Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — 20 November 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 32)
2002-11-20
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 20, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 32
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I probably ought to have raised this yesterday
after Question Period. As hon. members know, I very seldom, if ever, interrupt
Question Period on a matter of parliamentary language or anything else, and I
wanted to read Hansard before I raised the point. After reading Hansard
yesterday, I do believe that two expressions in particular used by the Leader of
the Opposition, no doubt in the heat of the debate, I believe, were
unparliamentary and I would like to raise them to Your Honour today and for Your
Honour to consider them.
Mr. Speaker, the first expression I want to raise is the one used on page
1824 of Hansard, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was responding to an
answer by the hon. the Premier. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said,
"Over seventy years they will take $56 billion. They are going to use our
money to finance our project, so they can take it from us at the end of the day.
That is what you are doing. Shame on you!" Shame on you!, Mr. Speaker, is
the parliamentary expression to which I refer.
Mr. Speaker, I quote from Beauchesne , page 143, 486, which says,
"
(1) It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious
reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or to declare
beforehand what expression are or are not contrary to order; much
depends..." - and, Mr. Speaker, this is the key - "...upon the tone
and manner, and intention, of the person speaking; sometimes upon the person to
whom the words are addressed...." Mr. Speaker, that is far enough in that
regard.
I quote from Marleau and Montpetit , page 525, regarding
unparliamentary language. It says, "The proceedings of the House are based
on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus,
the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is
strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are
not in order."
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these words, that expression, in the
context used, were offensive, insulting and provocative.
Mr. Speaker, Webster's Dictionary says that shame means reproach, ignominy,
derision, contempt. That is the noun, Mr. Speaker.
If hon. members just want this to become a bear pit, they can do that. I am
suggesting to hon. members the importance of using parliamentary language,
proper parliamentary language.
The verb of shame is even more succinct. It says: to cause to feel degraded,
dishonoured or disgraced. Neither of these
definitions fit parliamentary
language. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you consider the quotations I have
used and consider the remarks used by the Leader of the Opposition in the
context, the tone, and the manner in which they were used.
The other expression, Mr. Speaker, was on page 1825, I believe it was. Again,
the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his
preamble to an answer to the
question of the Premier, in responding to an answer to the Premier, said,
"This Premier is being less than honest with the people of this
Province."
Mr. Speaker, less than honest, to me, is like a circle. There are no degrees
of honesty. There are no degrees of roundness. You are either honest or not
honest. Mr. Speaker, I can refer Your Honour to several quotations in Beauchesne
that refer to dishonest, and every time dishonest was used, the hon. member
was required to withdraw it, in the context in which the Leader of the
Opposition used it. Dishonest and less than honest; if you are not honest, you
are dishonest. No member in this House is supposed to be dishonest and members
are not supposed to accuse other members of being dishonest. Beauchesne quotes
that we have to accept the word; we have to accept the word of every member.
Mr. Speaker, I raise these points so that we can carry out the long
traditions of this House, that language must be moderate. We must use good
temper when we are debating in this hon. House. Mr. Speaker, I raise these two
points for Your Honour to investigate and to make a decision upon.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting that the Government House Leader has risen on a point of
order and talked about Beauchesne, and what is allowed to be used in this
Chamber and what is not allowed to be used. He clearly knows, and I will just
reference - I do not even need to look them up, Mr. Speaker - Sections 323 and
325 in Beauchesne , which talk about when a point of order should be
raised or if there is a matter upon which the Government House Leader just
raised that the Speaker, it says in Beauchesne, ought to rule immediately
or the point should be brought immediately; and it has not been. Do you know
why, Mr. Speaker? Because this has more to do with a political exercise than it
has to do with a parliamentary exercise or a breach in (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me also refer to him that if he wants to
read on, in yesterday's Hansard, some of the arguments that he has just used
could be also argued if one was foolish enough to stand and argue them, and I am
certainly not, but some of the arguments that he has just used about the
language of the Leader of the Opposition, may I refer him to Hansard to have a
look at what his own Premier said, for his own point of view.
Lastly, let me say this with respect to Beauchesne . He talks about if
somebody is less than honest. That has been ruled parliamentary. His argument
has led to say that if somebody is less than honest, they are being dishonest.
Let me refer him to 490 where it says, "Since 1958, it has been ruled
parliamentary to use the following expressions: Deceive, Debased,
Depriving..." - and lo and behold - "...Dishonest". It has been
ruled parliamentary.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here and what is transpiring here today by the
Government House Leader, is what we have seen from this government for a
year-and-a-half. When the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber West,
stands up with good solid information and starts asking hard-hitting questions
that people in this Province want answers to, what do they refer to or lower
themselves to? To Beauchesne and Marleau , to try to score cheap
political points.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you - and I think that any unbiased reading of the
rules, both in Beauchesne , and Marleau , and the points that the
Government House Leader has raised, will show that the Leader of the Opposition
was not unparliamentary, that he used the correct language. My advice to the
Government House Leader is stop the shameful, parliamentary antics that you are
getting on with and let the House do its business.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will consider the point raised by the hon.
Government House Leader, certainly take it under advisement, and when I have had
some time to review Hansard I will report back to the House.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to inform members of this hon. House that Mr. Ches
Loughlin, well known Corner Brook resident, has been named winner of the 2002
Guenter Behr Conservation Award.
This award is presented annually by the Salmonid Association of Newfoundland
to an individual, group or agency that has made an outstanding contribution to
salmon and trout conservation and to honour the memory of Guenter Behr, one of
Newfoundland's pioneering conservationists.
Mr. Loughlin is managing editor of the critically acclaimed salmon and
trouting angling magazine, The SPAWNER - a magazine that has wide
readership, not only within Newfoundland and Labrador, but also throughout North
America.
In the mid-1990s, Mr. Loughlin launched a campaign against the by-catch of
salmonids in eel nets. As a consequence, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
now requires all eel nets to contain exclusion devises to permit the escape of
trout and salmon.
Mr. Loughlin has also been vocal in his condemnation of the commercial caplin
fishery and has been a strong advocate of hook-and-release, a concept that was
foreign to many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians just a few years ago.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Mr.
Ches Loughlin on receiving this prestigious award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, Sunday, November 10, was a sad day in the
District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and especially in the town of St. Mary's
itself. We were informed that Mrs. Catherine Walsh, Mayor of St. Mary's, had
passed away at the tender age of fifty-one years after a long and courageous
battle with cancer. To all who had the privilege to know Catherine, would know
that she was a fighter through and through but this last battle was just too
much.
Mr. Speaker, Catherine Walsh was not only the Mayor of the Town of St. Mary's,
but also the President of the St. Mary's Bay Centre Development Association, a
member of the Irish Loop Regional Economic Development Board, and numerous other
community and regional organizations. She was a person who spoke her mind freely
and without hesitation on all issues concerning the people she so happily
represented. As a matter of fact, for the eight years that she served on the
Town Council of St. Mary's she never missed a meeting.
To say that Catherine Walsh was a volunteer does not seem to do justice to
her years of service to the St. Mary's Bay area. A true, 100 per cent
community-minded person who never asked for anything for herself, and would not
easily accept no for an answer when it came to the benefits for her community.
For her years of volunteer service Catherine was presented, on October 16,
with the Queen's Jubilee Medal for her contribution to her community, her
Province, and her country. Loyola Hearn, MP for St. John's West, and myself
were present with family and friends at that award ceremony. The look of pride
on Catherine's face that afternoon will always be a pleasant memory.
