers, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance, are
co-cheerleaders for Brian Tobin against Paul Martin in his campaign?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think everybody can sense from the question how concerned the Leader of the
Opposition is about issues of importance in Newfoundland and Labrador today.
There is no federal leadership race going on for anyone to be involved in, Mr.
Speaker, and we all understand that.
The point that the Leader of the Opposition makes about negotiations; maybe
he is suggesting that actual business negotiations, whether they are between
government and government, or government and a private enterprise - the details
of it and the actual discussions should be held in the public every day. Maybe,
Mr. Speaker, he might believe that the detailed negotiations that went on, for
example, with respect to the Mount Cashel settlement, when he was working with
his law firm, that maybe those discussions should have happened in the public
before the final deal was made. Mr. Speaker, we chose to make an arrangement.
The discussions needed to be private for a period of time. There was a good
outcome that, I am sure, he would agree with. Maybe we should have had
day-to-day discussions about the land arrangement for the Southlands golf
course, but instead of that, we did a good arrangement. We had the meetings in
private and we announced to the public exactly what was happening.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all those kind of things, the negotiations
themselves, the Leader of the Opposition understands, need to held privately. It
is the public disclosure of the full details that we always commit to, and will
continue to commit to, because people need to know what you did; not what you
are saying every single day, but what you did and what you committed to on
behalf of the people of the Province, and that is the standard we will gladly
live to any day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just for the Premier's information, there has already been a (inaudible)
South Coast ferry system, the Labrador ferry system in Term 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that a Minister of the
Crown be fully aware and knowledgeable of the affairs of his or her department.
There have been a few instances in the past couple of weeks where the Minister
of Works, Services and Transportation did not have a proper handle on issues in
his department; namely, the hiring and freeze, the changes to the Public Tender
Act, and now his major contradiction regarding the downloading of the federal
wharves and marine sites.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, through you, why did he change his story
from one day to the next, and why did he mislead the people of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed a pleasure to get an opportunity to answer the question. It is
interesting to know that the great issue of the Opposition Party in the Province
today is the work being performed by the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation. I guess if you are not active and not out there working on
behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess you are not being
criticized. So I am very, very proud to be the center of attention, to know that
this department is very, very active -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: - and out there trying to provide services to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
There is no confusion about the issue in terms of the ports and harbours. It
was very, very clear to the public that the federal government came to the
provincial government to take over the ports and harbours. What wasn't clear,
in the previous
article in The Telegram , was that the reporter did not
present that information. There was a proposal that the provincial government go
back to the federal government. That is the proposal I was talking about. So
there is no confusion about what is happening with the ports and harbours in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The only confusion is in the member's head.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say, Mr. Speaker, according to all the criticism, the minister must be
working twenty-four hours a day.
Mr. Speaker, why is it that on Thursday the minister stated that the Province
approached Transport Canada to download these sites because of pleas from the
communities involved, and on Friday stated the complete reverse to be true, in
that Transport Canada approached the Province? Really, Mr. Speaker, which is it,
which is the truth, and when did you know that the negotiations were off?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what was reported in the paper on Thursday was
the result of the proposal that the Newfoundland Government sent to the federal
government after the federal government had requested a proposal from the
provincial government.
I don't know how much clearer I can say it. The Premier, in his responses,
was very, very clear in terms of where we stand on this particular issue. I don't
know why there is any confusion, because there is no confusion over here.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: The minister did not answer the question: When he knew the
negotiations were off.
Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation knew about the ending of these negotiations and, for some strange
reason, decided to mislead the people of the Province? Minister, why did you
mislead the people of the Province and, again, when did you know the
negotiations were off? A simple question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There was no misleading of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This
minister knew that the proposal that went to Ottawa was too high a price, and if
they got back to us tomorrow we probably would have to consider what the
response would be.
For the hon. Leader of the Opposition: This minister has been working
twenty-four hours a day, and I have had great discussions with the Corner Brook
Port Authority in terms of working with them, and I don't think the hon.
Leader of the Opposition has taken the time to even meet with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier about a story in The Telegram
which quotes the Premier as saying that he will reveal a Voisey's Bay deal to
the people of the Province after it is signed, sealed and delivered. In other
words, I say to the Premier, you are going to present the people with a fait
accompli.
My question is, and I ask the Premier: Isn't that exactly what was done
with the infamous Upper Churchill contract exactly forty years ago?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. I think all of us are probably aware of
some of the history lesson. The Upper Churchill deal some forty years ago was
debated in this Legislature, because, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of
provisions that required the approval of the Legislature, and the pieces that
needed approval of the Legislature, the establishing of a legislative framework,
special acts and so on, were all voted on in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, just
so we don't forget history, it was unanimous. There was no dissenting voice in
the Legislature from any party with respect to the Upper Churchill contract some
forty years ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: What the Premier is proposing, in other words that a
debate take place after a deal is signed, sealed and delivered, is totally
ridiculous, I say to the Premier. It is almost like a team in the National
Hockey League tonight practicing for last year's Stanley Cup Finals. That is
what it is like.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I ask the Premier: Why are you afraid to let the people
decide if your deal with Voisey's Bay lives up to the mandate that you
received and your party received, Mr. Premier, in both 1996 and in 1999?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am assuming that the Opposition critic for Mines and Energy understands the
mandate that we received in 1996 and 1999 to get full processing in Newfoundland
and Labrador, and I am assuming that if we reach that mandate there will be no
dissent in this House, that everybody here will agree that is what we should
have done; that is what we got elected to do. I am hoping that is what we can
do, that we can actually have a deal that will meet the mandate that we were
given in 1996 and in 1999. I look forward to all the members in the Legislature
indicating their support for it because, Mr. Speaker, I think the biggest fear
of the Opposition, quite clearly, is that we might actually be able to arrange
for a Voisey's Bay deal, and it causes them sleepless nights. It is the
biggest issue on their minds in terms of the fact that we might be able to
successfully do, in the next several months, what a couple of previous attempts
have failed to do: to secure a finished nickel product leaving Newfoundland and
Labrador, which is the mandate from 1996 and renewed again in 1999.
I understand that they have said that is their mandate. I have even heard the
phrase used by the Opposition saying: We will be just as tough as the Liberals
said they were going to be.
That is their position, I understand. We are tough enough to get the right
deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, maximum benefits and a finished nickel
product leaving this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: One quick question: Why is it not possible, Mr. Premier,
that if there is an agreement, a contract, an agreement in principle - we can
call it what we wish - that there be a condition that it be subject to, or on
the condition of, full and open and disclosed debate in this House of Assembly
by all members present, which is representative of all of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador? Why is that not possible?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a nice political ploy to use, but the Opposition understands this as
well as anybody: If we have a debate in this Legislature, and if the government
has already commited to the deal, which has twenty-eight seats, and if we bring
it here and vote for it, regardless of how the Opposition votes, it will pass in
this Legislature. That is the practicality of how this Legislature operates.
If the Cabinet, the government and this caucus, enter into an arrangement,
whether we bring it here and have a vote of forty-eight people, knowing that at
least twenty-eight will support it because they know it is the right thing to
do, then, Mr. Speaker, the debate in itself, which is going to happen everywhere
in Newfoundland and Labrador - it is not going to be restricted just to this
Legislature - in every single community all over Newfoundland and Labrador,
everybody will know the full details, and except for an Opposition that is
politically motivated to be against it, fair-minded Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians will obviously see it to be a good arrangement, maximum benefits,
because otherwise we are not bringing it forward as a government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier and it concerns the lack of regular
inspections of food establishments in the Province, that was disclosed by the
Auditor General and reported today, that still over one-third of food
establishments, restaurants and others, are not being inspected.
