Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Petitions; Oral Questions — 4 December 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 42)
2001-12-04
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 4, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 42
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to inform this hon. House that Paula Power of
Corner Brook has been recognized by her peers for a service in promoting
literacy by being awarded the first ever Susie Day Laubach Literacy Award for
Volunteers.
Over the past twelve years, Paula has held executive positions with a large
number of literacy related groups including the Humber Literacy Council, the
Books for Babies Advisory Council, the Newfoundland and Labrador Literacy
Council, the editorial board for First Time readers, and the Summer Reading for
Fun trainer Program, to name a few. But, most of all, Mr. Speaker, she has kept
literacy in the forefront of public attention.
Paula is passionate about literacy. In a recent
article in The Western
Star she is quoted as saying: "When I see people who cannot read,
something inside of me wants to help them. Reading has so much to do with people's
lives - their work life, their social life, their family life - it is not just
helping one person."
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Paula Power of Corner Brook in receiving this prestigious award
and her day-to-day commitment to literacy.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge and extend congratulations to Herbert and Elsie
Pittman of Englee, who celebrated their 50 th wedding anniversary on
October 17. Last night they were joined by their six children, thirteen
grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and a wide circle of family and
friends to mark the occasion.
Mr. Speaker, like most people of their generation, Mr. and Mrs. Pittman are
strong individuals with a deep sense of community, a strong work ethic, and a
great commitment to family.
While they are both remarkable individuals, I would be remiss if I didn't
mention something significant about Mr. Pittman, and that is that at the age of
nine he lost the lower part of his arm in an ice crusher. Today, on the Northern
Peninsula, that would certainly be a bit of a challenge to live and provide for
your family with part of your arm gone, but sixty years ago it was much more of
a challenge. In spite of that, Mr. Pittman and his family lived a very good
life. He fished and sealed and was quite well known throughout the Northern
Peninsula and all over the Northeast Coast. Some time ago Land and Sea
did a show on Mr. Pittman, and he was well known for carrying on and providing
for his family in spite of the challenge that he was presented with.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am sure everybody in this House would like to extend
sincere congratulations and best wishes to Mr. and Mrs. Pittman on their 50 th
wedding anniversary, on October 17.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House of Assembly a historic legacy
of the Gibbons Family on being involved with the postal service in Red Bay for
over 100 years.
On March 10, 1899, James Gibbons of Red Bay received a letter from the then
Postmaster General of Newfoundland, Mr. J.O. Fraser to the effect that he was to
take charge of the winter mail in that community.
Red Bay has been settled by fishermen and their families mostly from
Carbonear during the mid 1800s. Petitions to improve mail service to the
Labrador Straits region and to establish a proper year round post office at Red
Bay "in a convenient place with facilities for the registration of letters
and the issuing of money orders..." were sent to both Fraser and Governor
Herbert Murray during 1899.
A permanent post office was finally established at Red Bay in 1906. James
Gibbons became Postmaster and retained that position until about 1920, at which
time the position was filled by his daughter-in-law Eliza. She served as
postmistress at Red Bay for over forty years. Her grandson, Walter, became
Postmaster after she retired in 1961, at the age of seventy. Walter retired from
that position in 1977 and his wife Linda has been Postmaster for the past
twenty-two years.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in recognizing the legacy of
services to the post office in which the Gibbons family has shown for over 100
years.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Saturday, November 24, I had the opportunity to attend the fire department's
annual dinner and dance in Placentia, Mr. Speaker. It was a celebration of
another great year of fire prevention and fire protection for the Placentia
area.
I had the opportunity also to present awards for long-term service to seven
of the firemen on behalf of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and
the Fire Commissioner's Office. Terry O'Keefe, one of the firemen, received
a thirty year award, Jim O'Keefe, Val Careen, Gerard Wilson, and Frank Coombs
were all presented with twenty year certificates.
Mr. Speaker, also very interesting on that night we found that the fire
department had accepted their first lady, first woman, as a member of their fire
department this year, in the name of Edna Traverse.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: I thought this was a great opportunity to bring forward
those issues here today and to say congratulations to Chief Wayne Power, and all
the members, for a job well done in creating peace of mind in the Placentia area
in relation to fire prevention and fire protection.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize in the House of Assembly the
achievements of the Bay Roberts Sea Lions Swim Team in winning their seventh
consecutive provincial championship.
The Bay Roberts Sea Lions Swim Team is made up of ninety-nine swimmers, ages
seven to eighteen, who come from the area of Roaches Line to Upper Island Cove.
Along with winning this competition, many members of the team also set
provincial records in this event. Also, many of the swimmers posted personal
best times and were awarded awards and ribbons for their efforts.
Sports in an important part of the physical and social development of our
young people. I had the opportunity to travel with this team to their
competition in Gander earlier this year and witness first-hand their enthusiasm
and commitment. The approximately 400 swimmers from all over the Province who
participated and gave their best deserve to be recognized in this House of
Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in
congratulating the Bay Roberts Sea Lions on winning this, and the past six
provincial championships, and also to recognize the efforts of all who
participated in this sporting event.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to inform people in the Province that plans for the first ever
come home year for Labrador West are progressing well. The committee is hard at
work, with help from many volunteers, to make sure everything will run smoothly.
Mr. Speaker, July 20 to July 27 promises to be the biggest event ever to
occur in Labrador, and probably the largest come home year that has ever been
held anywhere in our Province.
Since our website, labwest2002.net, was posted on March 17 of this year, a
little more than eight months ago, we have had, as of this morning, over 40,683
visitors to the site, all of whom are residing or have resided in Labrador West
for some portion of their lives.
This overwhelming response, Mr. Speaker, demonstrates the great sense of
pride and attachment current residents and former residents have for Labrador
West. People who live in Labrador West, and even those who left, by choice or
otherwise, always refer to their years spent in the North as the best of their
lives.
Mr. Speaker, we are eagerly waiting for July 20 to July 27 when we will
welcome, from many countries around the world and every province in Canada, old
friends, former co-workers, and classmates back to Labrador.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for all the work they have
done to date, and I am certain our come home year will be an astounding success.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier. Yesterday, in response to a question
to the Premier on whether debate would be held in this House of Assembly before
a deal was finalized on Voisey's Bay, the Premier shocked some of the Members
of this House of Assembly and indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He
made a statement, and I will repeat it, "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 in 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."
That was the Premier's quote. In other words, why bother to bring it in
here? Why have hon. members opposite talk about it or debate it? Why bring it
before this House?
I would ask the Premier: Does twelve years in power breed the arrogance and
disrespect that you now show no respect for this House, for the members of this
House, and indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the level of indignation shown by the Leader of the Opposition.
The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: I tend to be honest and
straightforward with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in
this Legislature.
I do not recall, and I stand to be corrected, when an arrangement was made to
start the mine in Bell Island, which contributed greatly to the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador, that the deal that was struck to have the company
come here and invest came to this Legislature as a pre-condition of the mine
opening.
I do not recall an arrangement in Labrador West, where we still have a great
iron ore operation continuing in Labrador City and Wabush, whereby the
arrangements and the negotiations that went on in providing the mining lease,
that there was a pre-condition that no deal should be entered into unless it was
debated in the Legislature first. I have never said, Mr. Speaker, that it will
not be debated in the Legislature. It is being debated in the Legislature today.
It was yesterday; it was last week; it was six months ago; it was five years
ago. It will be debated everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador but as a
precondition, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, as a business person,
knows that you cannot negotiate an arrangement which has a private company
looking for a mining lease. That is what they are looking for, and as a
condition of it, that they would then be bringing in some $2 billion in
investment that we would make an arrangement and say: We will accept your
investment. We will grant you the mining lease on these conditions, but I must
tell you, I cannot tell you for sure as the government, even though we are the
government of the Province, that we might have to go to the Legislature and
change half the arrangements. That will never work. That will never get you a
deal. That will never be the way any negotiations occur, Mr. Speaker. The Leader
of the Opposition knows it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know it. It
is a nice try at representing feign and fake indignation, Mr. Speaker, but it is
not the way things operate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is being cute with his words. The Premier knows that the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador have every right to debate the future of their
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, outside this House last week your Deputy
Premier said: I think this place in here - referring to the House of Assembly -
can be used to do almost anything we want it to. Doesn't that statement
reflect an arrogance and a disrespect for this House which is reflective of your
own attitude, which you have already shown us?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions - as shallow as
they are, in my view. There is no arrogance, no indignation with respect to this
side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We tend to expect and believe that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador understand and recognize honesty and sincerity in a
straightforward approach, when they see it. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for a
minute that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that a business
negotiation, which this is, with respect to Voisey's Bay, what the government
is being asked to do is to grant a mining lease. That is what we are being asked
to do. Pretty simple. What we are trying to do is find out what benefits we can
guarantee will accrue to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians before we grant the
mining lease, Mr. Speaker.
That discussion, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, where a private
company is about to invest $2 billion of their shareholders' money in
Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can benefit, cannot take place in a
business environment in the public. He has been a businessman, he knows that he
did not do any of his deals in the public, even though he made a great speech
yesterday about thinking that all of the negotiations should happen in the
public.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: That is very different from debating legislation or the
Constitution or rules of general application.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: This is a serious business deal and we take it very
seriously, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my business belonged to me. The government does not belong to
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Premier, I can tell you that if I was in your seat I would
make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had a full debate on this
issue before any deal was ever signed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: That would be my guarantee and commitment to the people of
this Province.
Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to represent the good people of Humber West I
understood that my role in this Legislature would be to debate issues of
importance to the people.