Mr. Speaker, Catherine Walsh is survived by her husband Larry, her daughter
Shirley, and a large circle of family and friends, including five sisters and
eight brothers. Catherine Walsh was a person who really did make a difference.
One of the privileges I have had is to have known and worked with her. I ask all
members of the House to join with me in expressing our condolences and sympathy
to the family and friends of Catherine Walsh. May she rest in peace.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to recognize an individual from my district
who has been recognized with the 2002 Alumni Award for Lifetime Achievement by
Memorial University.
Mr. Speaker, Eric Jerrett of Bay Roberts, who graduated with a Diploma in
Engineering in 1961, is now the only person in Canada licensed to work as an
engineer, an architect, a land surveyor and notary public. But, Mr. Jerrett is
also known for giving back to his community.
He is a charter director of the Bay Roberts Heritage Society, and played a
major role in the award-winning restoration of the Western Union Cable Building,
which now holds the only climate controlled museum and art gallery in this
Province.
He was named to the Order of Canada in 1998 and was Citizen of the Year in
Bay Roberts in 2001 and is a former winner of the Alumni Achievement Award from
the Technical University of Nova Scotia.
On behalf of all members in this House, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate
Mr. Eric Jerrett on receiving Memorial University's Alumni Award this year for
Lifetime Achievement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this hon. House today
to congratulate the Town of Marystown for being one of the ten community winners
of the Provincial Tidy Towns community project.
Mr. Speaker, the town won in the category of towns with a population between
5,000 and 7,499. The Tidy Towns Project involves the Newfoundland and Labrador
Parks and Recreation Association, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of
Municipalities, the Newfoundland and Labrador Branch of the Atlantic Planners
Association, the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institute, and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Landscape Architects.
The judges praised Marystown for being green, tidy and litter free and
mentioned the town is blessed with a natural forest and fine examples of
landscaping in both the commercial and private sectors.
Mr. Speaker, I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that the Town of
Burin, which won their Tidy Towns category last year, also did well at this year's
competition getting four blooms out of five.
Mr. Speaker, this Tidy Towns designation for these communities in my district
once again continues to prove to the people across our Province that the Burin
Peninsula is one of the most beautiful tidiest places in our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Child Day. November 20 is
designated National Child Day around the world and recognizes the ratification
of two landmark documents: the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the
Child in 1959 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in
1989. Adopted by 191 states worldwide, the Convention on the Rights of the Child
is the most ratified human rights document in history. It recognizes the special
rights of children under the age of eighteen and outlines the responsibilities
of government, families and caregivers. to safeguard children.
Mr. Speaker, National Child Day presents an opportunity for all of us to take
time from our busy personal and professional lives to acknowledge the tremendous
contribution children make. We must recognize a child's right to happiness,
freedom, love, understanding, dignity, equality, tolerance and peace. This year's
theme is A World Fit for Children which reminds all of us of our
responsibility to create a world for children where they can thrive and reach
their full potential.
In recent years, we as a government have made great strides to improve
services and programs for children, youth, their families, and communities.
Stepping into the Future, Newfoundland and Labrador's early childhood
development initiative, is an agreement between this Province and the Government
of Canada which will see a total of $36 million invested specifically for early
childhood initiatives. This program promotes healthy pregnancy, birth and
infancy, strengthens parent and family support, and promotes early childhood
learning and care.
Another partnership with the federal government is the National Child Benefit
Agreement which aims to prevent and reduce child poverty. It supports
initiatives such as family resource centres, child care programs, and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit program.
The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate officially opened this week - a
fitting tribute to National Child Day.
Our Strategic Social Plan also recognizes that helping children and families
early on has major long-term benefits. Prevention and early intervention is a
key theme, and many of our regional SSP steering committees actively support
initiatives that focus on our children, such as literacy and early learning
programs.
Mr. Speaker, we are making great progress with programs to enhance and enrich
the lives of our children, and we remain committed to developing initiatives
specifically targeted for the benefit of our children. In recognition of
National Child Day, a blue ribbon is being distributed to all hon. members, and
I ask them to wear it in celebration of our children.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the minister's comments on this
very important day, National Child Day. We, too, on this side of the House,
recognize that each and every child in our Province has a right to happiness, to
freedom, to love, to understanding, to dignity, to equality, to tolerance and to
peace. We, too, on this side, want to create communities where children can
thrive and reach their full potential.
However, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate of child poverty in
our Nation. More than 20,000 of our children go to school hungry each and every
day. In spite of the rosy picture painted by government about GDP growth, these
children are poor because their families are poor, and their families are poor
because they either have no jobs or they are the working poor.
Mr. Speaker, we must do more to tackle our social deficit and we must do more
to ensure that our children can grow and learn in a stimulating environment
where the main concern on their young minds is not the hunger pain in their
stomachs. In a Province where one child in four suffers the debilitating effects
of poverty, we must make better choices on spending our scarce tax dollars. Mr.
Speaker, we must do more to put our promise to our children into action plans.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, a comprehensive school
breakfast and school lunch program might be a fine place to start.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to recognize National Child Day, along with the minister and the
Member for Waterford Valley. In doing so, of course, I have to also point out
the very serious nature of child poverty not only in this Province but in this
country. Child poverty in this country has increased by 39 per cent since 1989
when the House of Commons passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty by the
year 2000. In this Province, we have nearly a quarter of our children living
below the poverty line. In fact, our own social assistance recipients, in a
family with two children, receive 57 per cent of what it would take to achieve
the poverty level in this Province. So we do not have, Mr. Speaker, the response
to child poverty that is needed in this Province and that is needed in this
country.
One of the things that has consistently been pressured in this House by me,
through petitions and otherwise, is the adoption of a universal comprehensive
school meal program. We have less than 15 per cent of the students in this
Province who have access to a school meal program. This is something that this
Province should commit to, to give the students -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - a half decent chance to learn, and break the cycle of
poverty.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government, municipalities and stakeholder organizations are very active in
moving forward with regional waste management approaches for the Province and
are continuing with the momentum.
Mr. Speaker, while waste management is primarily a municipal responsibility,
government is committed to work with municipalities to achieve effective and
efficient waste management practices, and is continuing to promote regional
approaches to service delivery. Waste management initiatives are underway
throughout the Province and are at various stages.
These include the Central Newfoundland Waste Management Committee, chaired by
Mr. Allan Scott of Gander, which is working on an approach for Central
Newfoundland, and the Western Regional Solid Waste Management Committee, chaired
by Mr. Cator Best of Kippens, which is the working group pursuing a plan for the
large western region.
The most advanced region is the Greater Avalon area. On November 13, the
Avalon Waste Management Community Consultative Committee submitted its report to
government. The committee has recommended Dog Hill as the site for a new, modern
waste management facility.
Government will take the appropriate time to study the report and its
recommendations, and then make decisions on how we will proceed. In the
meantime, I have already spoken with my colleague, the Minister of Government
Services and Lands, about registering the recommended site.
Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to report that the Minister of
Environment along with our other Cabinet colleagues agree that it is necessary
that a full environmental assessment process be completed before any
construction can take place on the site.