The Minister of Government Services and Lands said today that this was an
issue of limited resources and that the government has to make certain
compromises. What I want to know from the Premier is: What kind of compromises
is his government prepared to make with the public safety issues involved in
health inspections of food establishments in this Province? How far is this
government prepared to compromise the public safety of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We do not believe that we are comprising the health interests of our citizens
at all with what we are doing. The comprises we are making are between how we
use the resources that we have.
We have a concern about anything that might pose a threat to the health of
our citizens. We do not feel that is the case in this present circumstance. We
would like to have more inspectors and do a more complete job. As it is, we
ensure that every establishment is inspected at least once in each fiscal year.
There has been some misunderstanding about that.
We endeavored to hire an additional twelve inspectors this year. We have so
far gotten funding for five; we have been able to hire four. We still have not
been able to hire the fifth one because these people are in very short supply in
the country. I understand there are 100 vacancies across Canada that cannot be
filled today.
We are endeavoring to get the funding for an additional seven in the near
future, hopefully in the next budget, Mr. Speaker. If we do that, we will be
able to do a more complete job of inspecting. As it stands now, we feel that
there is no immediate public health issue. This issue has not arisen because
people have been made ill as a result of going to restaurants or eating at food
establishments. It is just something that has come out of the 1998 Report of the
Auditor General. We are endeavoring to do what we can to beef up our resources,
and we hope to do so in the near future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We do not need to wait until something happens. We know that in Walkerton,
Ontario, it was limited resources and comprises that had serious implications
for those people, including loss of lives and a mounting price tag which has
been estimated at over $60 million.
The facts that have been disclosed today indicate that the department is not,
in fact, inspecting once a year as his policy described. Isn't this minister
leaving the public safety at risk until someone does, in fact, get sick or
perhaps poisoned by this, and not only cause harm to people's lives but
perhaps potentially destroy a tourism industry, a trade or a business -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. HARRIS: - and leave this government open to attacks from legal
sources for not following its own policies in this regard?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is doing the public a
disservice in indicating that there is some real problem here. Naturally we
would like to be doing a better job of inspecting than is being done at present,
but presently all of the operations are inspected at least once in each fiscal
year. Sometimes that might be a fifteen month period. It may not be within a
twelve month period because you do one earlier and you do it later in the
following period.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there is no indication of any great problem in
this. The people who are operating these kinds of businesses in our Province are
doing a great job. If there is any problem that is brought to our attention, we
will inspect it immediately.
Naturally, in some food establishments you are going to have problems from
time to time: a fly in a drink, or something like that. That is going to happen
even if you inspect every establishment once a month. You cannot have a zero
infraction situation.
I think that the job we are doing is a great job for the Province and I do
not think that the public has any reason for concern, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just have one question. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation
did not answer my colleague from Cape St. Francis when he asked him twice: When
did he know negotiations were off? When was he informed that negotiations were
off on the $400 million deal on wharves? So, I will ask him: When were you
informed, as minister, that the federal government was not interested in
pursuing this at a price tag of $400 million?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: The answer to the question is that we have never been
notified by the federal government that negotiations are off.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday past, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture
tabled in this House a report of the Special Panel on Corporate Concentration in
the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery. Throughout the report there are repeated
references to issues and concerns that we, as an Opposition, have been raising
over the past year. There are numerous references to how an inconsistent,
uncoordinated approach to fisheries management has jeopardized the industry's
performance and continues to jeopardize harvesting and processing operations.
The report makes reference to the ad hoc manner in which licences have been
issued, reissued and transferred.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister, now that he has this report, do what we have
been asking of him for some time: to table, in the near future, his plan for the
fishing industry, including clearly defined objectives for the processing sector
that will bring an end to the inconsistent and chaotic manner by which this
fishing industry has been managed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think, if he read the report very carefully, he would realize that the
members of the panel reviewed the fishery since the 1950s, and they talked about
inconsistences in plans of previous governments, Mr. Speaker. Let me just give
you an example: In 1974, there were ninety-five fish processing facilities in
this Province. In 1974. Pay attention to the date, because we need to know who
was in government in the day. That was a Tory government in 1974. There were
ninety-five fish processing plants in the Province. In 1989, when they left,
there were 251 fish processing facilities in the Province.
If you are talking about inconsistencies, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member knows more about it than I do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to table before this hon. House the Annual Report of the C.A. Pippy
Park Commission, which includes the audited financial statements for the year
ended 31 March 2001, together with the Commission's Annual Report as required
under
Section 20 of the Pippy Park Commission Act.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to give notice of the following private members' motion:
WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada commits the Parliament and Government of
Canada to make equalization payments to provinces to ensure Canadians have
access to reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably
comparable levels of taxation; and
WHEREAS the current equalization program does not meet this constitutional
requirement, and there is evidence that we are moving further away from
satisfying this commitment; and
WHEREAS the treatment of non-renewable resource revenues in the present
equalization system is unfair;
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal government
to enhance the current equalization formula with a fairer system that
re-establishes the fundamental principles on which this program is based; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House go on record of supporting the
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of Nova Scotia in
campaigning for fairness as it relates to offshore resource royalties.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Connaigre Peninsula
and supporters:
WHEREAS current big game laws require non-residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador to pay a fee that is approximately eight times that of residents for
moose, and fifteen times as much for caribou in the inland part of the Province,
and a licensed guide is required, but the present laws permit non-residents
small game hunting rights equivalent to those of the residents at no extra cost;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to impose equivalent regulations concerning the hunting of small game by
non-residents;
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this Province today believe that our small
game wildlife resource is a valuable resource and can create many jobs in the
rural parts of our Province. We need a mechanism put in place so that the
non-resident hunting people can be controlled. We need a study in the effect of
non-resident hunting on the pressures of our small game.
This petition, by the undersigned, urges the government to put some mechanism
in place where this study of our small game resource is done so that we know the
exact affect of predation and hunting pressure; particularly on rabbit and
ptarmigan, which we know as the partridge. This petition from the Connaigre
Peninsula is a petition by a lot of avid, small game hunters. They see - every
time they go hunting in our pristine wilderness - the pressure that is on our
small game.
We need a mechanism and policy in place where we can get the maximum
financial benefit from our small game resource so that we can create jobs in
rural Newfoundland and in places like Hermitage, Harbour Breton, and those
places. In England and Scotland the small game industry creates thousands of
jobs and millions of dollars, particularly on private land where the owners have
a policy in place to charge the non-residents of their country who come in to
hunt small game. They supply the services that are necessary for them to come
and make a great deal of money in doing that. Why can't we do that too, in
areas of rural Newfoundland where jobs are not so plentiful?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: Can I have leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. HUNTER: Just for a couple of minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore this valuable resource. We
cannot ignore the small game in this Province. It can bring in a lot of money
for the government to do the necessary studies to find out what the effects of
all the predation and hunting pressure are; find out what the effects are so
that we can have this valuable resource there for many years to come for our
future residents.