Premier, why are you denying the members of this House the right to debate an
issue of such importance to the people of this Province? What are you trying to
hide?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Contrary to trying to hide anything, what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker,
is come to an arrangement with a private company that is looking at investing $2
billion in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that we can maximize some benefits for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador from a natural resource that belongs to
all of us. Very simple and very straightforward.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide because, unfortunately, for five years
now we have been unable to come to any level of satisfactory benefits agreements
with that company, that we would recommend to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador or that we would sign on their behalf. The only commitment that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have from us is twofold: First and foremost,
that they will know every single detail of any arrangement that we enter into,
after we enter into it.. We have to enter into something first before you can
tell them what it is.
Mr. Speaker, I do not spend my time speculating about what might happen or
what if, and what if the sky falls and so on. Every single detail of an
arrangement that we will enter into, because we are empowered to do so - and
there might be some suggestion of a difference of opinion from the Opposition
but we certainly do not buy into that - will be known to everybody in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the twofold commitment is that we will only
were given in two elections, and that we maximize the benefits for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, you seem to be awfully concerned about the $2 billion that Inco is
going to spend. What about the $50 billion-plus asset that you are going to
negotiate away on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? That is
what we are concerned about on this side of the House, not about what Inco does.
We do not care what Inco does; couldn't care less.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Premier, in the past, bad deals have been negotiated - we
have had some deals - bad deals have been negotiated on behalf of this Province.
The Lower Churchill is a gleaming example.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him now to get to his question
quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen deals that have not been debated in this House: Lower Churchill;
Friede Goldman is another good example. I would ask you, Premier: If the Friede
Goldman deal had been brought before this Legislature, do you -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to remind hon. members, when they are asking questions, questions
should be directed to the House through the Chair, not to individual members.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: Would he not agree that if the Friede
Goldman negotiation had been brought before this House, perhaps some of the hon.
members in this House, either on this side or that side, may have realized that
was a flawed agreement and would not have agreed to give it away for $1, and
would put a safeguard in that contract that would protect it against possible
bankruptcy? Wouldn't that be a useful exercise?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again we can see that the Leader of the
Opposition would like to deal with the past and a bunch of what ifs. Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: everybody who was involved with the
Friede Goldman deal, as an example, understood what the choices and the options
were in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time. The choices and the options were
for the government, which I understand the Opposition would do, I understand
that the Opposition would still have the government running the shipyard and
losing $50 million a year. The government of the day, Mr. Speaker, decided that
was not an option.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: The government was not going to take taxpayers' money
and try to run a shipyard and lose $50 million a year. I understand the
Opposition would do that, unless he is going to change his speech from
Marystown; because in Marystown that is what he said, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the
choices at the time were to close the yard and have nobody doing anything, close
it and mothball it, or sell it to the only interested bidder at the time which
was Friede Goldman, and we tried to have another provision put in.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: They said, if you put in other provisions we will not buy
it and you can go ahead and close it.
Everybody knew that there were two options at the time, Mr. Speaker, not ten
or twelve or fifteen or twenty options, just two options (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I did say in Marystown, Mr. Speaker, was that I looked at that contract
and I would have picked up the fact that there was no protection there on a
bankruptcy. I can tell you that, Premier, and I did say that publicly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we also have another glowing example of a
situation where the will of the Cabinet and the will of the Premier were being
imposed on the people of this Province. That was the privatization of
Newfoundland Hydro.
Mr. Premier, isn't it a fact that if this issue had not been debated in
this House, and the views of the members and the people of this Province had not
been heard, that a government of which you were part would have given away one
of the jewels in the crown of this Province and given away a big asset?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition mixes up two
very different circumstances. There was a circumstance with respect to
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is a provincially owned Crown
corporation, in which to change the mode of operation for it, it required
legislative approval. Required, because the law of the land, which only this
Legislature can do, needed to be changed.
There was a full debate and the government - not because of any amendments
proposed by the Opposition - decided to change its direction and keep the Crown
corporation as it is today. We have committed to keeping the Crown corporation
as long as we are the government. They can decide to put forward another
position if they would like. There is no requirement and no law that needs to be
changed with respect to a mining lease; there was no law that needed to be
changed with respect to Labrador West; there was no law that needed to be
changed with respect to Bell Island, and there was no law that needed to be
changed with respect to Buchans. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a mining
lease.
With respect to an earlier representation by the Leader of the Opposition -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Voisey's Bay is very valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador if, and when, it
gets developed. If somebody does not come forward with a couple of billion
dollars to develop it, it will always be of some value but worthless if it just
sits there in the ground.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to encourage someone to come
forward and invest now rather than later.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand from your answer, Premier, that if you did not
have to bring it before this House then you would have given away that jewel. Is
that correct? That is what you are saying, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is this: Isn't
it true, Premier, that the people in this House, and that the people of this
Province, want to have this matter debated, even some members of your caucus.
Some members of your own caucus do not even know what the deal is, just like we
do not know what the deal is. We have no idea what the deal is. Isn't it true
that some of the members want to debate it? Wouldn't it be proper, Mr.
Premier? What is wrong with a full and open discussion in this House, by an open
and accountable government like you say you have?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have been completely open, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing to be open with,
with respect to a deal on Voisey's Bay because, unfortunately, we do not have
one.
With respect to debating in this Legislature; let us understand one thing,
there has been one opportunity here about ten days ago in a private member's
debate about research and development of Voisey's Bay; which the Leader of the
Opposition said is the most important issue here. He never, ever stood in his
place to engage in the debate. The people of the Province do understand that a
research and development component for hydromet may possibly be part of the
deal. That is what Inco is interested in. The Leader of the Opposition is
opposed to it, just like he is opposed to anything to do with this deal because
he is frightened to death that we might inflict some prosperity on the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and he will not be able to suggest that it is a gloom
and doom; it is all a disaster; it is falling apart. There is nothing happening,
Mr. Speaker. Nothing can be further from the truth. When there is something to
let the people know about, including in this caucus, we will let everybody know
what the deal is, if and when we get one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Premier is the champion of Inco. He
is so concerned about the $2 billion that they are going to spend, and he wants
to give them a gift of another $100 million from the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier: Brian Tobin, John
Efford, and Paul Dicks were opposed to unprocessed or semiprocessed ore leaving
this Province, why have you and your party been so keen to see this deal happen
since you were elected Premier by your own party? Why are you trying to ram this
deal down the throats of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador without full
and open debate?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest that maybe the Leader of the Opposition knows something about
a deal that I, or any of us, don't know.
Mr. Speaker, let me say again clearly for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador: The government has no deal with Inco. Mr. Speaker, we would like to
reach an arrangement that does - and I have spelled out, as has the Minister of
Mines and Energy on several occasions, these fundamental components, that all of
the nickel ore that is in the ground in Labrador over the life of the project
will be turned into a finished nickel product in Newfoundland and Labrador. I
think everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that, Mr. Speaker, and
I believe they see that as a full attainment of the mandate that this government
was given if we can accomplish it. We haven't been able to accomplish it yet,
which is why we don't have a deal.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are going to try to maximize each and every single
benefit that we can for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians during that process.
Mr. Speaker, if we can reach that deal, which the Leader of the Opposition
thinks we have and we are trying to ram down somebody's throat, then we won't
have to do any ramming of anything. What will happen is, if we reach those
fundamentals, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will gladly see a project
go ahead, will gladly see the development occur and will recognize that we have
reached our full mandate, and I believe they will support us and applaud us in
finding a way to do something that governments for five years have not been able
to successfully accomplish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy, and they also
will deal with the Voisey's Bay development.
I would like to ask the minister: As part of a deal -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MANNING: This is a very important issue, I say to the members
opposite.
I would like to ask the minister: As part of a deal, will there be an
absolute enforceable guarantee that all of the nickel concentrate from Voisey's
Bay will be processed to a finished nickel product at Argentia? Mr. Speaker,
will there be an absolute enforceable guarantee?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the Premier has already dealt with that question amply, but for
greater certainty: Any arrangement that we will make with respect to the
development of Voisey's Bay, that falls short of a certainty that all of the
nickel that is in the ground in Voisey's Bay over the life of that project is
developed in Voisey's Bay, anything that falls short of the commitment that it
will all not be developed in Voisey's Bay, will not be a deal and will not be
signed.
We are committed to seeing 100 per cent of all of the nickel that will come
out of that ore body in Voisey's Bay, over the life of the project, processed
into a finished nickel product in this Province, through a refinery in this
Province that will do that processing. That is our commitment, that is our
marker, and we are striving to reach a deal that will give a surety and clarity
and certainty with respect to finished nickel product processing in the
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St.
Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: If the
hydromet process is proven to be unsuitable for processing nickel concentrate
from Voisey's Bay, will the contract -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: If the
hydromet process is proven to be unsuitable for processing nickel concentrate
from Voisey's Bay, will the contract with Inco contain an absolute enforceable
guarantee that Inco will build a traditional smelter refinery at Argentia to
process Voisey's Bay nickel concentrate to a finished nickel product?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to everybody, including
the brightest and the best minds in the industry, and in the area of new
technology for processing hydrometallurgical type activities, that the hydromet
process is the way to go. We are looking forward to getting a research and
development opportunity in the Province that will allow us to prove up hydromet
and continue to operate to do other proving up processes on an R and D basis for
a long time in the future. In essence, it is sort of a small, new industry, in
and of itself, aside from the commercial plant that we will have over the thirty
year life of the project. For greater certainty, whether or not hydromet can be
proved up to the extent that it can be used as a technology to process through a
commercial plant in our Province is the question we are trying to answer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: If we for some reason find out, if the technology for some
reason falls short of the expectation and does not work, I can assure the hon.
member that there will be, in any event, full processing in this Province of
nickel to a finished product by some other type of technology.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia
& St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask questions today because I believe the people in Newfoundland and
Labrador want guarantees before the Voisey's Bay deal is signed. I want to ask
the minister: Is he afraid to bring the contract on Voisey's Bay to this House
of Assembly before it is signed? Is the minister afraid to bring it here because
the guarantees I have asked him about today are not and will not be part of the
contract on Voisey's Bay?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest that we would have to rename the member, the member with the
great crystal ball, because he seems to know with certainty and with clarity in
his own mind, between his own ears, what will be in a deal that we hope we will
reach with Voisey's Bay.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member does not know
what a deal will contain and will not know until, in fact, we arrive at one.