While the environmental assessment process is taking place, it is important
to keep the momentum going and ensure continuity as a permanent governance model
is implemented. I have therefore appointed the existing Avalon Waste Management
Community Consultative Committee as the interim Greater Avalon Waste Management
Authority.
I would like to extend special thanks to the former Independent Chair, Mr.
Lloyd Wicks, who served the committee well. Mr. Wicks has now accepted a new
position as the Child and Youth Advocate. I will be appointing and interim
Independent Chair within the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, government recognizes that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all
approach to waste management, and is committed to continue working in
partnership with municipalities and regional groups as they study and develop
the best practices for their region.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like, as well, to acknowledge the work of the Avalon Waste Management
Committee and the tireless hours that they put in. On the recommended Dog Hill
site, I am glad to see that the government is recommending a full environmental
assessment which will encompass social, economic, as well as environmental
considerations. I hope that the people living in the area affected will have a
full and fair opportunity to voice their concerns to the process.
On the waste management situation in the Province; this Province is some
eight or nine years behind what Nova Scotia has done in the delay. I hope that
we will not spend the next two or three years assessing and studying what needs
to be done in this Province. We should try to expedite the process of shutting
down the old tepee style incinerators, which are the worse emitters of dioxins
and furans in the country. We should look at other areas, such as paper
recycling, oil recycling and so on. These areas have to be addressed. These
areas in other provinces in Canada have already been put in place and we are
far, far behind what has been done in the rest of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are certainly glad to see that some progress is finally being made. I know
a lot of work has gone into these particular waste management proposals. The
minister says that the Province does not have the responsibility for waste
management, it is primarily the municipalities, but there is an overriding issue
that the Province has full concern about, and that is the environment. If we are
going to have a waste management system that is going to work, it has to
eliminate as much as possible any damage to the environment, to landfill sites
and otherwise.
We know that in Nova Scotia they reduced, by at least 50 per cent, the amount
of material going into landfills through a comprehensive program of recycling,
group and community composting, and other methods. There is a tremendous role
for the provincial government in education, in providing guidelines and
insisting that we become more proactive and more sensitive to the environment
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in any waste management proposals, and not
just look for another site to dump our waste materials.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, a number of
individuals have raised concern over the Lower Churchill agreement and, in
particular, the fact that there will not be any hydroelectricity available for
domestic use, neither in Labrador nor on the Island. We have heard these
concerns from the Member of Parliament for Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien. We have
heard concerns -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why hon. members opposite
would be laughing at the Member of Parliament for Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get on with his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is because the Premier said he had
no ability whatsoever on the Open Line this morning.
We have heard concerns from the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we have
also heard concerns from the Premier's own member from Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated that there will, in fact, be recall of
hydroelectricity. I would ask the Premier: Will that recall power be
specifically targeted for those current needs of Labrador; the 500 megawatts
requested for the Goose Bay area as requested by the mayor; the power for
Southern Labrador as requested by the MHA, and also for domestic and commercial
use in the rest of Labrador as requested by the Member of Parliament for
Labrador, Lawrence O'Brien?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
An interesting question. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition might like to be
reminded, like everyone else, that there has been, for the last thirty years,
since 1972, available for recall in Labrador, if it is needed, 130 megawatts of
energy a lot cheaper than what will be produced at Gull Island. The Gull Island
energy is going to be more expensive, Mr. Speaker, because it is being produced
thirty years later, and the costs have gone up.
So far, governments for thirty years, Liberal and Progressive Conservative,
have been trying to attract industrial and commercial developments to Labrador
to use the 130 megawatts that are now recalled and sold for a profit because
there is no demand, there is no use for it in Labrador. If there was, we would
gladly make it available so that we could attract enterprise to Labrador. Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there is no current day demand, or projected
demand, for 500 megawatts, or any other amount of energy, into Labrador. There
is no demand for the 130 that has been available for thirty years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has quit on the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. He is now specifically quitting on Labrador itself
and says there has not, and there will not be, any use for that power
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier had conducted some form of
public consultation on the issue instead of trying to sneak this deal through,
as he is doing, he would have known about these concerns.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So much for an open and transparent government.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated that there will, in fact, be recall
rights. Would the Premier please tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -
the mayors, the MHAs and the MP for Labrador - the details of such recall power?
What notice do we have to give for that recall power and what limitations, if
any, are on the amounts that we can recall over the entire life of the contract?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as I have indicated yesterday inside the Legislature and outside, we
are interested and committed to having a full and complete debate about every
single detail of a Gull Island project if we can find a way to do it in the best
interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition might like to confirm inside the
Legislature, as he has outside the Legislature, that the position he personally,
and his party holds, is that they would never, under any circumstances, ever
have a development on the Lower Churchill unless there is a reopening of the
Upper Churchill contract. That is in the public domain. Maybe he would like to
confirm it here, and I am sure the rest of the Opposition would say that is
their position as well, because, Mr. Speaker, what the people of the Province
would then understand is that this kind of question about recall is a
meaningless question. There will be nothing to recall, under any set of
circumstances. We will talk about the recall provisions that we will provide for
in the full context of a full deal when there is an opportunity for an informed
debate in Newfoundland and Labrador; not to continue on as the Leader of the
Opposition wants to do, to go with the fearmongering and the scare tactics of
trying to pick out -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - any particular point and say what his problems are
with, because his issue is: There will never be a development of Gull Island
until at least 2041. That is not the position of this government. That, Mr.
Speaker, is who is quick.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, the Premier is not going to tell us what the notice period is on the
recall and what amounts of power will be available at what times over the life
of the contract. That is a very, very important answer that needs to be given to
the people of Labrador.
I will also point out that yesterday the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General said, in response to my question, "Mr. Speaker, similar to the
Voisey's Bay debate that we had here, any questions that he has..." -
referring to me - "... are very legitimate questions and deserve to be
answered." It is too bad the Premier does not think the same as you do,
minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary and we have given some leeway to
members in supplementary with
preambles, but the hon. member ought to get to his
question quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing on the notice and we have nothing on the
amount of power.
Would the Premier please confirm that the agreement, which he and his
government are negotiating on the Lower Churchill, would in fact provide us with
recall power that is more expensive than the power we will sell to Quebec in the
first place?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, let me make this point for everyone in the Legislature and for the
people of the Province. We are hoping to have something to talk about some time
soon. The position of the Leader of the Opposition is the position of a real
party and person who has given up on any opportunity until 2041. That is the
real debate. That is the real issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: The Member for Lewisporte knows it because he has been
there as a former Premier and a member of a Cabinet before, and was involved in
trying to do a deal for the Lower Churchill when they got scared off by the same
kind of debate and the same kind of tactics that are here now, Mr. Speaker. We
are going to try to make sure that we can forge ahead with a beneficial deal for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, sooner rather than later, rather than take a
position, which is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, that nothing
will happen until after 2041.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: With respect to this deal, as I said yesterday -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - and with the last question, we will answer all the
questions, every single one of them, if we are successful in getting a deal to
talk about.
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: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no deal but the ad campaign has
been done already. You know where the priorities are in the Province.
So, we do not have an answer to that question. We assume that we have to pay
more to get our power back from Quebec than Quebec has to pay to buy the power
from us in the first place. Now, that is why ALCOA ceased negotiations in the
first place, because they just went across the border and bought it. An
experienced negotiator might surmise that perhaps ALCOA softened up our bellies
first and then came over and said take a deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. The hon. member is on a
supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Think about it minister. They softened us up and then you
came with the bait. A few days later you went for the Premier of Quebec.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary and I will ask him to get to his
question.