I thank the people for sending in this petition, and there are more petitions
coming. I will speak on it again in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition to present today on the bulk export of water from this
Province. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of
Assembly, with copies to the House of Commons, to oppose the bulk export of
water from this Province. Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that
has been developed in Newfoundland and Labrador has resulted in the majority of
the benefits going outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and
fair share. With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have
the opportunity to deliver maximum benefit through jobs, spinoff from secondary
processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled
and processed in this Province.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I support this petition and the people who have
signed and presented this petition to me. This is a very important issue as it
is a resource that we have full control over. It is a resource under provincial
jurisdiction. It is a resource that has the potential to provide maximum
benefits to the people of this Province in terms of jobs, in terms of spinoff
royalties from the processing of bottles, packaging, transportation, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, I support this petition - and the Premier looks at me and laughs
as I present this petition. That is quite alright, Mr. Speaker, because this
petition is a very serious petition and the people of this Province are very
serious about this issue. The people of this Province want maximum benefits from
this issue. They do not want a job shoved down their throat by a government who
are not prepared to listen to the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, on this
side of the House we are prepared to listen. We have thousands of names on
petitions such as this, asking that this Province listen to the people of the
Province - the people who own the resource - and ask that this resource give
maximum benefits to the people of the Province. That is all they are asking. It
is all that we are asking on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, we want this
resource protected for the benefit of the people of this Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 15, Mr. Speaker, second reading of
An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act, Bill 22.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry
Act." (Bill 22)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a number of minor
amendments to the Forestry Act. I say minor but, nonetheless, very important.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Forestry Act will provide the
Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods with the authority to issue a
Certificate of Managed Land to harvesters. This applies to persons with forest
land of 120 hectares or greater who must apply for CML prior to timber
harvesting. A Certificate of Managed Land is issued upon the submission of an
acceptable, annual operating plan, as well as a report detailing the operators
activity during the previous year. It contains a series of guidelines which
address environmental protection, harvesting parameters, specific operating
conditions and amendment procedures.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are bringing forward today will speed up the
process of issuing a CML to harvesters, especially the pulp and paper companies.
The current process is often a lengthy process and requires Cabinet approval and
an Order from the Lieutenant Governor in Council which is issued on the basis of
the minister's recommendation. This is a straightforward amendment which will
ensure a more efficient CML process. The amendment is only to provide the
Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods with the authority to issue the
certificate, making the process more efficient and less time consuming. It will
ensure a CML is issued to harvesters in a timely fashion. I might point out, Mr.
Speaker, that this amendment is being brought forward in that there is a court
case in which a judgement has been rendered which references the fact that,
because of delay in issuing the CML, it does present some problems for
harvesters, and for that reason we just want to speed up the process.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing to amend the act so that it will provide
for a new load-slip system in our Province. This new system is being introduced
to allow a more accurate tracking of commercially harvested wood around the
Province and help reduce the problem of unreported harvesting and processing of
timber. This new initiative is another example of government being proactive in
its overall prudent and sustainable management of the forest resource. The
load-slip system will ensure a more accurate accounting process to measure wood
flow from the Province and provide us with more complete information concerning
the use of our forest resources. This new system will help reduce the flow of
illegal timber and provide more certainty as to the drain on our forest
resources, thereby enhancing the accuracy of Annual Allowable Cut calculations
which govern for sustainability. Unreported harvesting has been a concern for us
for some time, Mr. Speaker, and as a result, my department has been looking at
ways to strengthen our process for tracking timber harvest. We are confident
that this new system will greatly benefit our sustainable forest management. The
new load-slip system will be implemented in the spring of 2002. Forestry
officials will closely monitor the system and anyone failing to comply with the
new regulations will be subject to strict penalties pursuant to the Forestry
Act. The load-slip initiative, indeed, demonstrates government's commitment to
sustainable forest management and I am proud to introduce this new initiative in
the House.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Forestry Act that I am introducing today
also includes granting the minister the authority to enter into routine timber
sales agreements without requiring approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council. Timber sale agreements help create long-term stability for the forest
industry by defining timber supply for the companies involved in the agreement.
Providing the minister the authority to enter into timber sales agreements
without the authority of the Cabinet will better streamline the process. These
agreements demonstrate government's commitment to working with the sawmill
industry to ensure stability and sustainability in this important sector of our
overall forest industry.
Mr. Speaker, these amendments which are being brought forward today will
serve to protect the forest resource of the Province. They will also serve to
facilitate and streamline the process pursued by harvesters and those who work
within the industry. I certainly commend these proposed amendments to the hon.
members of the House and I look for speedy passage of these amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased today to rise and have a few comments on Bill 22. This is a
bill that we have been hoping to have for a long time. I am sure it is going to
be welcomed by the forest industry, particularly with the independent operators
who need some changes made in the Forestry Act to give them access to some of
the timber and wood that is counted now as non-accessible and not even counted
in the inventories of the Province.
There are some things within the act that I am not quite sure about. It is
not clearly spelled out here, the things that I have been looking for, but if
this act does include hardwoods and all other underutilized species, then it
would be a very good act for the forest industry. Even though this act could be
implemented, do we have the resources and the capabilities to enforce this act,
and other acts, within forestry? It seems we do not have the necessary
capabilities to monitor and enforce the existing legislation, particularly when
it comes to the management of our forests within the Province. We can see, when
we travel around the Province, in areas where people depend on the forestry to
make a living - I seen examples, particularly near the South Coast and in the
Bay d'Espoir area, where some of the smaller operators down there are not
fulfilling the commitment that they should be fulfilling when it comes to
harvesting timber down in that area. I have made several complaints to the
department about it. If we do not have the proper enforcement and manpower to do
the job that is necessary then we are going to have a lot of mismanagement in
our forestry. This amendment tightens up some of the act. It gives the minister
more power to decide what areas would be managed or taken out of the managed
area so that some of these unmanaged areas - even though they are described as
being managed under the Forestry Act, as it stands now, because a harvester must
submit a harvesting plan before they start harvesting.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why this act does not include less than 120
hectares because there could be a lot of resource included in less than 120
hectares, particularly in areas where there are small patches of wood that the
department feels will not be counted because it is not accessible or not
feasible to harvest. These areas of wood supplies are left out of the overall
picture for totaling the AACs because the the AACs are based on supply that is
accessible and feasible, and designated by the paper companies and by small
contractors and sawmill operators who feel that they can be successful in going
in and harvesting just wood, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder is this legislation comparable to the other provinces? Is this
legislation similar to what we do in other provinces? I do not know if the
department has done any research and compared this new legislation and existing
legislation to other provinces. It seems like other provinces take reforestation
and silviculture work a lot more seriously than we do. They put a lot more money
into their forestry programs and they have a lot more manpower to enforce,
manage and monitor the cutting practices of the people who avail of our forest
industry.
I think we need to look at that a lot more in detail than we have been doing
over the last few years, because if a conservation officer is tied up doing some
of the things that he is expected to do with respect to enforcing the Wildlife
Act, then how can he do his job properly when it comes to enforcing the laws and
legislation on the Forestry Act, particularly in areas like I was saying, in Bay
d'Espoir, around St. Joseph's Cove, where a lot of locals do harvest the
timber in that area for personal use? You can go in there and see the effect of
unmanaged areas because of lack of enforcement officers. You can see the effect
of bad cutting practices where a lot of wood is left on the ground. A lot of
wood is left there to rot, wood that can be used, if not for sawlog purposes, it
can be used for firewood purposes. Mr. Speaker, we do have a lot of
underutilized species throughout the Province, and a lot of this underutilized
species are being cut down, ran over and left on the ground to rot when we could
be using it for other things. Even if it is firewood, it does save the other
resource for other things such as paper making and sawlogs.
We have to recognize that this resource is scarce in the Province today, Mr.
Speaker. We do have a shortage of timber supply. We do have a shortage of facts
and studies, and a program for our hardwood species in this Province today. We
are not sure exactly where our hardwood species are going right now, and we
should have a policy in place where we know exactly what we have when it comes
to the availability of hardwoods and softwoods, and also what we are going to do
with it when we harvest it. We cannot afford to cut any timber, regardless of
what species it is, and leave it on the ground to rot, particularly in rural
Newfoundland where we need jobs. The forest industry creates thousands of jobs
in my district. We have a paper mill in my district that does have a struggle
and a hard time in finding enough of a resource to keep all the paper machines
going.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to mismanage our industry anymore, and if
anybody thinks that the department is not mismanaging it, then I have proof that
we are. When I can show the minister tapes and pictures that I have of
mismanaged areas in this Province, because the department does not have enough
workforce to go out and enforce the laws and regulations, then that is
mismanagement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: We cannot afford that today.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment in the legislation, I do agree that it is time
that we do things to make sure that some of these managed areas are broken up
and taken out so that we can harvest the mixed species within that managed area,
because over the years contractors went in and when there were underutilized
species in the way, they just cut them down, ran over them and left them on the
ground.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation today is going to give the minister the power
to take out that area, areas and sections that contain underutilized species.