What the people of the Province can be sure about is that any deal we reach will
be faithful to the commitment that they have entrusted to us with respect to
obtaining full processing in the 1996 and 1999 elections. It will remain
faithful to the commitments that I have given. It will remain faithful to the
commitments that the Premier has given with respect to ensuring that we will get
full processing of 100 per cent of the nickel over the life of the project, and
that anything short of that will not constitute a deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. As the minister is aware,
councils in Labrador West have been requesting a 911 service be extended into
Labrador West. The minister has stated that this is not under active review by
his department. Mr. Speaker, the St. John's area and the Corner Brook area
have a 911 service funded by government, and 911 is known throughout the world
as an emergency response number.
According to a Ministerial Statement in this House on March 21, 1995, the
then minister stated that he was pleased to announce today that Cabinet has
given approval in principle for the establishment, on a Province-wide basis, of
an enhanced 911 emergency telephone system.
I ask the minister: What will he do to ensure that residents of Labrador, and
the Province in general, will have the services of a 911 emergency response
number?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot speak for the minister
five years ago but I will speak for myself. The hope is to eventually have a 911
service throughout this Province. It is obviously a resourcing issue. I met, in
fact, yesterday with Mr. Letto and representatives of the Combined Councils of
Labrador. They are in the gallery again today. That was not one of the
priorities that was discussed.
Policing issues are very important to Labrador, and we have been successful
in the last two year, I would say, very successful, in addressing policing
safety issues in Labrador. We have added additional constables in Cartwright,
also in Makkovik, and also in Goose Bay, and, no doubt, with the road
improvements that this government is making in Labrador, we will need additional
resources to police those roads; but, the actual issue of 911 did not come up
from the councils yesterday. We would like to have it eventually, but it is a
matter of money. If the money is there, eventually, we would certainly like to
have it.
We only have it right now in St. John's and Corner Brook. In fact, there
are still some technical difficulties being encountered with the system which we
are reviewing as well. Given the insurgence of people who use security systems,
for example, and the number of false alarms that impact upon the use and cost of
911, we are actively investigating that matter as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Not only is it a case where we do not know how far we can
go; we have to re-evaluate where we have gone now, in fact, and the impact that
it has had.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.
If I understand the minister correctly, now we have to be grateful for good
policing in our communities.
I want to say to the minister, and I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker:
Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and other provinces in Canada have 911 as a province-wide
emergency number to respond. I want to say to the minister that this is an issue
in Labrador West and it is an issue throughout this Province. I want to ask the
minister: Is he willing to commit to take a leading role and meet with groups
throughout the different regions of this Province to see how 911 can be
installed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, first off, the people of Labrador West do not
have to feel grateful because they have policing service. They deserve and will
get the same level of policing services as everyone else in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Secondly, I am accessible to meet with anyone in this
Province, at any time, who wants to discuss a policing issue. My door is never
closed, and will never be closed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with
Section 273(3) of the Elections Act,
1991, I hereby table the Annual Report Of The Chief Electoral Officer On
Election Finances, for the period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000.
In accordance with
Section 35 of the House of Assembly Act,
Part II, Conflict
of Interest, I hereby table the Annual Report of the Commissioner Of Members'
Interests covering the period April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday I raised a couple of issues in debate here in the House. I brought
forward certain incidents that happened on a forestry resolution debate that
happened here with names of people that were charged under the act, which I
thought were charged in an improper way.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the member on a point of order?
AN HON. MEMBER: I want to table some information, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The chair knows that private members do not have the right nor the obligation
to table reports in the House or table documents. That has been ruled on for
many years.
MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deputy Premier asked me if I
would table information -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The chair just ruled on tabling of reports. The chair is not going to deal
with this point of order.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table today answers to two
questions that were on the Order Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today answers to a question from the
Member of Harbour Main-Whitbourne; a detailed breakdown of the cost of producing
and airing the Read and Succeed television advertisement. The answer, in fact,
covers the total cost of the program.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of people on the
Northeast Avalon regarding the Torbay Bypass. I would like to read it into the
record:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative
Session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the population of the Northeast Avalon in the Towns of Pouch Cove,
Bauline, Flatrock, Torbay, Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove is growing rapidly;
and
WHEREAS the traffic on Torbay Road has increased to significant and dangerous
levels, approximately 12,000 vehicles per day, and is growing daily; and
WHEREAS the Torbay Bypass route has been decided and land acquisition has
taken place; and
WHEREAS the Torbay Bypass was a significant part of the Department of Works,
Services, and Transportation roads agenda and would alleviate the concerns of
residents on the Northeast Avalon regarding traffic flow;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to make the Torbay Bypass a part of their New Road Construction Plan and put
funding in place to start the construction of the Torbay Bypass as soon as
possible; and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, last week I presented a petition from a number of people in the
Pouch Cove and Flatrock area with respect to the same issue. Today, there are a
number of names on this petition from Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove and some
from Pouch Cove, and I expect in the near future we will be receiving more
petitions from the area of the Northeast Avalon with respect to this very
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I support this petition. I have signed the petition, of course.
You have to do that when you present a petition in this House of Assembly. This
proposed Torbay Bypass affects thousands of people on the Northeast Avalon. As I
said before, Mr. Speaker, it affects people from Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer
Cove, through Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove, Bauline, and people living on Torbay
Road - and in Portugal Cove, because now we have some people coming across the
Indian Meal Line and out Torbay Road. It is a very serious situation.
The traffic on Torbay Road, Mr. Speaker, is horrendous. It is growing rapidly
every year. As a matter of concern, as recently as today I received a letter
from a former mayor of the Town of Flatrock concerning the conditions of the
roads in that area in the wintertime. It is a strange happening, every year we
see that the Torbay Road is done fairly well. I have to compliment the
Department of Works, Services, and Transportation, as far as the north side of
Torbay, through Torbay to the WindGap - where the WindGap leaves Torbay Road
goes down through Flatrock and goes back onto the Pouch Cove highway. From
Gallows Cove - that intersection of Gallows Cove Pond and that intersection of
the WindGap - from that area of the Pouch Cove highway right to Pouch Cove, down
through Flatrock, the WindGap, there always seems to be not enough salt and sand
put on that stretch of the roads.
In Torbay, of course, we have the Pipperstock Hill and the North Side Hill.
The Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the people at the White
Hills, are always saying every year that I contact them - the same issue - there
is not enough salt and sand put on the Pouch Cove highway -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker. Just to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. TULK: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: Just let it be known that the Deputy Premier is refusing
leave to speak on this very important issue, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour along the residential
section of highway situated on Route 230 in Lethbridge between the depot of the
Department of Works, Services and Transportation and a business known as Blundon's
Esso is too high;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to immediately reduce the speed limit in this area from 80 kilometres an hour to
50 kilometres an hour, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that has been circulated by the eighteen
residents who live on Route 230. They have school children accessing a bus stop
on this particular route where the speed limit right now is 80 kilometres an
hour.
Up until this year, all the elementary students in this particular area -
their parents would take them to school because they lived less than a kilometre
from the school in Lethbridge. This past year seen the Lethbridge elementary
school closed. Now the students in this particular area have to be bused to
Anthony Paddon Elementary in Musgravetown. In order to access the school bus,
they have to walk and wait on the side of Route 230. The parents there have
written the minister and have raised it with the Department of Works, Services
and Transportation in Clarenville, and their efforts up until now, have not been
attended to, if you would, in having the speed limit reduced.
Their concerns are very real. It was only yesterday that I received a call
from a parent who happened to be at the side of the road waiting for the school
bus with their children when a tractor-trailer came by, driving the normal speed
limit of 80 kilometres an hour, with a load of wood on - sixteen cord of wood -
and had to try to stop. Everybody here knows what trying to stop a
tracker-trailer is like on a busy highway driving 80 kilometres an hour. You
just cannot stop it on a dime.
What the people are asking is for the minister to direct his officials to
lower the speed limit from 80 kilometres an hour to 50 kilometres an hour on
this particular
section of road. It is not uncommon. It has been done in other
sections of the same highway. They are asking that their area, the residential
area of Route 230 by Lethbridge, that the speed limit be reduced to 50
kilometres an hour, as it is in other places on the highway, for the safety of
their children. They have to go there every morning; have to be dropped off
every evening; have to walk the side of the road, and have to wait by the side
of the road of this busy highway. That is what they are asking for. They are in
fear for the safety of their children.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: I would ask the minister if he would take this petition
into consideration, and I also fully support the recommendations and suggestions
put forward by the residents.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have another petition today that I will present on behalf of the residents
of Shea Heights who wish to petition the hon. House of Assembly to address the
need for wheelchair accessible housing units in the Shea Heights area. We are
asking government to consider the fact that people with disabilities and their
families need to be able to utilize the support of family and friends within the
community of Shea Heights. If persons are forced to live in units outside the
community, it compromises the help and support families so vitally need.
We are asking that serious consideration be given to the construction of
wheelchair accessible units in the Shea Heights area so families with physical
disabilities may avail of essential support networks.