MR. WILLIAMS: There is one born every minute.
Mr. Speaker, since that is the case, can the Premier explain how we can ever
use our expensive power as an incentive for new businesses to come to
Newfoundland and Labrador to create jobs, and purchase goods and services from
our companies, when it is much cheaper, in fact, for them to buy their power in
Quebec, on the other side of the border? Can the Premier please explain the
logic in that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition using a fishing metaphor might want to fish all
he likes. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, we have too much respect
for what is about to happen in the Province now, too much respect and commitment
to the people and for the people, than to be dragged into a debate to try to
scare people, to try to raise all the old spectres, to try to raise -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Imagine, and I can see the look on the faces of the Opposition members today,
how proud they are to be over there rising to this and raising the old
prejudices about Quebec. Any time you deal with Quebec, that is bad. Quebec
people are bad. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about now. Raising
thirty years of that history just so that maybe a political purpose for the
Leader of the Opposition and a few of these might be served for a year or two.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about his
grandchildren and so on. What we have is this, we have a proposition where for a
couple of generations nobody's children or grandchildren need ask any
questions about what might happen or what benefits might flow from the Lower
Churchill, because his position is, that unless the Upper Churchill contract is
opened as a pre-condition, there will never be a development. I heard him say it
today loud and clear.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: He knows because his big hero, Brian Peckford, spoiled
all of it for all of us by putting on the mantle of the big fighter and saying:
I will go to court, I will use the Legislature. And he lost, Mr. Speaker, and he
hardened the position to the point that there will be - and the member for -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to take his place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and I quote the words of
the chairman of his task force on our place in Canada, that it would be a sad
day for this Province if there is no redress on the Upper Churchill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the truth is we won't be able to attract any
new business. The fears of Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey and the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair are well-founded.
Mr. Speaker, what about all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who consume
electrical energy in their homes? Why is electricity more than twice as
expensive in Goose Bay and Corner Brook than it is in Montreal?
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier explain to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador why there is nothing in this agreement to enable them to get the
benefit of the cheap electricity which they rightfully own and which is being
given away for a second time to the Province of Quebec?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad he raised the quotes again of the chairman of the Royal Commission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad the Leader of the Opposition raised, again, and used the words of
the chairman of the Royal Commission, who is trying to constructively do
something about it, not what is happening here with the Leader of the
Opposition. Because, guess what, Mr. Speaker? Every single one of us has already
experienced thirty years of sad days as a result of the Upper Churchill. That is
not a personal thing for the Leader of the Opposition or the Member for Kilbride
or the Member for Exploits. Every single one of us for thirty years has
experienced all these days of sad days.
The chairman is right, which is why they are looking at trying to find a way
to get some redress on the Upper Churchill. We will fight every single possible
avenue that we can, if somebody can show us how to do it constructively.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker - and here is the point - taking an approach
that you know will not give you the redress, by making it as a pre-condition, as
the Leader of the Opposition says, only does one other thing. It takes thirty
years of sad days and adds thirty-nine more years of sad days because we are
going to deny ourselves any potential benefit of the Lower Churchill along with
the grief that we have already suffered over the Upper Churchill. That is not
our position -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.
PREMIER GRIMES: We are going to try to do something about both things:
develop for the future and redress the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the
minister, Mr. Speaker, will she tell this House the exact amount of money that
was owed to this Province by Mr. Ches Keats of Total Marketing Communication,
and the amount of taxpayers' money that was forgiven by her department?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the law applies to everybody the same. Just
like I cannot stand up and say how much money the Member for Ferryland owes in
taxes or had to pay in taxes, the same law applies and the member opposite
knows. What I can say to the people of the Province is that we have treated the
individual to which you refer in the same manner as we have treated everybody
else with respect to outstanding taxes. Further I will say - because I think it
is most unfair to listen to some of the comments that are coming across about
unfairness, which I think are unfair to the individual that is being named, or
any individual, because that information is privileged, just like whatever
taxes, Mr. Speaker, you pay, or anybody listening pays, is privileged - I can
say and I am prepared to table in this House of Assembly the recommendation that
I received from my officials and what they recommended should be done, and I can
unequivocally say, Mr. Speaker, that I have followed to the letter what they
have recommended in this case as in the others.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked the minister how much taxpayers' money is forgiven. We have a right
to know the tax breaks in this Province. I recently dealt with several fishermen
who owed money to this government through the Fisheries Loan Board. One had his
assets frozen at the bank - one from my district - and was forced to pay all the
principle and all interest. This man could not fish for several years due to a
moratorium and he is forced to survive this winter on EI, and he had hundreds of
dollars in medical bills to pay for him and his wife.
I spoke to several fishermen and I could give several examples. Does this
minister consider it fair to force fishermen to pay 100 per cent of principle
and interest - and thousand of dollars, I might add, in interest - while it lets
a friend and a former Liberal executive member practically walk away scot- free
from hundreds of thousands of dollars while, at the same time, it is receiving
almost $1 million in advertising contracts from this government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I hope the people of the Province hear how
desperate the people opposite are to try to bring into disrepute a person's
name and reputation by making comments for which you do not know what you are
talking about and I think are most unfair.
I will say again in this House, and to the people of the Province, that I
have followed to the letter of the law the recommendations that were put forward
for this individual as with the hundreds I deal with in the run of a year. I
will further say, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is trying to make again
generalizations that we have gone to people from the Fisheries Loan Board,
dragged them down and have forced them to pay money they did not have.
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the question.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, I would
love to answer the question if you would give me the opportunity, because it is
important.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am only too happy to
answer this question. Every single individual is dealt with on an individual
basis when it comes to the amount of money that they owe, the assets they owe.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apology to the members opposite or to the people in the
Province when I go and say to my officials: Yes, do the assessment.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
If they owe the people of the Province money, they have the ability to repay
it. It is only right, fitting and just that they do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was in the homes of people who counted out pills on the table and said
their bank account is frozen, I say to the minister. People are dealt with
individually but not the same way, I say to the minister. I know specific
examples of several cases where I visited and sat in the kitchens of people in
my district in the last two months.