This species can be harvested by other contractors, and even the contractor who
is in there if he chooses to do that, but particularly in areas where a smaller
contractor and probably a non-union contractor can go in on these large company
lots, and Crown lots, and take this underutilized species, whether it be birch
or aspen or whatever, and harvest that to create jobs, because some of these
small operators create thirty, forty or fifty jobs in small communities. They do
not need the thousands and thousands of metres of wood to survive. They just
need a chance to get in and harvest these patches of wood that are being left
behind by the larger contractors.
With respect to the tracking of wood, the acting minister did allude to the
fact that it was wood that would be tracked and counted, that it would be from
the Province. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this does not just mean that is wood that is
going to be taken from the Province. I hope the act, according to the acting
minister, will include all wood cut and harvested that would be counted and
scaled and recorded; not only the wood that is been extracted from the cutting
areas, but what about the wood that is being left on the ground.
I have done a lot of flying in the Province over a number of years and I have
noted a lot of areas, and I have some on tape, where piles of wood are left on
the ground long after an operator has moved out of the area. We cannot allow
that to happen any more. If we are going to track wood, and if we are going to
count the wood and record the wood, then we are going to have to also look at
the wood that is being left behind, and make sure that any contractor or
harvester does go back and clean up that wood; and, if it is not feasible for
him to do that for pulp wood or sawlogs, then he is going to have to find a way
to get that wood out for firewood. We cannot afford to cut good wood and leave
it on the ground when people have to go out and get permits to cut green wood or
hardwoods for firewood when we are leaving too much on the ground.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this legislation includes all wood that is being
cut, not only extracted but cut, and if it is left there then the legislation
will force the operators to go in and clean up what is around the cutting site.
Sometimes these contractors look at the wood supply and say: Well, I will
leave that wood there because it is too hard to get out. In the next while,
someone goes in there, sees that wood on the ground, and says: I think I will
take that wood for firewood because it is never going to come out. Then they get
in trouble for taking wood that has been cut by a licensed operator. I have seen
cases of that in the Bay d'Espoir area.
We must make sure that the forestry technicians, the forestry conservation
officers, visit the sites on a regular basis, make a count of all of the people
who have permits and all the people who harvest in these areas, so that when
they go back to do their inspection they can make whoever it is accountable for
not abiding by the legislation, by the policy. What is the good of having
policies - and these are good policies. I am not arguing that these policies are
not a step in the right direction. They certainly are. I would just like to see
them expanded a little further. The minister certainly needs the power to
control and manage the resources in the forestry, Mr. Speaker, and to decide
what is going to be certified to manage and what is going to be taken out of a
block. Sometimes the minister has to make that decision in a short order because
contractors cannot wait for a long period of time to have wood lying in a
country, standing in a country, when they have men off work waiting for a
decision by Cabinet to give him permission to go in and cut it, particularly
when it come to fire damaged wood.
We saw in the last few years a lot of damaged areas, and these are fairly
large areas, that are damaged to the point where it is no good for pulp and
paper and no good for sawlogs, but it does make a great firewood supply.
By the time Cabinet gets through allowing the contractors to go in there,
having their Cabinet meetings, and going through the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council, then it could be a year or two years down the road. I think the
department and the minister need the ability to make that decision, whether this
wood can be harvested in a timely manner, especially when it comes to some of
the species within that block that is not damaged and can be used for pulpwood
or sawlogs. We cannot just leave that wood unattended and ignore that wood for
any length of time, Mr. Speaker. We have to harvest it as soon as possible.
The former minister was involved in some of the fires over the last couple of
years when he worked very hard, and I have talked to him many times on the issue
of harvesting this damaged wood. Mr. Speaker, I have to commend him for working
very hard to get these areas cleaned up. Today, we have been very lucky that the
past year has not been a very bad year for forest fires; but the year before
there were a lot and we need to clean up these areas now and do some
silviculture work, replanting, and make sure this area is groomed for a new
generation of forests for our next generation of cutters and workers in the
forest industry.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is certainly good legislation to give the
minister and the department some freedom, some ability, to go in and do what is
necessary in areas where it needs to be done in a timely manner.
Mr. Speaker, there are not enough guidelines within the Forestry Act to give
public consultation and public say to the way the land should be managed;
because if the act says this land is a managed land and now we want to take it
out and call it a certified managed area, then was it managed in the beginning?
Was it always managed? In some areas we can see that even though it was
classified as managed it certainly was not managed when we abuse and misuse our
forest resources the way that we have been doing it for a number of years. Even
the present minister said, about a month ago, that the problem went back fifteen
to twenty years ago, blaming it on the former government back then.
I would say that is incorrect. The problem in our forestry in this Province
started within the last ten to twelve years, when we started cutting back on
programs, when we started cutting back on silviculture, cutting back on the
workforce within forestry, when we used to have probably five or six forestry
technicians and conservation officers managing the forest in a particular
district, and now we are down to one. Mr. Speaker, one person cannot do the work
of five and six. It is impossible for a conservation officer to get in there and
do the job that he wants to do and that he should be doing, because they are
very confused, they are very frustrated because of the lack of resources for
them, the lack of help when they know they have to enforce wildlife regulations
and forestry regulations, and they know that certain sectors of wildlife have
been unattended and there are a lot of violations with respect to the Wildlife
Act, particularly in areas where there is a lack of patrols and a lack of
officers.
I get many calls from people who are concerned about this. I get many calls
from conservation officers who are concerned about it and say that too much
money is being spent at the top and not enough money is being spent on
conservation officers. Too much money is going to the directors and top
management people who use government vehicles at their own discretion and then,
when it comes to having the proper number of conservation officers, they are not
there to enforce the regulation and policies of the department.
I say to the Minister of Fisheries, some of them are in his district. Some of
them are in the Bay d'Espoir area. They are all over the Province, I say to
the Minister of Fisheries. He should be just as much concerned about it as
anybody on this side.
I am certainly concerned about it because, Mr. Speaker, our wildlife resource
is important and our forestry resource is important. Both of them must exist
together, and we have to protect them. Even though we do have a shared
enforcement policy and shared enforcement officers with wildlife and forestry
officers, it is not enough. We do not have enough people within the department
to do the necessary studies, to do the studies on the impact of not availing of
the hardwoods and underutilized species: what we should be doing with them,
where we should be harvesting them, at what stage should we harvest these
species, then what should we do after they are harvested? Should we replant with
softwood species? Should we let natural generation? Mr. Speaker, we have to put
more money back into this resource. There are ways that we can do that, through
the co-operation of our paper mills and large sawmill operators.
I have to commend our paper mills. They do a fairly good job in managing
their own limits, and they do a good job in doing the necessary services with
respect to firefighting and forest management and silvaculture, but we need
more. We need more input from the paper mills, Mr. Speaker, the large operators.
We need more input from the federal government. We need more input from the
provincial government.
We cannot have a good sustainable provincial forestry program, Mr. Speaker,
without the co-operation of the federal government. The minister needs to have
regular consultation and meetings with the federal forestry department to make
sure that the federal forestry, the federal government, buys in on the way that
we take care of our forests. Without those federal dollars, we are not going to
be able to do it in a sustainable manner. Mr. Speaker, it takes millions and
millions of dollars every year to make sure that, when we cut a tree, another
one will grow back in its place and there will be another tree to cut some day
down the road for our future generations.
That is what it is all about, protecting our resources so that all
stakeholders could have an input, all stakeholders would be protected, whether
it be sightseeing, eco-tourism, wildlife, even the fish, the loggers; everybody
has a stake in our forest industry today, Mr. Speaker. The quicker we realize
that, and the quicker we get the federal government on side to put the necessary
resources and money into our silvaculture programs and our forest protection
programs, the quicker we will have a new forest for our future generations. Mr.