Mr. Speaker, I would start today by congratulating the minister responsible
for housing. Over a year ago I spoke to the minister requesting money for
wheelchair accessible housing units. He told me he was working on the funding
for $30 million. I congratulate him, I know he worked hard on that funding.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will listen to the pleas of
the people of Shea Heights when they ask for wheelchair accessible housing units
for that area.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, throughout the Province there is a need for
additional housing units, which is the reason for the funding, obviously. There
is a need for single housing units and so on, but the issue today - and this
petition that I am presenting - is for wheelchair accessible housing units.
Families in the Shea Heights area, who are living with a disability, are forced
to move from their community, the community that they grew up in, the community
that their families live in, the communities that they have lived in all their
lives. They are being asked to move from that community into a community where
they do not have the support network available to them, where family members
have to travel - because in some cases the persons with disabilities are unable
to travel, so families would have to travel considerable distances in some cases
because of the location of wheelchair accessible housing units, to be able to
help the family member with the disability.
This is a very serious issue. It is a very reasonable request by the people
who are signing the petition and I ask, Mr. Speaker, that very serious
consideration be given to allow wheelchair accessible housing units to be
constructed in the Shea Heights area.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 17, Mr. Speaker, Bill 41,
An Act Respecting The
Protection Of Farm Practices In The Province.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of
Farm Practices In The Province." (Bill 41)
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 today to rise to introduce Bill 41,
An Act Respecting The
Protection Of Farm Practices In The Province.
This new legislation is aimed at protecting farm operations from court action
relating to nuisance complaints from farming activity. I guess from time to time
all of us in this hon. House have heard reference to situations where farming
operations, that have existed for years, found themselves in conflict because
people built homes in the vicinity of the farming operation, then afterwards
they raise some objections as to concerns with regard to the farming operation.
To address that, the main element of the act that we are debating in the House
today is the Farm Practices Review Board. This new board will help mediate
disputes between farmers and their neighbours. The board will consist of at
least five members representing municipalities, the farming community, and the
general public.
The intent of the legislation is to provide for a more effective and quick
way to resolve public complaints due to farm practices. The board will be
responsible for hearing and ruling on complaints about such things as odors,
noise, dust, smoke, and light. Concerns of any other nature will continue to be
addressed by the appropriate government departments or agencies. The act does
not affect the rights and powers of municipalities to enact their own
regulations related to farming activity.
Our focus, in this act, is to deal solely with nuisance complaints which have
increased over the last few years. Concerns of any other nature will continue to
be addressed by the appropriate government departments or agencies. We are
confident that this comprehensive legislation will meet the need to protect
farms that operate in an acceptable manner from court action, while at the same
time ensure the rights of those who live near farming operations, make sure that
these rights are not compromised.
The new legislation will contain new environmental guidelines for farm
management practices. These guidelines, Mr. Speaker, were developed in
consultation with the Departments of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,
Environment, Government Services and Lands, and the Agrifoods industry. They
will be key to the review board in determining whether a farm is complying with
the required guidelines when a complaint is issued. Government is committed to
ensuring farming operations follow all environmental and health guidelines. I
want to stress that only farmers whose operations fully comply with necessary
guidelines will be protected by this legislation. We want to ensure that there
is a balance between safeguarding family practice operations and protecting the
public from unacceptable disturbances from farming activity.
This new and important legislation, Mr. Speaker, was developed in
consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture and
the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. Both groups are
supportive of this legislation.
We believe this piece of legislation is long overdue in our Province. In
fact, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Canada that does not
have, at present, some form of farm practices protection legislation. Mr.
Speaker, we are confident that this legislation will enable us to more
effectively strike a balance between protecting farming operations and
addressing public complaints.
It is well for the hon. members of this House to remember and recognize the
importance of the farming industry to the people of this Province. At the
present time, there are some 700 farming operations in the Province with an
additional 100 companies that are doing some further processing and value-added
production, for a total industry value in excess of $500 million.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation serves to strike a balance, first of all in
protecting this very valuable industry and also allowing a mechanism to deal
with situations where citizens and communities may feel aggrieved and feel they
have a concern. I think the review board will serve a very useful purpose, and I
certainly commend this legislation to the hon. members of the House and suggest
a speedy passage.
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.
It is a pleasure for me today to rise and say a few words on Bill 41, the
Farm Practices Protection Act. I am certainly in support of this act. It is
legislation that we have been waiting for, for many, many years. With respect to
our farming community, they have certainly been encouraging government and
lobbying government to get this act in place and passed through the House. Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly in favour of it and support it, and I would like to say
a few words on it.
It is
an act that certainly would eliminate some of the nuisance complaints
that could end up in court, through court injunctions and court actions, and
that could be drawn out for many years. Mr. Speaker, this act will certainly
make these things a lot easier to deal with, these nuisance complaints.
We find in our farming community, in this Province especially, that
acceptable farming practices differ from areas and regions throughout the
Province. We must recognize that the guidelines that are prescribed by the
minister would have to be under consultation with all the stakeholders involved
in the farming industry in this Province.
The policies and these consultations have been done. They have be done
through consultation with the Federation of Agriculture and the Federation of
Municipalities who certainly would support this legislation, and they are
representing the different people within the Province, especially the Federation
of Agriculture who represents the poultry producers, the dairy producers, the
egg producers in the Province, who see a lot of problems arising from their
operations, particularly when it comes to different times of the year when they
have to use pesticides, storage of manure, and spreading of manure.
We have to realize, too, that we have to create an environment in our farming
community where it does not create problems, especially with respect to
stockpiling manures and spreading manures, and we do not create a situation that
is similar to what happened in Walkerton, Mr Speaker. It is too important to the
residents who live near farming communities, that we do it right. If there is
some discretion in the way that these practices are carried out, then there is
an avenue which the public can go to make their complaints known. It will be
dealt with through the board of review and will be done in a timely manner so
that these situations do not end up in court. This legislation will prevent a
lot of hardship for not only farmers but residents who live near farms.
We are supporting this legislation and we are behind the Federation of
Agriculture and the department, to see that this runs smoothly and that the
consultation does involve the guidelines prescribed by the different
stakeholders. That is very important, Mr. Speaker, that the people who are in
the industry do have a say, and I encourage the minister to implement the
guidelines that they have. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud
to say that we do support this legislation and hope that it does make the
industry a lot easier for the farming community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say a few words about the bill before the House, Bill 41, An
Act Respecting The Protection Of Farm Practices, at second reading.
Second reading is approval in principle of a bill, and I have to say that
wholeheartedly I endorse the thrust of the bill, the intention of the bill, to
provide protection for farmers and farm operations from nuisance actions for the
things that the minister outlined: odour, noise, dust, vibration, light, smoke.
Those are normal aspects that form the basis of nuisance actions, and the
situation that he described, of people who live in one place, moving into a
farming area and then deciding that it should be like an urban area, that they
should not have to put up with the smell of manure or the other aspects of
normal farm operations.
I have no difficulty at all with the provision of the act. I think, as
previous speakers mentioned, and as the minister mentioned, there have been a
lot of complaints about that, some of them taking the form of demonstrations. I
know we have had them in Conception Bay South, in the Avalon, and in other
places as well, where the urbanization of a rural farm area has caused problems
for people moving in there, who all of a sudden decide they do not like the
odour that emanates from an agricultural operation. I recognize that this is a
sincere attempt by government to do something about it.
I have some concerns that I want to put on the record here. I am not really
sure how this is going to operate, and I have to say that we are dealing with a
very serious measure here. We are actually saying that individuals have no right
to the courts, that individuals have no access to the courts, for matters that
are covered under this act. When we talk about odour, noise, dust, vibration,
light and smoke, I have no problem, but there are three more words after that, I
say to the minister, and they appear in a number of sections of the act. It
says: or other disturbance.
When we look at the
definitions that are contained under the farm operation,
a farm operation includes applying fertilizers, manure, pesticides, or
biological control agents. We are going beyond the normal odours, the
application of manure, the smell of manure, the light that might emanate when
somebody is working late at night or has lights on for growing their crops or
tomatoes, or whatever it happens to be, or noise at certain hours of the night
or day because farm machinery or equipment needs to be operated. These are the
kinds of things that might give rise to a nuisance, a public nuisance type or
private nuisance type, application to the court. When we are dealing with issues
like biological agents or fertilizers, pesticides and that, we get into an area
where there is a different order of magnitude of problems that are created
there, and issues that relate to perhaps a neighboring farm or a neighboring
property which is trying to operate an organic farm.
If you are trying to operate an organic farm on your property and the
fertilizer of one type or another, pesticides of one type or another, actually
emanate from one farm property to the next one by airborne measures, by wind, by
an over spray, or spraying too close to the area, or by water coming into an
adjoining farm, then I think you have serious problems. Some people also have
particular sensitivities to this type, whether it be biological agents,
pesticides or fertilizers. I say to the minister, these are matters that are of
great controversy in many circles, and there are different farm practices that
may apply.
When we look at, how do we deal with that, well, the farm practices are
either established by the minister, which is not necessarily with the approval
of anybody else.
Section 17.(1) says, "The minister may prescribe
guidelines known as the farm practices guidelines and may issue policy
directives for acceptable farm practices." Now we have the minister saying
what is or is not the method whereby a person can be denied access to the
courts. I think we are going a bit too far when we start giving that kind of a
discretion.
When we look at the board itself, it has three representatives of the
agricultural community, two members from the Federation of Municipalities, and
one additional member who does not carry on a farm operation. So, half of the
members are from the agricultural community. The Federation of Municipalities
has two people - or one, rather, which is nominated, and one from the public, so
three, one, and one. In fact, the Farm Practices Review Board consists of a
majority of people from the farming community.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, we have the basis for problems and for
controversies between what might be an acceptable farm practice from people in
the agricultural community and what might be a problem for people with an
adjoining property who do not want to have fertilizers, pesticides, biological
control agents, or other matters seeping onto their property, flowing onto their
property, or affecting their own operation.