I want to ask this minister: Will this minister confirm that this very same
person who did not pay his taxes to this Province is now on a short list of
companies to receive another long-term contract from this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to his
preamble,
which I know I have an opportunity to respond to, if he knows of cases that he
appears to be as concerned about as he is here in this House, I would appreciate
an opportunity of hearing in advance and dealing with it -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - because this is more about politics from the other
side than actual concern. If that member, who is currently shouting at me, would
listen, I will say to him and the people opposite, if he has the concerns that
he has raised about people having to count out pills because they owed the
government hundreds of thousands of dollars and they cannot afford to pay it, I
ask him, I urge him, to come forward on behalf of his constituents and make his
case, and each case will be dealt with on an individual basis without any doubt,
Mr. Speaker. I would only be too happy to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest child poverty rate in Canada. More
than 20,000 children go to school hungry every day. Community groups are making
valiant and commendable efforts to support the School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs. While we have the highest child poverty rate in the nation, this
government forgives debts owed by its friends and spends more than $200,000 of
taxpayers' money trying to improve the Premier's public image.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to -
MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: How can you, as the minister
responsible to care for those young children who suffer the debilitating effects
of child poverty, condone the spending of all this public money on an ad
campaign designed to improve the Premier's image and that of the Liberal
Party?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We, on this side of the House, and especially this minister, would say that
one child in poverty is one child too many.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, when you talk about whether it is one in
four in Canada or whether it is one in five in Newfoundland, it is always one
too many. We are certainly working as diligently as we can to support children
wherever we can here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, if you talk about and look at what we do for single mothers to
help them with their poverty, in fact for single mothers in this Province there
has been the highest support in the country - among the highest. We are one of a
few provinces that does not deduct the National Child Benefit and include it
into our income support payments.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: When he talks about poverty, Mr. Speaker, we are not
alone here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are certainly going
to work as hard as we can to improve the lot for our children here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford
Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last March, the Minister of Finance stated in the Budget Speech that
governing is all about making choices, establishing priorities and adopting an
action plan. Twenty-five thousand dollars a week could provide a lunch or
breakfast to many of the poorest children in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. H. HODDER: Obviously, hungry children do not rank in the same
priority as the Premier's ad campaign.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. H. HODDER: Which choice will it be, Mr. Minister? Feeding hungry
children or supporting the Premier's inappropriate, ludicrous, absurd,
outrageous and extravagant use of public money?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is important to note that what the hon. member is talking about are
statistics back in 1999. I want to tell him that this is really 2002.
When you talk about choices, Mr. Speaker, we have made choices over the last
couple of years. We have made choices with the Newfoundland and Labrador Child
Benefit, with some $10 million Child Benefit provincial reinvestment program.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have made a $36 million investment
over five years for early childhood development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about drug card benefits.
We are talking about medical transportation that we provide; payments of
municipal taxes; vision care; basic dental care.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that the drug benefits, the
medical care transportation, the payments of taxes, the vision care and the
basic dental care, was not included in the conclusion of the report that he is
talking about.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: One more point, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: These are the same people who are paying out -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier.
Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian knows that the sixty-five year contract
with Hydro Quebec over the Upper Churchill has cost this Province a fortune and
will continue to do so for some time into the future. It has been reported that
the proposed Lower Churchill agreement will go on for forty-five years after it
is built.
I want to know: Why is this Premier prepared to commit all of the output of
the Lower Churchill Falls to one buyer for the next half century? Why is he
willing to close off all of our other options? Why is he prepared to limit our
future in this way for the next half century?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question. There are two things I might say by way of
response. One is this, there have been, as I said before, some thirty years of
sad days for all of us with respect to the Upper Churchill so far, and we are
trying to improve the circumstance. We are not trying to restrict ourselves for
the future. We are trying to find a way to have some improved and increased
benefits and industrial development and actual royalty and revenue flows to
Newfoundland and Labrador rather than find some way to put some preconditions on
the development of the Lower Churchill so that it never gets developed like it
has not.
I was at a meeting last night, Mr. Speaker, where I met a person who worked
on the project in 1975 at Gull Island. He worked on putting the road from Goose
Bay to the Lower Churchill, under a Tory government, cleared the land for the
campsite. In 1975 -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - money spent by the Conservatives at that point in time
because they were trying to make the people of the Province believe that they
were going to do the Lower Churchill -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to now conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and now we have the Leader of the Opposition saying we
will never do it unless somebody reopens the Upper Churchill contract. We are
not limiting ourselves, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - we are trying to improve the lot of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, starting now. It is not a limitation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: We are trying to accomplish opportunities. We are trying
to accomplish opportunities for growth and development and expansion and
industrial development in commercial uses if we can. It is not a limitation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the last three days I have timed responses and try to get a sense in
terms of Question Period. Question Period on one hand, in terms of putting
questions, are for questions to be as brief as possible, seeking information.
Mr. Speaker, you have correctly, at times, kept us within those boundaries.
Eight-five percent of Question Period eaten up today was eaten up by responses
by the ministers themselves. I want to take the time to remind ministers, and
for you to rule on this, that replies to oral questions - on page 431 -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: We do not want you wasting our time or anyone else's
time, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: And we are not going to let you waste our time in this
Chamber or any other Chamber, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to remind members, and I would appreciate you
making a ruling to the point of order, that in Beauchesne 417 it
clearly says, "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal
with the matter raised and should not provoke debate."
In Marleau, on page 431, it says, "According to practice, replies are to
be as brief as possible, to deal with the subject matter raised and to be
phrased in language that does not provoke disorder in the House." He goes
on to say, "As Speaker Jerome summarized in his 1975 statement on Question
Period, several types of responses may be appropriate. Ministers may answer the
question; defer their answer; take the question as notice; make a short
explanation as to why they cannot furnish an answer at that time; say
nothing."
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that in the last
three days the vast majority of Question Period, an inordinate amount of time,
has been wasted by ministers in answering their questions. In my view, an
attempt to defray any other questions. I ask, Mr. Speaker, when you are
deliberating on the matter raised earlier that you also deliberate on this, to
ensure that the questions that are asked and the answers that are given live
within the parliamentary rules of this Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, to the point of order that the hon. member has raised, a fair portion
of Question Period was taken up by interruptions from members. The Chair tries
to enforce these rules so that if there are questions about the procedure, then
there should be consideration given by all members in terms of the
preambles to
questions. If there is a
preamble, then a minister will take time to try and
respond to that
preamble. That is why the Chair has tried to restrict the
preambles to try and get members to get to their question as quickly as possible
and to try and enforce the rules where ministers who respond to the question
will get to their answers very quickly, but when there are interruptions
continuously, then that is what eats up the time.
I ask hon. members for their cooperation in preparing questions for Question
Period. Our own Standing Orders indicate that one question which may permit a
preamble is the initial question, and the follow-up questions ought to be based
on the minister's answer and ought not to require any
preamble. Answers to the
questions ought to be brief. I ask hon. members for their cooperation in dealing
with Question Period because when there are interruptions like this, then it
takes up a lot of time and the number of questions that are asked are reduced,
and the answers are likewise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was not aware of the time - it is 3:00, it is
Wednesday - but there was a point of order so we had to deal with it. We will
now get into the private members' resolution.
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by saying if you wanted to go
for another half hour I would certainly have said yes to you, in anticipation
that I may be recognized in days to come.
Mr. Speaker, I place this private member's motion on the Order Paper today
for debate in the House of Assembly because I believe it is an important issue
facing not only Newfoundlanders, but facing Canadians. We live on a planet that
we are slowly seeing fall into deterioration. Although we live in a Province
that has a small amount of people and a vast landscape, we, too, have to find a
way to accept our responsibilities when it comes to meeting the needs of this
Province and the planet when it comes to the Kyoto Accord.
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto Accord has received much debate over the last little
while. I believe today that through a debate here in the House of Assembly,
which I am sure we will find participants from both sides of the House, that it
will give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a greater understanding of what Kyoto
is about, but also how it can impact on this Province. Kyoto is fine for me.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read again the motion that is
being presented here today:
WHEREAS the government of this Province is already cooperating with other
jurisdictions to develop and implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emission; and
WHEREAS a fully developed and analyzed plan has not yet been developed by the
federal government for the Kyoto Protocol if it is ratified by the Parliament of
Canada; and
WHEREAS this Province is just entering a period of development of a new oil
industry which could be negatively impacted by an ill conceived plan;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports government's
efforts to ensure a Made in Canada solution, that balances the need for
addressing climate change with economic development, while complying with the
Statement of Principles developed by the Provincial and Territorial Ministers of
Energy and Environment at their recent meeting.