Speaker, we cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to let nature take its
course and regenerate the areas that we have been misusing and mismanaging for
years.
I say to the acting minister - I know the minister is off sick, and I hope
for a speedy recovery for him - it is a tough area to be acting minister in,
when it is the third largest resource industry in this Province. It takes a lot
of time and commitment to manage this area. It is tough for anybody who would be
acting in that portfolio to make sure that the necessary things are done and to
listen to the people who know: the people who are working in that industry, the
people who are in the woods, the people who are involved in every aspect of
forestry, every aspect of wildlife. They know the situation, and they know what
needs to be done.
Not all of the time does it have to be money, Mr. Speaker. Lots of times we
have the policies, we have the legislation, but we do not have the manpower, in
a lot of cases, to do the things that need to be done. Mr. Speaker, if we had
the proper manpower, if we had the proper number of conservation officers, then
we would not have wasted resources - wood left on the ground. We would not have
wildlife being abused and being taken advantage of and poached. A lot of that is
going on in the Province today, Mr. Speaker, because the people know that there
is a limited number, a small number, of enforcement officers. We have almost as
many management positions as we have conservation officers in the field. There
is no trouble to find, somewhere in the Province, management who are dealing
with management issues. Equally as important, we need the officers out in the
field, out in the country, making sure that when somebody uses our forest
resource, if somebody uses our wildlife resource, that they are doing it in the
proper manner and they are doing it in a responsible manner, and not breaking
the law when they go out and do that.
Mr. Speaker, the only way we could do that is to increase the number of
conservation officers, increase the number of technicians to visit the areas, to
make sure that species are grown in a proper manner, and have them visited
regularly to make sure there is nothing impeding the growth of our forests. I
know that the officers and the technicians that we do have are working hard to
do their job, but when there is not enough of them then something has to suffer.
The industry has to suffer for it, because when you visit an area once a year,
it is not good enough. It is not good enough to visit an area once a year to
find out if everybody is abiding by the policies, rules and laws of the
department. The only way we could do that is to have more people within the
department to keep an eye on these things.
Mr. Speaker, I support this change in the legislation. It will do some of the
things that I have been arguing to do the past couple of years. It will give the
department, the minister, the ability to do that. I welcome this amendment to
the Forestry Act and I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak on Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, at second
reading.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to make some changes to the regime for
the certification of land, forest land, as managed land. This has enormous
implications for public policy in the Province because I think it is important
to look back as to: What is this all about? What is the meaning of managed land?
It takes us back to about twenty-five years ago when we first instituted
legislation concerning the management of lands, based on an attempt by
government to exercise some control over the forest companies and over land that
was alienated by the Crown as early as 1905, but where most of our land, or much
of our forested land, was in fact in private hands, subject to ninety-nine years
leases or outright fee simple grants. The government of the day had very few, or
little or no mechanisms to force forest companies to actually renew their land,
to institute forest management practices, to institute silviculture practices,
to ensure that they were, in fact, harvesting their land properly, to ensure
that they were restocking the land, to ensure that there was, in fact, some form
of sustainable management.
The minister said today, and the Opposition critic, they all talked about
sustainable management. That is a great phrase, Mr. Speaker, but it is not what
is taking place in our forestry sector today; and because it is not taking
place, the forestry sector is, in fact, in a crisis.
The acting minister recognizes, but the minister who the minister is now
acting for issued a statement in September saying that the Annual Allowable Cut
would likely have to be reduced by as much as 10 per cent to 25 per cent because
the forest was not being sufficiently restocked, that the regeneration of our
forest was not taking place in the manner that it should, and that was going to
affect the total Annual Allowable Cut. That, itself, was going to make it
obviously more difficult for any companies in business to manage, result in a
loss of employment in our forest industry and have other drastic, ripple effects
on communities simply because the forest was not being managed properly.
The system of issuing certifications of managed land is one where a company
comes forward with a management plan to the minister, and the government, and it
is either approved or not. If it is not approved or if it is not managed land,
there is a forest management land tax applied to it. This is kind of like a
carrot-and-stick approach where, if the land is unmanaged, it is subject to a
hefty tax, even if it is privately owned, and if that company submits a plan to
the minister that is approved then that tax is waived, there is no tax. So it is
a carrot-and-stick approach, by which instrument the government seeks to ensure
that the forest lands in the Province are maintained.
Now the reality is that we haven't, in this Province, been insisting or
making companies reforest. Silviculture is done, I would submit, haphazardly. We
do it from grants that are given, in some cases, like road grants. You know,
every summer you see the member for such-and-such a place announcing that they
have a silviculture project for his or her district, employing eighteen people
for so many weeks. They are treated that way by this government as make-work
projects, in some cases, rather than a serious effort to restock our forests.
The previous speaker talked about: What are we doing here that is different
from other provinces? Well, if you look at any study of forestry in Canada, and
look at the amount of land or the percentage of forest land in various provinces
that is not actually available for harvesting, you will see the letters NSR,
which means not sufficiently restocked. So, actual forest land that is subject
to having been harvested once and has not been sufficiently restocked is no
longer considered to be available for harvesting, because the owner of the land
or the company or the government hasn't insisted that that land be properly
restocked.
We have probably one of the highest percentages in the country of land that
is not sufficiently restocked that is within the definition of available land
for forestry, but cannot be counted because it has not been sufficiently
restocked, having been harvested.
We have a system in this Province that, I believe, needs a serious overhaul.
We have to examine some of the assumptions that are associated with the
management approaches that are taken by the government and by the companies. We
have to examine the relationship between the modern notions of ecological
sustainability and the forest management practices that have been operating here
for a long time. We have a serious crisis. We call it a wood supply shortage in
some places. I think it is a crisis in management. The wood supply has been
predicted as being insufficient to handle the expectations that are made on it.
We have three mills operating on this Island, and anybody who knows anything
about the forest industry of this Province, whether they be logging in the
woods, whether they be working in the mills, or whether they be living in one of
the towns that are affected by this, knows that we have more demand on our wood
supply than the wood supply can meet. So we have created a situation where there
is constant pressure on the wood supply, constant pressure on the companies that
operate the mills to extract every bit of fiber, as they call it - they don't
like to call it trees - that they can from our forests in order to keep the
mills going; and not only to keep them going but, in fact, to increase
production. We have seen production increases in the last number of years. So
the more production increases that take place, the more pressure there is on our
forests.
We really do have to examine all of what is going on here. In fact, I think
we are in a situation where what is really required is a complete review of the
forestry industry, because while we may have a crisis at this point, there are
also opportunities in the forestry industry that we have been missing.
There have been some studies done. The member asked whether or not there have
been any studies done. The most comprehensive study of forest practices in
Canada, that I have seen, Mr. Speaker, were done, believe it or not, by the
Senate of Canada. The Senate of Canada produced a report in June of 2000.
Everybody seems to think that the senators do not do anything, and I am not a
big fan of the Senate - in fact, our party has a policy for many years of
abolishing the unelected Senate - but the senators did have time and found the
time from their, no doubt, busy schedules to do an important study on forestry
in Canada. It is called the Boreal Forest at Risk. It talks about the competing
values and competing interests in forest lands in Canada.