I think we have a problem there. I do not have a solution for the minister.
It seems to me that we have too broad a definition when we talk about, or other
disturbance. I know we do have, as the minister has indicated, this matter being
subject to the Environmental Protection Act, but we are not talking about the
Environmental Protection Act here. We are talking about an individual who may
own an adjoining property, who, for their own reasons, may not want to have
chemical fertilizer, pesticides, or other chemical applications - biological
control agents is another one mentioned - encroaching on their property because
simply they do not want this to interfere with their use or operation of their
own land. That is principally what a nuisance application is all about.
I think the minister ought to have a closer look at this legislation. I
realize we are at a second reading at this point, but we have a situation where
the majority of this board will be farmers, or people representative of the
agricultural community. We have a situation where the minister may or may not
impose guidelines or policy directives that relate to farm practices. We have no
actual requirement that they are going to be acceptable - I think they prefer
the term acceptable farm practices related there. What may be acceptable in one
place, as the act recognizes, may not be acceptable in another.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have legislation here that is open to a
fair amount of arbitrariness on the part of a particular board. I do not think
that the act itself quite properly states out the nature of the conflict. If the
conflict is between an expectation by someone moving a residential use very
close to an agricultural one, and objecting to the kinds of odours or noise and
vibration and other things like that, I do not have a problem with that. When we
get into the area of the potential for pesticides, for other chemicals,
fertilizers being overblowing onto someone else's property or going onto
someone else's property, then I think the courts are the ones that have had a
traditional role in determining whether certain types of encroachment on someone
else's property are acceptable or not. I think that those guidelines, if there
are any, have to look after that. There is no indication whatsoever in the act
that that is being attended to.
I think the intention is good, the principle is good, that we cannot have
people moving into a farming community in Kilbride, for example, and saying: I
do not want to have to smell manure. We cannot have that, because that prevents
a farm operation from operating. In a sense, they were there first. It was a
rural community. It was the operation of a farm, in fact, that grew that
community in Kilbride, in Conception Bay South, in the Codroy Valley, in Cormack
and many other areas of the Province where we have farming communities which
grew up as a result of people's interest in farming as a way of life and to
make a living. We do need to prohibit or protect people from being driven out of
business, as it were, by the fact that somebody moves in next to them, buys a
piece of land, builds a house and then expects not to have to deal with the fact
that there is a farm nearby.
When we get to the area of chemicals and pesticides, biological control
agents is another one used, these are things that can encroach on other people's
property whether they be other farm properties, in the case of an organic
farmer, or whether they be residential properties, that there should be a
different regime for. While it may well be an acceptable farm practice to
extensively use pesticides and fertilizers and biological control agents, that
may be a matter of choice for a particular farmer
whereas the adjoining property
may want to have a different type of farm operation and may want to be protected
from being encroached on by a neighbor, whether it be through runoff, whether it
be through wind blow, or whether it be through an application of a particular
agent that does not stay on one property and in fact affects the others.
With those qualifications, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we support, in
principle, the legislation that would protect farm practices but we see some
significant problems in how it might be applied through the use of guidelines
that may or may not be prescribed by the minister, and by the fact that there
are considerable controversies within the agricultural community over the
variety of farm practices that might be chosen by individuals but that might
cause problems for others within the farming community or outside the farming
community if these disturbances are permitted on other people's land without
them having the right to take action in the court. I want to underline, that is
what we are doing here. The Legislature is being asked to prevent people from
access to the courts to have a dispute of this nature resolved.
The other thing I see, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the minister could address
this: there is no appeal for this. There is no appeal. You have a five person
board, three of whom are from the agricultural community, one from the
municipalities, and one member of the public, and if you do not like the
decision, there is no appeal. There is no appeal to the court, there is no
appeal to the minister, there is no appeal to anybody. That seems, to me, to be
a wrong principle, that we are giving a board this kind of power without having
any appeal to the court if they do not like the decision that has been made.
I think these are serious problems with the legislation. I don't doubt that
there is legislation of this nature in every other province, but I would be
surprised, Mr. Speaker, if every other province had a situation where a board is
given this kind of power to exclude people from going to court on a nuisance
application without there being any right of appeal.
As I say, the principle is good but I think the legislation itself is flawed
and I would not want to see it passed without having serious amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to make a few comments on it. Let me preface
my remarks by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I live in the District of Kilbride,
married and raising my family there. About 25 per cent of the milk that people
consume in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is produced within the
district that I have the privilege and honour of representing.
Again, the district that I represent has significant farming activity, both
from a dairy producer's point of view, root crops, and people who, through the
winter months, through greenhouses, et cetera, grow a variety of plants, a
variety of flowers. For example, Lester's on Brookfield Road has a retail shop
where many of these products are sold, and elsewhere, along the side of the
road. If you drive in through Kilbride or on the Ruby Line or on the Back Line
through different seasons of the year, particularly in the summer months and
fall months, even now, you will see much of the produce that is grown in that
district for sale in that district.
I think we need to question why this piece of legislation is necessary to get
a true understanding of why government has felt it important to bring it
forward. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi briefly mentioned, particularly
in the more urban areas of the Province, the encroachment of land development on
what has traditionally been, up until this point, agricultural land. It has been
a big issue. It is a huge issue.
In reading through the bill, when it was first tabled in the House, every
section of the bill I could identify with, because I have dealt with it. I have
dealt with homeowners' concerns and complaints as related to legitimate,
bonafide farming practices in terms of spreading of manure and a variety of
other matters that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi mentioned.
The issue of encroachment is a big issue, from two points of view. The issue
of encroachment upon traditional agricultural land and its ability to continue
to contribute to the Province is a very big concern for people who are involved
in the agricultural community, whether in the root crop industry or in the dairy
industry. It is a legitimate concern. I mean, after all, I think it needs to be
said, that if there is a component of our economy that definitely offers the
most attractive and the best growth potential to create jobs in this Province
today it is the agriculture and agrifoods industry, bar none. It is not Voisey's
Bay, although that is important in terms of growth development, employment and
revenues to the Province. It is not the fishing industry in terms of what it
represents in terms of jobs in the processing sector, from those who are in the
harvesting sector, while it is important. In terms of growth potential, it does
not even come close to offering the type of economic spinoff, direct jobs,
indirect jobs and secondary processing jobs that the agrifoods and agricultural
industry represents, or has the potential to represent.
When you talk about the agrifoods industry, it was a $2 billion industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador last year; $2 billion. Of everything that we consume
as individuals in the Province, from what we eat to what we drink, to what we
buy in the grocery stores, to what we buy at the corner stores - I mean it is a
shocking statistic - less than 10 per cent of what we consume ourselves we
actually produce. We have to import much of what we consume. And it is directly
related to the bill.
I know it is probably a little stretch, and I appreciate the minister and the
Government House Leader allowing me just that little bit of latitude, because it
is important in terms of the backdrop to why this legislation has come about.
Recently there was a project supported by the Deputy Premier's department,
Development and Rural Renewal, in Lethbridge, for example; talked about a
farmers' co-operative and the cold storage facility. That is where we need to
go.
The Minister of Tourism is the former Minister of Agriculture. When you hear
the vice-president of Sobeys, for example, talk about: Why wouldn't we enter
into these agreements with farmers' cooperatives when they can give us a
ready, steady, supply of root crop vegetables? The only reason that we have been
unable to provide huge outlets, like Sobeys and other huge chains, supermarket
chains and other chains, with those types of ready supply of root crop
vegetables, as an example, because we have not had the necessary infrastructure
in any part of the Province to be able to guarantee that over a period of years.
So we get fluctuations on the market. During the summer months, after it is
produced, bang; there is a flood of local product and produce in the
marketplace. This time of year, come December, January, February, October, there
is no local produce. So we have not been able to level out the supply, which has
created unusual demands. It is basic economics.
MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) commercial root cellars.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, commercial root cellars. That goes for many other
parts of the agrifoods business. It is important to mention how important the
agrifoods business is to the Province.
Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry alone, for example, in this Province directly
employs a little over one thousand people and is worth $100 million to the
provincial economy this year, and each year and every year. Next year and in
subsequent years, because of what the dairy industry themselves - aided and
supported, to some extent, by the Department of Agriculture and Agrifoods - have
been able to negotiate on a federal agreement, for example, with the industrial
milk quota, provides us, for the first time, with the opportunity to get into
huge secondary processing and potentially could employ another thousand people.
Think about that; another thousand people could potentially be employed as a
result of it. But one of the challenges associated with that, that we have to
overcome, is what is in this legislation, and that is the ability for the
industry to grow and have access to more land, and then how that industry is
able to live side-by-side or in harmony with its neighbours in the community who
are not involved in traditional farming practices or in the industry.
Now, the bill itself, in trying to accommodate and trying to put in place -
essentially what it is, is that we have defined a dispute resolution mechanism.