Mr. Speaker, the problems that we face today, in terms of trying to deal with
the greenhouse gas emissions, is a road that began not just in December 1 to
December 11 in 1997 when some 160 nations came together in Japan, in the City of
Kyoto, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gases for developed
nations, but it began in actual fact at a conference that was held in 1992 which
laid out the framework for the convention that followed some five years later.
At the outcome of this meeting in Kyoto, was the Kyoto Protocol in which
developed nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions relative to the
limits emitted in 1990.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this Province, and indeed other jurisdictions across
Canada, has a problem with the fact that we need to address greenhouse gas
emissions. No one across this country feels that we should simply stay where we
are in terms of what we are doing. Canadians have overwhelming said that they
believe we should proceed with this Accord, we should proceed with ratification.
I believe that many Canadians are only getting the tip of the iceberg. Those
of us in Newfoundland know that the tip of the iceberg is the smallest part of
the iceberg. What is it that lies beneath the water? What is it that lies there
lurking that could cause problems for all of us, not just in this Province but
across Canada?
When you look at the Kyoto Accord, you begin to realize immediately that it
is the developed nations who have agreed to find solutions. I think all of us
would understand that Third World countries that are trying to pull themselves
up in any meager way that they can, to impose upon them restrictions would cause
them and the people of those countries hardships probably beyond what we could
imagine. It is not the problem that they will have time to find solutions in an
onward and ongoing matter.
The problem for Canada and Canadians is the fact that we will be tied to the
limits that existed prior to 1990. Many advancements have taken place since
then. Many corporations have found, through new technology, ways to meet, and
exceed in many cases, the emissions coming from their plants.
Going back to prior to 1990 also does not take into account the growth that
has taken place in our country. It does not take into account the new factories,
the new jobs, the new developments that have transpired.
Mr. Speaker, in recognizing that we are trying to reach out, agree to and
meet with our counterparts across Canada, I refer to a joint press release made
by Premier Gordon Campbell and our own Premier on November 19. It began with
this paragraph: Every province and territory in Canada, from British Columbia to
Newfoundland and Labrador, is committed to addressing the challenge of climate
change, and no country in the world is better positioned to develop the
solutions needed to reduce greenhouse gases and greenhouse gas emissions than
ours. We have the talent, the resources, the innovation, and we also have the
resolve to succeed. That is why Canada's premiers have unanimously called on
the federal government to work with the provinces and territories in developing
a truly Canadian plan for tackling climate change; one that is both fair and
affordable, respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and recognizes
the leadership shown by our industries, those industries and the leadership that
has already been taken, and maintains our economic competitiveness - and that is
probably a key element in their statement.
What is it exactly that the premiers, territorial governments and leaders
across Canada are looking for? There are twelve key principles - and I will
touch on those during my comments as I will have a chance, of course, at the end
of the day, to further discuss Kyoto in other detail as well - but, what are
those principles? I think it would be useful for the people of this Province to
understand what it is that the premiers and the leaders of the provincial
governments and territorial governments see as the areas of concern for them.
First off, they ask for the following, the twelve principles: They believe
that all Canadians must have an opportunity for full and informed input in the
development of the plan. They believe the plan must ensure that no region or
jurisdiction shall be asked to bear an unreasonable share of the burden and no
industry, sector, or region shall be treated unfairly. They also ask that the
cost and impacts on individuals, business and industries must be clear,
reasonable, achievable and economically sustainable. They believe, also, that
the plan must respect territorial and provincial jurisdiction and not simply be
a unilateral proposal. The provincial and territorial leaders believe also that
the plan must have and include recognition for real emission reductions that
have been achieved since 1990 or will be achieved in the years to come. The plan
also must provide for bilateral and multi-cultural agreements between the
territories and the provinces and the federal government. The plan must ensure
that no territory or province bears the financial risk of the federal climate
change commitments. That becomes one of the key and important issues: that the
plan must ensure that no territory or province bears the financial risk of
federal climate change commitments.
The plan also must recognize that benefits from assets such as forest and
agriculture must accrue to the province or territory which owns these assets,
and not to the country as a whole but in particular to the provinces and
territories that have the asset. The plan must support innovation and new
technology. It cannot simply be unilaterally imposed upon the provinces. The
federal government has to bear in mind that the cost of this innovation has to
be supported by them; and, to date, there is no plan that says how they will
proceed.
The plan must maintain the economic competitiveness of Canadian businesses
and industry; a key issue when we look at the Kyoto plan. The key issue is there
simply because the United States of America are not signatories to this
agreement. The United States has decided that they intend to find, within their
boundaries of their own country, a plan for themselves. If we were, in actual
fact, to look at the major problems that we have in Canada with respect to
emissions - and scientifically I do not know the answer - we may find that the
percentages that we have to deal with within our own country are probably equal
to or exceeded by those on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, following
the winds and following the normal climate and carrying over into our country.
We may find the same thing as you move to the west coast, coming from California
and along the boundaries between Canada and the United States. You may find, and
I believe you will find, that many of the emissions, because of prevailing
winds, are carried from the United States into this country. Yet, the United
States have agreed to opt out of this agreement.
The premiers and territorial leaders also believe that Canada must continue
to demand recognition of clean energy exports. The plan must include incentives
for all citizens, and by that they are not simply referring to the industries,
the corporations. They are looking at trying to meet the needs of all
individuals, and if there is any province in Canada where we tend to use our
nature resources beyond other provinces, it is here in Newfoundland and Labrador
where many homes during the winter, as we all know, are still being heated with
wood, in some places coal, but to a very small limited degree, but certainly
coming from our forest. Therefore, we have to find ways to make sure that
individuals who may find themselves hurting have to be met. We have to look at
it in terms of meeting the needs of the communities across Canada and indeed
here in our Province.
Lastly, the provinces and territorial leaders believe that the implementation
of any climate change plan must include an initiative and allocation system that
supports lower carbon emission sources of energy, such as hydroelectric,
wind-power generation, ethanol from the Prairie Provinces in particular, and
renewable and other clean sources of energy.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and
as a part of this country of Canada we are willing and prepared to accept our
responsibilities for the creation of the greenhouse gas emissions. We know full
well that the atmosphere, based on scientific research, has said that the
atmosphere cannot sustain the emissions that we are seeing. The global warming
that is taking place is slowly causing climate changes throughout all of North
America and indeed around the world. It is attributed for what could potentially
be yet another dust bowl in the Prairie Provinces. There are some who believe
that the temperature changes in the waters around Newfoundland and Labrador. In
actual fact, the higher temperatures may be one of the reasons - not the reason,
but one of the reasons - for what we are seeing happening in our oceans.
Mr. Speaker, the challenge being set forth by the premiers and leaders of our
provinces and territorial governments is a very simply one. They are simply
asking and reaching out to the federal government in saying: The rush ahead to
see this Kyoto proposal enshrined in law and legislation by the end of this year
is a challenge that cannot be met by the provinces and territories of this
country; that is cannot be met in what will be a sustainable or indeed a fair
and balanced approach in the provinces.