They came up with some very remarkable recommendations, Mr. Speaker. I think
anybody involved in the forest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador,
particularly if their jobs and livelihood depend on it, would do well to look at
this study. It compares forest management practices across Canada. It is not
totally accurate. They seem to think, for example, that clear-cutting practices
do not happen on areas greater than 40 hectares to 60 hectares, when in
Newfoundland and Labrador we have seen clear-cuts as much as 5,500 hectares of
land in newly cut areas. They seem to have some misunderstandings about what
actually happens in this Province. It really is worth studying because they
looked at forest management practices, they looked at harvesting practices, they
looked at intensive management practices, and one of their conclusions was that
if we adopted, in Canada, some of the intensive forest management practices that
are in place in other parts of the world - including places like Norway,
Scandinavia - that we, in fact, could increase, by as much as 100 per cent, the
yield that we get from an intensively managed piece of land. They have
recommended, in fact, a system which would meet some of the competing realities
that we have. A system that would, in fact, have greater harvest ability on
intensively managed property; a mixed use area set aside for the multiple uses
of forest land including harvesting for pulpwood, harvesting for sawmills,
harvesting for firewood, but also other recreational uses of the same forest
land; the setting aside of 20 per cent of the land for intensive management
along these Norwegian models; about 60 per cent for multiple uses; and,
interestingly enough, up to 20 per cent - is a figure they used - to maintain in
a pristine state for future generations to have - because of biodiversity issues
and all of that.
They have also shown that the harvesting practices have changed substantially
over time. We, in this Province, have yet to bring our own forest practices into
the twenty-first Century. We have seen some changes. We have seen that forest
companies can respond to public pressure and change. Even in the most recent
months we have seen Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, for example, in forest
management district 16 come in with a totally different harvesting plan which
they said they could not do without a year ago. The one they said they could not
do without a year ago is no longer even operative. They now have a totally
different plan using selective cutting methods and different types of forestry
cutting methods than they proposed a year ago and said they could not live
without.
This is an indication, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of room for change
in our forest management practices. Not only that, I think it is time that we
opened up the whole thing to a public review, perhaps by way of something as
intensive as a Royal Commission. We have timber leases, for example, or large
ninety-nine year leases expiring in the next couple of years. These are
supposedly being renegotiated. I know the acting minister spoke about it the
other day and said there was going to be a full public consultation on the
renegotiation of these leases.
Mr. Speaker, I seen - and I do not know where it came from but sometimes
these things show up in your office from various places - a draft proposal for
the renewing of a ninety-nine year lease, which is another ninety-nine year
lease. I hope we are not going to get into the same kind of thing we were in
before, a lease that was entered into in 1905 or 1904, forms the basis of an
agreement that we are going to enter into in the year 2002 or 2003 that is going
to last another ninety-nine years. We have to get away from these kinds of
commitments that were being made on behalf of the people of Newfoundland,
binding future generations in a set of circumstances that may be changed in
five, ten or fifteen years time.
I think we should take a lesson from the Province of Alberta, who only got
who transferred all the subsoil rights to the Province of Alberta, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan in 1930. They did not do the same thing for Newfoundland and
Labrador. In fact, they went to court and insisted that we go to court to fight
over the offshore resources that we brought into Confederation, but the
Government Canada gave to the people of Alberta all the subsoil rights in 1930.
When the people of Alberta enter into leases, royalty regimes and royalty
agreements with oil companies, there is a very special qualifier, and that
qualifier is subject to change based on the Government of Alberta's decisions
as to what should be contained in these leases. The Government of Alberta always
retains the right to amend those oil leases because they are the owner of the
resource. That is a very important consideration. That does not mean you cannot
make commitments and create expectations with a company. But, at the end of the
day, it is the people of the province who should have the right to insist that
the rules be changed if they are not meeting the needs of the people of the
province.
We do have a viable forestry industry in this Province. We have an important
forestry industry in this Province. I think we can have a much better forestry
industry if we modernize our approach and practices, and, in fact, modernize our
regime so that the people of the Province have more say and influence. One of
the affects, in fact, of the regime we have now is where the company does a
management plan; they go to the government for approval. Now this legislation is
going to say the minister can approve it. Without the Cabinet, the minister can
approve it. What happens if they do not follow the plan? What happens if
something goes wrong? Can the minister revoke the licence? No, that is not what
this bill says. This bill says that the minister can grant the licence. The
minister can say: go ahead, this is managed land; but the minister will not be
given the power to revoke it. The minister will not be given the power to change
the status of land that has been certified as being managed. Why is that? Why
are we making it harder to force companies to comply with their management
agreements than we are to give them a certificate of managed lands? That is a
question that I think this government has to answer because we are, in fact,
saying to these companies - that are charged with the responsibility of managing
forest lands - you must submit your proposal. You must show how you are going to
manage this land in order to get a certificate, which gives you a break from
having to pay taxes.
That is the system that we are using. If you do not follow your plan and the
government wants to do something about it, the minister cannot act. The minister's
hands are tied unless he can get the Cabinet to approve a change in status. The
minister just finished saying how difficult it was, how cumbersome it was, to
have the Cabinet approve a plan of this nature. If it is a cumbersome, difficult
matter to have a plan approved, surely it is even more cumbersome and even more
difficult to have the whole Cabinet take action as drastic as revoking a licence
or certificate of managed land that has the effect of imposing attacks on land
that is not sufficiently managed. We have a situation where a very important
industry in this Province is not being managed properly, and I do not think that
anybody can convince me to state otherwise.
When the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods can say, in this
Province, less than two months ago, that we may have to cut back on the total
Annual Allowable Cut by 10 per cent to 25 per cent because we have not been
reforesting our lands properly then that means there is bad management. When the
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper insists that it needs to cut a 7,000 year old forest
that has never been touched by harvesting, that it has to be cut down because
they want the fiber - and they have been operating in this Province in excess of
seventy-five years. If they have to go into virgin forest that has never been
touched, and yet they say they are having a sustainable management, then
something is wrong with our forestry industry. We have a serious problem on our
hands. We have a lot of decisions to make. Some of them may be tough decisions
but we believe that if a proper study is done, if a proper application of the
principles of sustainability is done, if we bring our forestry practices into
the twenty-first Century we can, in fact, improve the land we have. We can
create more jobs and more wealth, not only for the people directly involved in
the forestry industry - whether they are harvesters in the woods, loggers, and
people who are cutting timber or the businesses that are associated with it -
but the paper mills, the sawmills and the further finishing that is done with
the forest product. We have a crisis -
MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. HARRIS: If I may have a minute to clue up.
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: There is a crisis in our forestry. We are not managing the
forestry properly. I think the questions are so complex in some cases. We are
dealing with confrontations on a one-time basis. Every time an issue comes up we
have to deal with it as if it is a crisis, as if it is a conflict between jobs
and the environment, or a conflict between jobs on the one hand and trees on the
other. This is not an issue which ought to be the subject of individual
conflicts. It is something that I think can be done properly. I believe that we
really do have to do a full scale study, and I would ask the minister and his
officials to consider a full scale study of the forestry industry through
something in the nature of a royal commission to look at many of these issues,
particularly the forest practice issues, particularly the leases that are coming
up for renewal and also in particular, the kind of opportunities that exist for
reforestation in the Province.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am going to attempt, during my brief comments, to bring some relevance back
to the actual amendments that are being put forward. Although I fully respect
the hon. member's wishes to cover not just the amendment at hand but also some
far reaching issues that pertain to the forest industry, I do take exception at
the same time though, to the fact that if we were to listen to some of the
speakers this afternoon we would have a great fear that our forest industry is
not only about to collapse but indeed those who participate - the harvesters,
the pulp and paper companies who are out there creating tens of thousands of
jobs in this Province - in actual fact, that the vast majority of them are not
doing a good job. I do not share in that thought, Madam Speaker. I believe, for
the most part, that the harvesters who are working in the forestry industry
today are doing the very best job they can and the vast majority of them are
doing it right. When you are dealing with some 10,000 employees and the number
of harvesters that we have in Newfoundland, without a doubt, there are some
things that will go wrong but I have faith in what they are trying to do in this
industry. I have great faith in what they have been able to accomplish over the
years in trying to maintain a sustainable industry in this Province.