That is what we have done here. We have set up parameters - not unlike what we
have done, for example, on a workers' compensation appeal tribune. We have set
up a process where, if somebody feels aggrieved, whether it is the individual or
a group of individuals who are involved in a legitimate, bonafide exercise in
terms of agriculture, or whether it is a neighbour who is not but feels as a
result of living next to a farming operation, that they have some serious
concerns and issues, and feel that their home, their land, and them living
adjacent to it, that they may feel they should not be in those circumstances, or
the set of circumstances that they have been presented with, are somehow not in
keeping with provincial law,
an act respecting the environment, or any other
associated stature or act of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, let me say up front that this legislation, in my view, is a good
piece of legislation. I support it wholeheartedly. What it does is set up
independently, of the ministry, a body that if somebody feels aggrieved a
process is immediately kick started. It is outlined in the legislation so that
either a legitimate farm enterprise who may feel aggrieved because of a
complaint lodged against it by a neighbour, they can aggrieve to it, or the
converse is true, that a neighbour... So it outlines, a board is going to be
established to deal with it that essentially, in keeping with the practice, I
suppose, and tradition, but most importantly the law and statue of the Province
and other associated acts, particularly the environment that may be involved,
that they have an independent process to appeal to, and legitimate and bonafide
complaints - I say legitimate and bonafide complaints - can be heard in a very
unpolitical sort of way, but in a way that allows concerns to be put forward
without anyone feeling that, because they have put their complaints forward or
concerns forward, they are, in some way, shape or form, going to be jeopardized
because they have done it.
I think that is what is important about it. I do share, and it must be said
that I do share the concerns on one level raised by the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, and it was one of the things that struck me in first reading
the legislation. When we talk about the freedom of information legislation that
was debated in second reading here yesterday, one of the things that government,
in presenting the bill in second reading, was so proud to say about the
legislation - and I am not going to get into debate on that because we have done
that - but one of the things they highlighted was the ability to appeal, once a
decision was made to allow an opportunity to appeal that decision to another
body. Now, whether we do that directly to the courts, to the Trial Division or
Civil Division, or whether we allow another opportunity for appeal once a
decision is raised, I think it is a legitimate concern.
I ask the minister and the people within the department to look at that
section seriously, or the lack of it there. The opportunity for everyone to
appeal a decision, essentially, is a basic right. I think it is something we
assume and we see it in all sorts of legislation. We see it in freedom of
information, we see it in the act respecting workers' health and safety
compensation commission, with respect to not only internal review but the chief
adjudicator, the single adjudicator system that we are into now with - who is
the chief review commissioner now? - Mr. Eric Gullage, former member of the
House, but that mechanism was put in place. From that point of view, I think it
must be said to the minister, on the issue of appeal, that we should take it
seriously.
I would like him to consider this. Maybe we can talk about it once second
reading is done, because there are two other stages of the bill that we have to
go through yet. One is Committee stage where we have an opportunity, as members
in the House, to make amendments or to suggest additions to the bill, that maybe
he give some consideration to the notion of appeal, when speaking with officials
today, so that once we get to the Committee stage of this bill, which may be the
latter part of this week or certainly next week, that we may be able to rectify
or come up with a - and there is no need to reinvent the wheel. There are lots
of examples of an appeal process and procedure contained already in many acts
that we have talked about in this House. So, I would like to recommend to him
that maybe, between us all - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who has
raised it, myself and the critic, Mr. Hunter from his district, and yourself -
that maybe between us all we can rectify or come to some conclusion how we can
best handle the notion of appeal in this act.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by saying that I think there has to
be a realization today, not only by members in the government, individual
members, but by the community at large, that when it comes to the agricultural
industry and agrifoods industry, the significance of that industry for growth,
the potential for growth, is tremendous, is great, is exponential, is real, and
it can happen very quickly.
I recall being involved, for example, in a project that really did not get
off the rails but involved Newfoundland turnip. Just a quick story. Most members
probably wouldn't realize, but for food connoisseurs around the world, I
suppose, Newfoundland turnip is probably the best turnip in the world - and I am
not speaking off the top of my head - simply because of a couple of reasons:
one, climatic conditions. Because of our climate, the weather systems, and the
nature of our soil, it produces a very sweet product - a true story. As a result
of that, and I want to get to a point of a project that almost went that didn't
go, that should have, as a result of that we had an opportunity some time ago -
a gentleman by the name of Eric Williams, who has passed away now but was a
significant contributor to the agricultural community in the Province and in
Canada, was involved in a project that was looking for some assistance about
exporting turnip to markets outside the Province, particularly in Toronto and
the larger areas. He had actually some booths set up, I believe, where
Newfoundland turnip - did you ever see those taste-test booths that you go into
if you go down to, say, the Price Club or into Sobeys or Dominion, or any other
store - IGA, wherever it may be. Now and then you will have the -
AN HON. MEMBER: Sampling.
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? I cannot hear you.
AN HON. MEMBER: Sampling.
MR. E. BYRNE: Sampling, yes, or taste-testing or whatever. Sampling, I
guess it is.
Some of this was actually set up in some outlets in Toronto and the
surrounding greater metro area, where actually turnip was boiled and then fried
with garlic and butter, and they were giving samples. Because of the lack of
funding, I suppose, and investment in a possible market opportunity, or lack of
funding and foresight through a number of agencies, and I am not pointing
fingers at anybody, I am not trying to do that, or trying to provoke debate. The
point was that we lost an opportunity to export significant amounts of
Newfoundland-grown turnip, the best turnip in the world, because again of our
climatic conditions, the nature of our soil, and the place where we live.
These are the types of opportunities that we have to start winning on,
identifying in a small way, building and expanding and making it happen, because
it is only at that point, if we do that, that we can begin to turn around that
stat which is 90 per cent of what we consume we import, 10 per cent of what we
consume we grow here. At some point, some government - it could be this one or
any future government - has to look at what needs to be done in the industry as
a whole because of the potential that it has.
I would say to you that in the last number of years, as a result of times we
have lived in, we have lost sight of that and we need to get back to some basics
when we look at this industry because it does represent some very significant
opportunities for economic development all over the Province and truly year over
year create full-time sustainable opportunities for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, not only to work in an industry, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time
to become entrepreneurs and leaders in an industry. I think that is where we
need to go, but unless we understand that has that potential, unless we work
towards putting together a long view, long-term plan to make that happen, and
then step by step and systematically implement it, then somebody ten years from
now will stand in this Legislature and probably give the same sort of speech
that I have just given.
With that, I will conclude my remarks. I appreciate the opening remarks made
by the minister, and I look forward to the possible resolution on an appeal
procedure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. If
he speaks now, he will close debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. members opposite for their input in this debate. Certainly I
have listened with interest to the suggestions that have been made opposite and
I assure them that I will certainly take it under advisement with my officials
and we will pursue that as we move forward in debate on this particular piece of
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, and all members have agreed,
there is no difficulty with this legislation in principle. It is something that
is intended to protect and promote the agriculture industry in this Province. It
is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Kilbride reference the fact that he
lives in the district. Well, when I am not residing in the beautiful community
of Lourdes on the Port au Port Peninsula, I also have a residence in the
wonderful community of Kilbride and I am delighted to live there for part of the
year. Those of us who do, do recognize that when you go in there - I remember,
it strikes me, Mr. Speaker, my first visit to Quebec some years ago. Traveling
through rural Quebec, there were some large dairy farms, and we were driving by
with the car windows open. This was back before we had air conditioning in our
vehicle. I might say, Mr Speaker, the impact was certainly significant,
significant and sustained, I might say. I do recall it continued for many, many
miles because their industry was much more established than ours. Someone
remarked to me at that time, and I guess I have heard it referenced in terms of,
we have had the same thing with the fishing industry as you would relate in some
of the areas of your district where you have fish processing operations.
Sometimes people who visit the area complain about the odours that emanate from
there. I think what we have to remind ourselves at all times is, that is the
smell of prosperity.
The industry we are speaking of here today, the agriculture industry, as has
been recognized in this House, is a very important industry as it exists today.
More importantly, we also need to remember that it is an industry that has
tremendous potential. I feel that this progressive piece of legislation that is
presently before the House will serve to enhance the industry and will serve to
promote the industry.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure right now to
move second reading.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Farm Practices
In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of
the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker, Bill 47.
I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of
certain loans made under The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 47)
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
Bill 47, speaking to the resolution.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill
47)
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am very pleased today to introduce an amendment to The Loan And Guarantee
Act, 1957. This amendment will provide the legislative authority for new loan
guarantees and for revising those that are currently existing. It is a regular
item in the financial administration of the Province.
Mr. Chair, this amendment again is basically a housekeeping matter, as the
act requires that all guarantees approved and issued be ratified by the House of
Assembly through an amendment to the act's schedules. Once these guarantees
are ratified, all guarantees that may have to be honored as a result of a
default would become statutory payments. Under the Loan and Guarantee Act, and
subsequent to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Minister
of Fisheries is authorized to provide guarantees on behalf of the private sector
and Crown corporations covering a variety of financing requirements, the most
common being operating and term financing credits. Government provides loan
guarantees to both public and private corporations in order to achieve its
policy objectives and benefit regions of the Province.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to inform the hon. House that the use of the
government guarantees as a means of providing financial assistance has declined
significantly since the early 1990s. Bill 47 speaks to each of the various
guarantees that are outlined here in the bill. They are very clearly explained,
with the amounts included here, the expiry dates, as well as minor amendments to
the act to allow these in some cases to be increased, and in other cases just a
listing of the amount that was approved this year to be ratified in the House of
Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: With reference to those guarantees; there is listed in this
particular bill, I believe, several different companies mentioned here. In
certain cases there has been a change in the guarantee of the amount here. I am
just wondering also - maybe the minister might comment on those. Would these -
who are looking for an increase in their guarantee - be companies that have
needed to utilize, I would assume, beyond that amount? Is it for just a portion
of the year when their cash flows may not be as such to do business that they
might need more, but at other points they are not calling any of that guaranteed
amount? I am just wondering, has the status changed? Because in certain
instances companies may have a fair amount of receivables at certain times of
the year, and they may need a guarantee at a certain point, and then their cash
flow improves and they do not need that; or is this an amount that is sealing
what this government has, in addition to any of the guarantees the company has,
and they might be utilizing this guarantee on an ongoing basis? That could
certainly change in instances. For example, a company may be guaranteed by
government, or a loan guaranteed with the bank on their credit, and they may
have large sales in July and August. Let's take a fishing company, for
example, it might have large sales in July and August - or any months of the
year - and they may have receivables in the millions of dollars and may need a
certain guarantee so they can operate and do business through their banks, that
they are not going to stop-payment on cheques, and then later on they may be
into a surplus situation.