To simply sign on to an accord and expect and ask and believe that the
provinces and territories of this country are going to simply stand back and
say, "Sign on the dotted line, fill in the information afterwards." is
too much to ask of the provinces and territories. It is too much to ask of the
people of Canada, that simply because a commitment was made by the federal
government that the rest of us simply must follow behind like sheep. It is not
and should not be asked of us. It should not be imposed upon the people of
Canada. It should not be asked of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, where
in actual fact the emissions that are generated in this Province are probably -
except for maybe Prince Edward Island - the lowest in all of Canada because of
the various uses that we have from hydroelectric, but indeed probably simply
because of our population size.
To simply lay out a plan and a scheme in order to meet a commitment made in
Japan that will impose potential hardships on all of us in this country is more
than the federal government has the right to ask. It is our ability, Mr.
Speaker, that indeed what we have to do is to find a balance that allows Canada
not only to say yes to the accord, but find a Made in Canada solution that will
benefit the people of this country and indeed the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to say a few words today with respect to this private
member's resolution that has been presented by the member opposite. I say to
the member opposite that it is an appropriate resolution. It is one that is
certainly timely and one that is certainly worthy of commentary by members on
both sides of this House. Of course, as we all know, this topic has been most
newsworthy over the last number of weeks. It has sparked some controversy, some
agreement among some circles, but largely disagreement amongst provincial
The actual resolution clause states, " THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that
this House of Assembly support Government's efforts to ensure a Made in Canada
solution, that balances..." - and that word is critical, I say, Mr.
Speaker, balances - "...the need for addressing climate change with
economic development, while complying with the Statement of Principles developed
by the Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Energy and Environment at their
recent meeting."
What this particular resolution attempts to do, I guess, in some ways, is to
strike a balance: a balance between the sensitivities to our environment and how
we live in our Province and within our country, and indeed throughout the whole
world, but at the same time recognizing the economic and industrial needs of a
variety of societies.
The word balance, as is found in the resolution - and I repeat that is
critical and important in terms of the overall context and meaning of this
private member's resolution - from that point of view this resolution is not
unreasonable, I say, Mr. Speaker, and is certainly worthy in a general sense of
some support and obviously some discussion. The resolution clause makes
reference to the Statement of Principles developed by both the provincial and
territorial ministers of both energy and environment. This Statement of
Principles - I was able to get a copy from my colleague opposite yesterday - it
is interesting to note that these principles clearly outline in some detail,
obviously, what these parties had agreed to during their meeting of several
weeks ago. This is a meeting of both provincial and territorial ministers across
the country.
Some of these principles indicate as follows: "the need to ensure that
Canadians are provided an opportunity for informed consent; recognition that the
costs of Canada's response to climate change are to be shared in an equitable
manner at a Provincial and Territorial level; appropriate incentives are
established for both citizens and the business community to prompt a shift to an
economy based on renewable and other clean energy sources..." - I think
that particular principle obviously is one of great interest certainly from a
public policy point of view when we consider the major public policy debate
today in our own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - "...recognition of
provincial and territorial jurisdictional authority; and credit for clean energy
exports."
These principles, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, are most reasonable and, in the
context of balance, that appears to be what is being sought by the various
governments throughout the country as represented by Ministries of Environment
and Energy throughout the country. This attempt to strike a balance is perhaps
reflected in the very principles that have been enunciated at that particular
meeting of several weeks ago amongst the ministers of these ministries
throughout the country.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it is interesting just
very briefly to discuss a little bit about the Kyoto Protocol. We hear about it
every day in the news but many of us - and I am sure I speak for perhaps many of
us in this Chamber - perhaps do not have the detailed knowledge and information
of what the Kyoto Protocol is all about. I took it upon myself, Mr. Speaker, to
actually look at the Kyoto Protocol. It is about an eighteen-page document which
can be found, of course, on the Internet. It is an eighteen-page document that
clearly states out what are the main objectives of the Protocol. I would just
like to share these objectives with members present.
There is growing concern about the impact that increased emissions of certain
gases known as greenhouse gases are having on the global climate, and because of
this the Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol, has been established to limit emissions
of greenhouse gases. The objectives continue to state, Mr. Speaker, that under
the Kyoto Protocol industrialized countries including Canada, obviously, and
those in transition to a market economy have agreed to limit or reduce their
emissions of these greenhouse gases.
Again, the objectives continue to state that the Protocol sets qualified
emission limitations and reduction obligations with respect to six gases. Of
these are included: carbon dioxide, which derives from the burning of fossil
fuels such as coal, oil and gas - is the most important - and they mention
methane and nitrous oxide emissions as also substantial contributors to the
problem that we face from an environmental point of view.
Clearly these are the objectives of the Protocol. This particular
summary at
the end of the actual true text of the Protocol identifies and describes the
greenhouse gases but then it indicates what the emission targets are; in other
words, what is hopefully going to be achieved and what are the targets, what are
the deadlines. It is a very brief statement and I would like to read it, Mr.
Speaker.
"The Annex I Countries'..." - basically, the industrialized
countries of the world, "...are those that have taken on emission reduction
or limitation targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The targets define the amount of
greenhouse gases that the countries are allowed to emit in the commitment
period' of 2008 and 2012, relative to the amount emitted in 1990. These
targets represent either a cut in emissions or a lower rate of increase in
emissions."
The
summary also talks about the three mechanisms, or the three ways in which
this is arrived at. In other words, how is this particular objective, or how are
these objectives, being arrived at? What are the options that these
industrialized countries have? There are three. The first one: Joint
Implementation, which means emission reductions which arise from project
investments in other countries with their own Kyoto emission targets. In other
words, other Annex I Countries. Secondly, a Clean Development Mechanism:
emission reductions arising from project investments in developing countries
which don't have their own Kyoto emission targets. Thirdly, which gets a lot
of discussion certainly in this country, International Emission Trading, which
represents the portions of Annex I Countries emission allowances being bought
and sold on an international carbon trading market.
This particular document, it is obviously helpful and informative to review
it, but clearly by having some understanding of the aims and objectives of the
Protocol gives all of us an ability, I guess, to further understand and further
debate, with some intelligence, exactly what the principles and what the
rationale of today's private member's resolution is all about.
Mr. Speaker, there has been significant debate, certainly, even in our own
jurisdiction. It is interesting to note that the St. John's Board of Trade has
come out rather strongly on this issue. It has asked questions, for example: How
will the Protocol affect jobs as well as taxes and the economy? It goes on to
ask: Does the government intend to inform and consult with Canadians more on the
Kyoto Protocol? A similar thrust to the actual private member's resolution
that we are debating this afternoon. Another question that the Board of Trade
asks is: Why is Canada signing a deal that our largest trading partner, the
U.S., is refusing to ratify?
On the opposite side of the coin, for example, Mr. Speaker, we get
information and we hear from the David Suzuki Foundation, who equally raise
valid points and make valid judgements with respect to what the Protocol is all
about, what it means to Canada and what it means to each and every Canadian.
An interesting comment in the Suzuki Foundation report, in their having
conducted a very significant study, one of their conclusions stated: a long-term
strategy will deliver the best results.
They cite, as an example, that we will achieve major emission reductions by
phasing out coal-fired plants, but to make this possible we need to open up
interprovincial hydro sales and develop local cogeneration sources.