Madam Speaker, the amendment to the Forestry Act will provide the Minister of
Forest Resources with the authority to issue a Certificate of Managed Land. It
allows the minister to move quickly, if need be, or indeed he himself, or she,
will study the plan that comes forward from any harvester. They will have an
opportunity, with their officials, to review the plan in great detail and, as
opposed to having to go through the process of then preparing a lengthy Cabinet
document, preparing a proposal to go before Cabinet, which could take yet a
number of weeks or longer, the minister is only going to go to Cabinet
promoting, reporting, and asking for permission to move forward with something
that has already been accepted and approved by his department.
It will cut through the red tape and allow the people who operate in the
industry the opportunity to move quickly, to react to given situations and, for
the most part, ensure that we maintain the high standards and the high levels of
employment that we have in the industry.
Again, I say, some 10,000 individuals are employed in the industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador and we want to ensure that, not simply because of the
red tape, of having to go through a lengthy process, the minister is able to
react and meet the needs quickly.
The amendment specifically also speaks in terms of the requirement for 120
hectares, or greater, in order to qualify for the CML, or the Certificate of
Managed Land. The emphasis there, of course, is that when you reach the 120
hectares plus, you are into a parcel of land that is manageable, hopefully, for
many years to come. You are dealing with a piece of land, or a
section of land,
that a harvester can work on for many generations to come; but, let's not just
think in terms of the fact that the harvester will go in without a plan. In
order to receive a Certificate of Managed Land, there has to be an acceptable
operating plan as well as a detailed report of the operator's activities for
the year before. The operator is either doing the job that was required the year
before, and the detailed plan which is reviewed by the department will say so;
if not, the following year's plan will either have to be up to par or the
minister has the right not to issue a new licence. That reporting mechanism is
there to ensure that the property and the land in question is being used in a
wise sense to enhance the needs not only of the industry but from the employment
factor.
There are a number of other issues that are being dealt with in this
amendment as well. In particular, the plan and the guidelines put forward have
to address, must address and will address, the environmental protection of the
land. It will also include the harvesting parameters. It will also deal with the
specific conditions that will be required in order to harvest the
section of
land in question properly to the maximum needs not only of the harvester but of
the environment as well.
The amendment the minister is bringing forward today will speed up the
process. I think, Madam Speaker, that is something that will be very important
to all harvesters and indeed to the pulp and paper industry in this Province.
We cannot continue with a situation where the process is lengthy, we cannot
continue with a situation where decisions need to be made quickly because of
extenuating circumstance, that we drag the process longer, and indeed the
process could be dragged on long enough that harvesters could be sent home.
This government is in the business of creating employment and streamlining
issues that departments have to deal with, streamlining them to the point that
we can guarantee that harvesters and individuals who work in the industry can
move quickly to adapt to their needs.
Madam Speaker, what we are looking to do, really, is to simply provide the
minister with the authority to cut through the time that would be required to
carry out the needs and the work that needs to be done. The amendment will
provide the minister with the authority to move quickly and to move more
efficiently and in a time-saving manner.
The additional item that the minister referred to was the Load Slip System.
The Load Slip System, Madam Speaker, is in effect in many other Provinces. What
this new system being introduced by the minister today will allow, is that it
will allow a more accurate tracking of commercially harvested wood. It will
allow that in areas all over the Province. In doing so, it will help reduce the
unreported harvesting and processing of timber. This initiative, Madam Speaker,
is yet another example of government being pro-active in its overall prudent and
sustainable management of our forest resource. The Load Slip System will ensure
a more accurate accounting process to measure the wood flow around the Province
and provide government with more complete information concerning the use of our
forest resources. The Load Slip System, Madam Speaker, will ensure that we are
not just standing back and waiting, we are being pro-active in the sense that it
would allow us to catch those who are illegally taking our forest industry or
taking timber from the forest. It will allow us to ensure that, because of the
Load Slip System and the monitoring that will take place, we will have an
opportunity to stop the drain on our forest resources, thereby enhancing an
Annual Allowable Cut calculation which governs forest sustainability.
Sustainability is what the minister and the department are looking to achieve.
Unreported harvesting has been a concern of this government for some time. As
a result, the department has been looking at ways to strengthen the process for
tracking the timber harvest. Government, through the minister, is confident that
this new system will greatly benefit our sustainable forest management. The new
system that will come into effect in the spring of 2002 will, in itself, give
the department and give government a greater opportunity to monitor what is
happening. The Load Slip System indeed demonstrates government's commitment to
a sustainable forest management.
Mr. Speaker, I, with the minister and all of my colleagues here, are proud to
introduce this new initiative into the House of Assembly. These are the
pertinent facts that we are looking to deal with, with respect to the amendments
coming forward today, and I am more than pleased and proud to support the
minister's initiatives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I stand today to take
part in the debate of Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act.
Madam Speaker, I might sway a little bit away from the act. It is a forestry
issue and some of the issues concern my district, with forestry being one of the
biggest employers in my district, I say to members opposite, with two major
sawmills, integrated sawmills, and with dozens and dozens of private sawmills in
the area there. At one time the forestry industry was probably the biggest - it
was the biggest - employer in the District of Bonavista South at one particular
time. It was always a situation, I say to the acting minister, where if somebody
did not have an income, they could take their knapsack on their back in the fall
of the year and jump on the train and go to work. There was no such thing as
going to look for a job; it was just a matter of showing up and going to work.
Obviously, things have changed, Madam Speaker. There are a lot less commercial
sawmill operations in Bonavista South, on the Bonavista Peninsula, right now,
and there are certainly a lot less people working in the logging industry.
I would like to make a couple of comments. I would like to make a comment
about the way that the Annual Allowable Cut for the individual quotas is
allocated. Normally, in the spring of the year, in the early spring of the year
and in the winter, government makes a decision on what the Annual Allowable Cut
is going to be for that particular year. Last year, the Annual Allowable Cut
wasn't brought forward and all the small sawmill operators, the logging
operators, I should say, were told, when they went to pick up their permits,
that they were given the authority to cut 50 per cent of their allowable cut.
The comment was: Go out and cut 50 per cent and come back and then we will tell
you how much you are allowed to cut, because we are not certain if we are going
to be able to sustain the numbers that we provided last year.
Just imagine, Madam Speaker. How can you run a business by not knowing what
you are allowed to produce, I say to government members here. What would happen
if you told the farmer to go ahead and plant his fields, and at the end of the
year there might be markets for 50 per cent or 80 per cent of his crop? I
compared it to the minister, and I went to the minister and complained. I said:
Minister, you, being a former dairy farmer, how could you run your dairy
business knowing how many animals you had, and the Milk Marketing Board told you
that you might only be allowed to sell 50 per cent of the milk you produced?
That is how absurd this is, I say to the minister. They were given 50 per cent
of the quota that they were allowed to cut. They went back, after they had their
50 per cent quota cut, expecting to get the other 50 per cent, and they were
told: We are still not sure. This is up in June month now, I say to the acting
minister. They were told: We are still not sure what we are going to allow you
to cut, so we are going to issue you another 20 per cent. We are only going to
give you 20 per cent more and come back again. That is not the way to run a
logging operation. That is not the way to run a business, because that is what
logging operations are; they are businesses.
I say to the minister, this year your mind should be made up. You should know
what the Annual Allowable Cut is, and when the logger comes to your office, to
your district office, looking for his permit for the quota that he is allowed to
be able to cut, he should be told up front, not to be told: Go out and cut 50
per cent and come back and we will give you another 20 per cent or we will
decide somewhere along the line what quota you are allowed to cut.
One particular individual, because of the type of wood that he is cutting,
called me and said: I have a harvester here that I am renting. I have a
harvester here that had to travel all the way from Grand Falls. I had to pay for
the travel time. I have had to pay for it on an hourly rate, and I do not know
what I am allowed to cut. I got 70 per cent, but I do not know if I am going to
get the other 30 per cent or not. Finally, after many discussions and after some
phone calls, the minister said: No, you are right. That is not the way that it
should be. He said: Tell them to go ahead; cut the same quota that they had last
year and we will take it from there.