Some of these things, I think, are important for us to have a knowledge here
in the House of exactly how they operate; if the guarantees are being utilized
fully or only during certain short periods of the year. Overall, I know our
opposition have not been opposed to guarantees in certain circumstances. We have
not been opposed to that. One thing we have stated, and I stated on record here
- where I have been opposed in the past is guarantees to companies to go out and
compete against other companies, and they can't do it on a level footing. That
to me is bad for business. It gives a crutch to businesses and does not promote
efficiency in business; and that can be very detrimental. That is the last thing
we want to see, aiding one company at the expense of another. I don't think,
to be honest with you, that that is the case here. I do not know all the
details. I do not wish to ask all the minute details indicated here in the House
at all. We are not asking for that, I say to the minister.
For example, I see one like Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society. I
think traditionally in certain parts of our Province, and especially in that
area, it has not always been easy to get competition to go into certain areas;
and the cost of doing business in more remote areas is very expensive. Sometimes
that is needed, in many instances, to be able to carry on business there. I
understand that - probably in that case - maybe they are not utilizing even the
guarantee; that they may need it just for certain short-term periods. That may
very well be the case here in this instance too, but that has been, to my
knowledge, of that one generally.
We do have certain guarantees here in Item 1. We have one for the Consumer
Protection Fund for Prepaid Funeral Services. I do know legislation came before
the House on that particular one there. Anybody who prepays - we do need to have
protection for these people. Right now with the legislation that came into this
House - I think it was just this past year, about a year ago - we have
protection now for prepaid funerals - into a trust where that is set aside to
the satisfaction of government, where that money is going to be there when
someone eventually passes away, because eventually we are all going to die. In
the cases of people who do, that their money is protected there. I think a
particular instance arose in the past which really necessitated, I think even
making it retroactive to protect that, at that particular time. So those types
of things protect the public, and you know they are positive in that regard.
We have to be very careful overall, I say to the minister, with guarantees
generally here in our Province. Guarantees should be used to enable companies to
operate and employ people and to do business in our Province where it would be
difficult to do otherwise, and where they are not given an unfair advantage to
that company over another competing company. That would be one of the conditions
or bases upon which we should give guarantees.
I would like to hear from the minister here in Committee on whether these
increased amounts, for example, are because a company - just to make it clear -
at a certain point, had a cash flow problem, but that problem was only
temporary, therefore they needed a little lift to get them over that difficult
period, or is it because they have been drawing the full extent of that
guarantee basis and now they need to have that increased? We would like to know
the answer to that.
I know in one particular company here - I will not specify. I think it is
public knowledge anyway, because the bill is tabled. There is a reference here -
there is an ongoing dispute that might put that company in a difficult situation
in the short term, and it does employ a large number of people. The last thing
we want to see are companies having to stop doing business here, that employ
people in our Province and contribute to our economy. We certainly do not want
to see that happen. I do not think, in this case, there is any competing factor
with other companies in this regard. The minster should be able to clarify that
particular point too, so we can rest assured that in the use of public money and
using guarantees, that the public interest is protected. Just because a
guarantee is there does not mean it is used; and it may cost this government
nothing. If it doesn't, that is great. Even if it never has to be called in -
but there are ones that had to be called in. The banks called in the loans and
this Province had guarantees in the millions, and tens of millions of dollars in
guarantees and loans because companies eventually went into receivership or they
called in the loans and companies are still operating today. That has happened
in a lot of cases.
We just want to make sure that the guarantees given are going to a very
productive use; are going to continue to employ people here in a positive way
and not in a competitive way with other companies that are doing similar types
of business here in our Province.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my comments on Bill 47. I certainly would
like to hear the minister's response on some of those points.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am happy to provide further clarification and explanation of these loans
guarantees. I can start first of all, by the Consumer Protection Fund for
Prepaid Funerals Services. As the member opposite identified, we brought in
legislation in the last sitting of the House to assure people that when they did
their prepaid funerals, they would have every confidence that the money would be
there when they need it. As you know, we had one instance in the West Coast of
the Province which raised a significant amount of concern and put the whole
issue of prepaid insurances in jeopardy for the people of the Province. This is
a loan guarantee for that purpose. Of course, this has not been called obviously
because it is in the process of being set up.
Moving on to the next one, Torngat Fish Products Co-operative Society
Limited; the increase in this is related to the consolidation of both the Nain
and Makkovik operation. In addition to that, I can say, that this organization
is strong. It has made all the payments and is not in any jeopardy, as far as we
are concerned.
The third loan guarantee, Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited, was
increased because of environmental concerns and issues in Marystown, as you
know, which consisted of lead paint, as well as asbestos. Those panels had to be
physically removed, cleaned, repainted and replaced. As a result of that, it
cost a significant amount of money.
Moving on to the next one, as you mentioned, I prefer not to mention the name
of the company because of the potential court implications but it is a huge
employer in a regional part of our Province. We made a decision to increase the
loan to help them with a cash flow basis until they can rectify this hopefully
outside of court, but quite possibly within the judicial system.
The next loan guarantee is for the Newfoundland Symphony Orchestra. This is a
really an operating line of credit, more or less, for them because they are in
the process of fund-raising. It is a very strong cultural part of Newfoundland
and Labrador, and one that we felt was safe, inasmuch as they are actively
fund-raising but they are having a cash flow difficulty.
Marble Mount Development Corporation is another one which has increased from
$1.1 million to $1.45 million. Last year, I think particularly, was a difficult
year because of operations and snow at the beginning of the year, and that is
increased again. It is a huge employer. It is a huge regional attractive
employer with a lot of spinoff industry, and that was increased for that reason.
The last one is the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Corporation, as
pointed out in the note, which resulted from additional costs and construction
to a fairly significant project, and as a result of that increase in the amount
of a loan guarantee.
So, that covers all of the ones outlined in the bill. Again, if there are any
questions, I would be happy to answer them, but basically what we are doing is
tabling these, as you know, in compliance with the recommendation of the
Financial Administration Act, and also recommendations of the Auditor General to
do so in a timely way.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, Bill 47, as mentioned, is,
An Act To Amend
The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957. I guess what is provided here is a
schedule of
amounts that the Cabinet have decided, you know, for decisions that were made to
provide additional amounts of money to groups, organizations, businesses, et
cetera.
We are in what we call the Committee stage, which allows us to have an
exchange of information, I suppose, similar to Question Period. You can make a
few points, ask some concerns.
I would like to deal with, "Clause 2 of the Bill would amend the
Schedule to the Act, as enacted by
chapter 31 of 1987 as follows: (
a) by
increasing the loan guarantee of Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited from
$1,250,000 to $4,850,000 as authorized by Order in Council 2001-185...".
This specifically deals with the Marystown Shipyard. "After the province
sold the assets of Marystown Shipyard and assumed $70.9 million of the $72.15
million operating loan guarantee in place at that time, a $1.25 million line of
credit was left to cover environmental and other divestiture costs."
I wonder if the minister could take a few moments, when I sit down and she
rises, to talk about what environmental costs were outlined. Obviously there was
a $1.25 million line of credit provided for, what is called here, to cover
environmental and other divestiture costs associated with the sale of those
assets. It goes on to say, "This increase to $4.85 million was approved to
cover additional costs for which the province is responsible at the site. The
loan guarantee has no Expiry Date."
I wonder if the minister could talk about that $4.85 million to cover
additional costs. What were those additional costs of almost $5 million
associated with this divestiture? Also, the $1.25 million line of credit which
the Province left in place to cover environmental and other divestiture costs. I
wonder if the minister can expound and explain, in more detail, what those costs
actually were?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your colleague, the Member for Ferryland, just asked a similar question, and
what I explained at that point in time - and I can certainly elaborate in more
detail, just to give you an idea - the $1.25 million was deemed insufficient
because the environmental concerns were of such a nature that they required a
significant amount of manual labour to correct them.
As I have pointed out, in addition to asbestos there was also lead paint on
the panels of the shipyard. So they had to be physically removed, asbestos taken
out, lead paint removed, and then reapplied manually. So it was quite a
labour-intensive and, as far as I know, still is a labour-intensive process
which continues. That is for the most part. I guess it is not just the painting,
it is all the extra precautions that are required in the removal of asbestos, in
the removal of lead paint, and then human resource requirements to do that and
replace it with an acceptable product, an acceptable paint, and then to replace
the panels on the building.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: In clause 2, Mr. Chairman, it does say that the $1.25
million for the line of credit was left to cover environmental - I guess you
just answered the question, over and above that - and other divestiture costs.
What has been defined as other divestiture costs associated with that $1.25
million? What would be those other costs that you talked about in clause 2 of
this particular piece of legislation?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would confer with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development, on the actual other divestiture costs, but I know around the
environment, to the best of my knowledge, the most significant amount of this
money was in cleanup of the environment as it relates to lead and asbestos. The
other actual divestiture costs, again I would defer to him for that part of the
agreement, and I am sure he would be happy to answer that.
The very bulk of this amount of money is a very labour intensive, very
specialized job of dealing with the asbestos, as well as the lead. Any further
divestiture components I would certainly defer to my colleague, the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will await the return of the minister. I know he is here and I can ask him
those questions.
With respect to the liabilities, I guess, associated with the sale of the
Marystown Shipyard or Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Ltd., the minister alluded
to the costs associated with what they thought was going to be $1.25 million and
has increased to $4.85 million to cover environmental and other divestiture
costs.
Is the minister, Mr. Chairman, in a position to tell us: Have all of those
environmental concerns been alleviated to date? If not, what is left that the
Province and the Crown, in other words all of us, still liable for? Would she be
able to expound upon that? In other words, I guess: Have all of those
environmental concerns identified at the time of sale or transfer of the assets
of Marystown Shipyard to Friede Goldman been met? If not, are we likely or are
we still liable for any outstanding environmental concerns in terms of the
present situation? Is it likely that the expenditure that you talked about here
of $4.85 million - could you indicate categorically that the amount, from $1.2
million to $4.8 million, will that meet any outstanding liabilities or will we
be in a position where this time next year, possibly, we could be looking at
another bill,
An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, where we actually have
to increase the line of credit or loan guarantee to it, because the outstanding
environmental concerns and our associated liabilities, the amount of money that
you are talking about, was not there and was not enough to meet those? Could you
expand upon that, please?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, the member opposite is very aware, as most of us in this room and
anybody listening knows, that whenever you are dealing with an environmental
cleanup it is always a tenuous situation, because you never quite know what you
will deal with. As you can see from the loan guarantee, it has been increased
from $1.25 million to $4.85 million. That is the best assessment and evaluation
we have at the moment of the cost, because of its labour-intensive nature.
Again, if you were to say to me last year, would we have a consumer
protection fund for prepaid funeral services as a new item, I would have said
no. So I cannot predict what will be on the paper next year but I can clearly
speak to the items that are on the paper this year. I can say that is our best
estimate of what the environmental cleanup will cost us based on the
labour-intensive nature of this cleanup.
Again, this increase to $4.85 million is again done - it is not my number, it
is not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development's number; it is
given to us on the best advice of the environmentalists who are out there
cleaning up the place.
Whenever you look at cleaning up a site, it is always a case of the deeper
you dig oftentimes the more you find. I can honestly say that this our best
assessment of what we will need. I hope we will not need to bring any more
forward next year. What you have here is all the information we have with
respect to potential environmental cleanup, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the answer provided by the minister. I understand that, as a
Minister of the Crown or any member, you make decisions based upon the best
possible advice you are given. Then it is up to each one of us, I suppose, to
either choose to accept that advice, modify it, or reject it completely out of
hand.
With respect to the environmental concerns, it is my understanding - and
please, if I am incorrect in any way, let me know immediately - once the
transfer of assets took place, or the assets were sold by the Province or
transferred to Friede Goldman, the amount initially set up to cover our
liabilities as identified in the contractual arrangement entered into by the
government was $1.25 million. That is what you are saying here.
What you are also saying is that as a result of the time that has elapsed
between the actual transfer and now that there was an additional, we had to top
that $1.25 million for environmental considerations and liabilities on behalf of
the Crown, plus other divestiture costs.
The question I ask is: My understanding is that after the sale took place,
there was then a study done about what the impact or what the scope of the
environmental concerns were. Based upon that study then, a course of action was
outlined. Based upon that course of action, I suppose then, a cost was
attributed to living up to our responsibilities under that contract.
I guess what I am asking is: If that study has been done, which I am led to
believe it is, a course of action must have been identified and, in identifying
that course of action, you must have put a dollar figure to it. Assuming all of
that was done, and it should have been done, and I understand that it was done,
at what point now are we in that plan of action? Are we 75 per cent there, 85
per cent there, 100 per cent there, is it all done, or are there still - just on
the environmental concerns - are there still outstanding obligations and
liabilities to the Crown, in other words to the people of the Province, with
respect to the environmental considerations and concerns surrounding the
transfer of assets of Marystown Shipyard and Cow Head fabrication facilities to
Friede Goldman?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me, if I could, first deal with the question
that the hon. gentleman has put forward in terms of the Environmental
Remediation Program, that was required.
As I understand it - and I can get the exact details for him, and I will, no
problem at all - when the deal was signed to transfer the assets of Marystown
Shipyard, to sell them to Friede Goldman, as I understand it, the Province
accepted the environmental responsibility. A study was done to see what the
environmental responsibilities were, and this year, as a matter of fact, I think
we spent the extra funds that were necessary - I do not have the exact figures,
but I will get them for you - we spent the necessary funds to ensure
Environmental Remediation, in other words, an environmentally clean bill of
health. If you are going to try to sell the thing to somebody else, obviously
that is one of the things that we were responsible for under the contract and
now, as far as I understand, the place has a clean bill of health when it comes
to the environment.
Can I answer another question there for you?
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, there are a couple more.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In asking an earlier question to the Minister of Finance, the initial sum of
money associated with the divestiture of $1.25 million, what this bill has asked
us to do is to approve an Order in Council, which Cabinet has already done, and
the money is already allocated, but it is asking for the approval of the
Legislature to confer, or to say yes, that the money that you allotted, the
$1.25 million, had to go up to $4.85 million and the explanation in the bill,
under clause 2, says that is for environmental and other divestiture costs.
In asking the question to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, I asked her: What would the other divestiture costs be? Then she said I
can only defer that to you, as the Minister of Rural Development, so I ask the
question to you then. What were those other divestiture costs associated with
that? Could you provide more detail than just saying other divestiture costs?
What exactly were those other costs? What could they entail? The big question, I
guess, is: Are we presently in any situation, or are we presently in any way, do
we have any outstanding liabilities associated with the contract we entered into
to Friede Goldman, with respect to the sale of the Marystown Shipyard? Do we
still have, as a Province, contractual obligations to Friede Goldman? So, two
questions in
summary: What are those other divestiture costs that you refer to?
Secondly, do we still have outstanding obligations, contractual obligations, or
any liabilities associated with the sale of, or the transfer of assets of, the
Marystown Shipyard?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the name of the project escapes me. Marystown, as
I understand it, and I will get the figures for the hon. gentleman, I will give
him his answer, I will call over now and get them. The name of the project that
was undertaken by the Marystown Shipyard escapes me, but there was a liability
that occurred -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: I do not want to name it until I am exactly sure, because I am
not sure whether it was the Quest or there was another one, too, in terms
of liability that was incurred by the Marystown Shipyard. That was a liability
that the Province incurred because the Province was the owner of Marystown
Shipyard at the time that project -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No, at the time the shipyard was owned by Marystown Shipyard. I
will get the exact details. As a matter of fact, I will go out and ask my deputy
to dig it out for me now and bring it in before the House closes this evening,
for the hon. gentleman.
As far as I am led to understand, there are no additional liabilities that we
have, as a Province, to anybody in terms of liability owed by Friede Goldman or
owed by the former Marystown Shipyard. I am almost absolutely certain. I will go
out and check that for you, but I want to make absolutely certain that what I
say is the truth, that the liabilities have all been cleared up, and the
Province is free and clear of any liabilities for the Marystown Shipyard with
regard to Friede Goldman. I will go, get the information for the hon. gentleman,
and get back to him.
Is that it?
MR. E. BYRNE: I have a couple of more, and then you can go and get it. I
will get onto another clause after that, and then you can go and get it for me.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the frankness by the Deputy Premier. I would like to ask this
question. Obviously, given the current environment, these are legitimate
questions and the people have a right to know. They are here for us to debate;
that is the purpose of the bill.
In terms of outstanding liabilities, it is my understanding as well that it
may be that the project you are talking about refers to - I believe the Minister
of Mines and Energy already indicated in singing out the Quest , which was
a federal contract, I believe -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, fair enough, but in terms of outstanding liabilities
that the yard presently holds, have there been any discussions, either between
your department, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, or the Department
of Finance, with respect to outstanding liabilities possibly owed to the federal
government, and the possible impact of those liabilities on the future sale or
any future arrangements that you may make or hope to make or, to use your words
in the Legislature last week, an attempt to broker a sale of the Marystown
Shipyard? Have there been any negotiations with the federal government or any of
its agencies or departments associated with outstanding liabilities which that
yard has to them associated with the Quest ? Again, if the question I am
asking is wrong, certainly I do not think it is, based upon my own sources where
it has come from, I just leave that open with respect to the shipyard. Have
there been any ongoing negotiations with the federal government, again, any of
its agencies or departments, associated with the brokering of a deal of the
Marystown Shipyard?
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman and I made a commitment to each other just
now that, before the week was over, we would put each other on television,
again, before the week was up. That is the kind of question, I can tell him,
that is not related to the bill. Any negotiations that are ongoing with regard
to the Marystown Shipyard - and I am not going to get into it, to be frank with
you - anything that is owed by Friede Goldman to any other partner or anything
that Peter (inaudible) wants to get into at this point. I will be frank with
him, I am going to maintain the same stance in regard to the negotiations that I
have maintained until they are done, and as soon as they are done they will be
readily available for all and sundry to either say: Job well done, or we do not
agree and we want to be very critical of the agreement that you have reached
with Friede Goldman or anybody else that is out there negotiating for the sale,
takeover, or running of the Marystown Shipyard.
I say that for a reason, not to be a secret. I have no desire, and I will go
out - this is obviously something that is pass, that has been done, that was
part of the negotiations for the previous sale of Marystown Shipyard. It is a
very legitimate question because this is on the Order Paper. I will go out and
get the details for the hon. gentleman immediately. As soon as the ink is dry on
the paper, for the sale of Marystown Shipyard to anybody in the world, if I do
not walk into this Legislature, if it is not open, I will call a press
conference and announce it to the world, lay out the plan, and I will tell you
what: I will even go so far as to say that for my friend from Kilbride, I will
send him an autographed copy. That is the best I can do for you at this