I say to the acting minister, I hope he keeps that kind of thing in mind when
he allows the quotas to be issued this year, because those people are running a
business. That is what it is; it is a business. They employ dozens of people,
some of them. They should know up front exactly what their quota is going to be
so they can plan and they can organize and they can make preparation in order to
carry out that particular business.
Another situation - and I think this might be taking things a little bit too
far - when we saw the rules and regulations brought in a few years ago, where
you are allowed now to go and access and get a domestic cutting permit, you are
allowed to go and get a domestic cutting permit and you are allowed to name a
helper, one helper, on that particular cutting permit. That is the only person
who is allowed to be in the woods with you cutting your firewood while you are
using that permit. I say to the acting minister, does he realize that the person
out there today with that domestic cutting permit is not allowed to even take
his wife with him on a skidoo when he is pulling his firewood from the woods out
to the place that he stacks it?
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is true, I say to the member. Check it out.
The only person who is allowed to take
part in cutting that wood and
transporting it to an area where it can be accessed by a truck or another
vehicle is that helper named on that permit, I say to the member. That is the
only person who is allowed to take
part in that wood. If I had a domestic
cutting permit and I decided some great afternoon, some sunny afternoon, that I
was going to take my wife with me on my skidoo or on my trike and go into the
woods and start piling on the wood to bring it out to a road area where I want
to stack the wood to haul it the rest of the way in my pickup truck, if I am
caught I can be fined $75. I can be fined, I can be taken to court, because she
is not named on that permit. Check it out and see if I am not correct.
Madam Speaker, another situation - and I am going to raise those issues
because I believe, as a Member of the House of Assembly, that I should stand
here and bring forward concerns as expressed to me by the people that I serve. A
couple of years ago, Madam Speaker, I had a call from a constituent of mine who
was up by the side of the road cutting, what I call, withe sticks. I guess they
are white spruce about the size of your little finger. He was up by the side of
the road cutting those sticks in order to bring them home and rind them to make
the rings for his lobster pots. He was up by the side of the road and he came
out and he was allowed - I think he was making fifty pots that year and he had
an armful of what I call withe sticks. The Member for Bonavista North knows what
I am talking about, Madam Speaker.
As he was coming to put them in the box of his truck, he was approached by
one of the conservation officers who said: Could I see your permit, please? He
said: I do not have my permit with me. He said: Well, can we go back to your
house where I can see if you have a cutting permit to be allowed to cut those
sticks right here? He was outside of his cutting area, cutting this armful of
scrub brush along by the side of the road - an armful- and got fined $75. He got
fined $75 for cutting an armful of withe sticks in order to make the rings in
his lobster pots.
I beg your pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, he was fined. He was issued a $75 ticket.
Another example - and I am going to bring this kind of thing up here because
this can tell you the kind of things that are happening out there today. I
always refer to the art of boat building. The art of wooden boat building is an
art that is fastly disappearing. One time you saw a boat going up the bay and
you could tell where the boat was built and who built the boat. It is an art
that is disappearing very fast, I say to people opposite.
Madam Speaker, I had a call from a constituent of mine one day who went out
and was cutting - he was not cutting because if anybody knows about the timber
for boats, you do not cut them, you dig them out of the ground. You dig them out
of the ground, a stick that is after falling down or a root that forms the right
shape of a boat. He called me and he said: I just wanted to let you know that I
got a $75 ticket. I said: What, were you speeding? No, he said, let me tell you.
He said: I was stopped by the side of the road and I had the tailgate taken off
my truck and I had a piece of timber that I dug out of an area, a piece of boat
timber that I dug out in the woods. A wildlife officer came by -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, hang on until I finish the story. A wildlife officer
came by and said; Sir, I see you have a stick in the box of your truck. Can you
show me your cutting permit? He said: I don't have one. I went in, I dug that
out of the ground, a stick that had fallen down. I am building a boat. He was
issued a $75 ticket. Is this what we are expecting our conservation officers to
do? I am not sure if they have received direction from the Minister of Forestry
and Agrifoods to go and do those things. It was two different people.
MR. SMITH: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: No, no. Two different conservation officers, I say to the
minister.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development is aware of a couple of
those instances because I raised them with him when he was the Minister of
Forestry.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes I did.
AN HON. MEMBER: No you never.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes I did. I raised it with him when he was Minister of
Forestry, Madam Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no you did not.
MS S. OSBORNE: He is calling you a liar, Roger.
MR. FITZGERALD: So, Madam Speaker, we have problems with not having
enough trees, not having enough fiber, to supply everybody who wants a cutting
permit. We have problems with not having the Annual Allowable Cut that should be
put out there in order for people to be able to maintain the cut that they had
the year before and the year before. Maybe it is time, I say to the minister,
that the government look at taking back some permits. Maybe it is time the
government start compensating loggers the same as they have compensated
fishermen, if they want to take some pressure off the forestry. Maybe that is
the way that we should be going, because I am not so certain that we are
reaching out and really tending to the problem by cutting back 10 and 15 per
cent every year. What happens then is another operator will buy out the existing
operator, which is unfortunate, because that particular operator shouldn't be
expected to have a layout of money every year in order to maintain the quota
that he always had.
We are still not taking the pressure off what is happening within our forest
industry. Maybe it is time that we might look at an approach such as that. If we
want to reduce the pressure on cutting activity within the forest industry,
maybe it is time the government might look at buying back permits, taking them
out of the system altogether, and allowing the people with their permits who
create employment the opportunity to maintain their levels of quota, so they
might be able to carry on a business.
It is an important piece of legislation, and I understand this piece of
legislation is going in the right direction, but I just wanted to make hon.
members aware of some of the things that are happening in this particular
industry, and maybe the acting minister can make his colleague aware of some of
those issues and move in a way to correct them, and not use our conservation
officers in a way that they are used to their fullest value, and sometimes bring
a little bit of common sense when we are dealing with people who might be doing
some little infraction on the side of the law.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment,
and Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I thank the hon. members for their participation in this debate. If I could
just make a few observations with regard to some of the comments that came
forward in the debate.
First of all, just a reminder to all hon. members: the amendments as they are
coming forward today pertain to commercial activities. There was some question
from the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale with regard to the size of the
operation, the less than 120 hectares. I guess for anyone who travels in the
forests of the Province it is not difficult to find situations where, certainly,
the forest management practices are less than desirable. This minister will not
stand in the House and try to suggest to these hon. members or the people of the
Province that, in fact, everything is well in terms of what is happening out
there. As a matter of fact, I had a personal situation a few years ago where I
own a remote cabin where there was some logging done. As a matter of fact, I
built the cabin in an area which I thought was fairly remote, very little in the
way of wood resource, and, certainly in my lifetime, I did not expect to see any
activity there. I was surprised to go back one spring to find that, in fact, the
area had been cut over. There was no question that in my trip to the area I was
deeply, deeply concerned by what I saw there.
One of the things that I did was to bring it to the attention of the
officials, and I would assume the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale did
reference the fact and he did, I think, point in his remarks to a tape that he
has. I would hope that he has shared that with the officials. Aside from the
fact that we have conservation officers who are out there charged with the
enforcement of the legislation that we have, I think it is incumbent upon all of
the citizens of this Province to assume a responsibility for the resource. The
resource does not belong to this minister, it does not belong to this
department, it belongs to all the people of the Province. So all of us have a
responsibility, especially those of us who travel in the forests and the
outdoors, if we see things happening that we think are not acceptable to
certainly bring that to the attention of the authorities. Regardless of the
number of enforcement officials that we have working for us in the Province to
make sure that the regulati