Clearly, the David Suzuki Foundation has identified, in their conclusions, an
area again which reflects very much the very debate that is taking place in our
Province today with respect, obviously, to the Lower Churchill project.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and having discussed this in some detail
amongst our caucus, it was felt only appropriate that, perhaps, in addition to
accepting and respecting what is found today in the Private Member's
Resolution, that we would attempt to strengthen this resolution, and that can be
done by the submitting and proposing of an amendment.
I have before me an amendment which I will certainly distribute to the Table
Officers now in a moment for their approval and for the Speaker's approval.
The reason why, Mr. Speaker, this particular amendment is important is for
the following reasons: It does not delete any of the wording of the existing
Private Member's Resolution; it does not amend any of the existing wording of
the Private Member's Resolution before it; and in our view it strengthens that
resolution. What it does, Mr. Speaker, it reinforces what is being found,
particularly in recital 1, because in recital 1 it states, "WHEREAS the
Government of this Province is already cooperating with other jurisdictions to
develop and implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". That is
recital 1, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, it sets the tone of this particular resolution,
and we feel it would be important to the citizens of this Province and, indeed,
the citizens of our entire country, to reinforce what government is attempting
to do in this Private Member's Resolution, by making an amendment, by simply
adding a second resolution, as it were.
I will read it for the benefit of members present: To move that the Private
Member's Resolution now before the House be amended by adding immediately
following the resolution clause, the following additional resolution clause: AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the measures taken by the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the replacement by the
year 2012 of all oil-fired thermal and diesel generated electricity in Labrador
and on the Island of Newfoundland with clean hydroelectricity generated at Gull
Island on the Churchill River in Labrador.
This particular amendment is seconded by my colleague, the Member for St.
John's South, Mr. Speaker.
So, if I may give a copy of that to the Clerk of the House.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we look forward to the continued debate on this
very important topic, this very timely topic. Presumably the Speaker will rule,
very briefly, as to whether or not that particular amendment is in order. I look
forward, and members on this side of the House look forward, to the continuation
of this debate. Again, I congratulate the member opposite for introducing this
very important topic. Again, it is timely and it is consistent with the overall
public policy debate that is taking place in our Province today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Before continuing debate on the resolution, the
Chair would like to take a few moments to take a look at the amendment that is
being proposed. For that purpose, the House stands in recess for two to three
minutes.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has reviewed the amendment as proposed by the Member for St. John's
East and just for clarity, I shall read the amendment. The amendment is to the
private's member motion and it reads:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the measures taken by the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the
replacement by 2012 of all oil-fired thermal and diesel generated electricity in
Labrador and on the Island of Newfoundland with clean hydroelectricity generated
at Gull Island on the Churchill River in Labrador.
After careful consideration of the proposed amendment the Chair would draw to
the attention of members, Beauchesne 616, page 186, "Motions
purporting to give the Government a direct order to do a thing which requires
the expenditure of money are out of order." It would seem to the Chair that
the construction of a hydro transmission line from Gull Island, on the Churchill
River in Labrador, to all-diesel generating facilities on the Island would
constitute an expenditure. Therefore, the motion and the amendment is deemed to
be out of order.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to have a few words on -
MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) just on the matter that we talked about, if the
hon. member wouldn't mind. (Inaudible) to give the remaining members - there
are some members who indicated they wanted to speak. We are asking if we could
agree to shorten the time so the hon. members who agreed - I think there were
probably two others on the Opposition side, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi, and there was one or two others on this side. So, if we could shorten the
time we could all get the time in by 5:00 p.m.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. LUSH: Fine? Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whatever time frame that is divvied up for speakers, whether it is five
minutes or seven minutes, I would just like to have an idea in the next little
while, if someone can just let me know. I want to give both sides certainly a
fair opportunity to be able to speak.
I am just wondering too - I am not sure whether we should ask for a further
ruling on another matter. We accept the ruling on that matter. I am just
wondering about the ruling on the initial one. If we are going "...to
ensure a Made in Canada solution, that balances the need for addressing climate
change with economic development..." is not going to imply cost too, that
could tie this government to this cost. I am wondering if the Speaker could make
a ruling on that aspect of this resolution, whether that is in order, because
the resolution itself implies certain costs to this government of the Province.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if we could have a ruling on that part, also.
The resolution itself, I repeat, indicates that we "...supports
Government's efforts to ensure a Made in Canada solution, that balances the
need for addressing climate change with economic development...". Would
this involve costs by the government, too, economic development to balance that
need? Wouldn't this also be out of order? Because we could be putting a cost
on this government. There is a price associated with accepting the Kyoto.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to have a ruling on that, first of all, Mr.
Speaker, before I continue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Once again, for clarity, could you tell me exactly what your amendment is?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I did not submit an amendment, but your ruling
- and we accept your ruling on the amendment. You said because it would incur a
cost on this government, and we cannot do that. I am saying that the resolution
itself, that was put forth by this government, implies, and does involve a cost
on this government, too. I would like a ruling on that, whether this resolution
today is in order on the same basis that the resolution was ruled out of order
on us in the first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It would seem to me, without consulting the Table, that the proposition put
forward by the government is being put forward by the government -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The proposition is being put forward by the government and if there are
measures in the motion which is committing the government to the expenditure of
funds, it is the government, itself, who is committing itself to the those
expenditures, if that is in the motion.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is our understanding that today is Private Members' Day. It is not
government's day, and that the actual person who put the motion forward is a
private member, not a Minister of the Crown, not a Premier who represents
government policy. So, I guess, the question that the Member for Ferryland has
asked is a correct one in terms of looking for a ruling from the Chair where the
amendment was ruled out of order, based upon it would direct government for a
cost. If that is the case, then by extension and the logic used on another
private member whose resolution would have the same implications, cost-wise,
then that should also be ruled out of order. I believe that is what the Member
for Ferryland is asking. We, certainly, look forward to a ruling on the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, we are asking for a ruling.
We look forward to your ruling on that matter as put forward by the Member
for Ferryland.
MR. SPEAKER: Point well taken. If we could deliberate on that and give
you a ruling, or would yo like to proceed with your discussion now?
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot proceed on a resolution that the Chair has not ruled as being in
order. We would need to know if it is in order. We would like the Chair to
deliberate and come back to us. If my request on this resolution is in order,
then we could proceed from there.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am by no means an expert on Beauchesne
or all the other ones that may be quoted here today, but my understanding,
having been in this House of Assembly for some fourteen years, is that this
motion was put forward on Monday. The Order Paper, thus, was printed, with no
question from the Opposition as to whether it was in order or not. This being
Wednesday, Private Members' Day, the moment that the Chair recognized me, as
the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, to present the motion
means that hon. members on the opposite side accepted the Orders of the Day and
the resolution put forward.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: I would accept the Member for Conception Bay East &
Bell Island's, I guess, point and argument, but the fact of the matter is that
on yesterday's Order Paper your resolution was not printed -
MR. SULLIVAN: And it was not there on Monday.
MR. E. BYRNE: And it was not there on Monday; it was there today. The
only time that we can ask for a ruling and the most appropriate time to ask for
a ruling, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, is in
terms of today. The fact of the matter is, that we proposed what we thought was
a friendly amendment. On the basis of the logic used by the Chair, it was ruled
out of order because it purports to ask the government - "Motions
purporting to give the Government a direct order to do a thing which requires
the expenditure money are out of order". So based upon that decision, the
Member for Ferryland, quite correctly in our view, asked the Chair to give
consideration and make a ruling on your own motion, which asks the government,
in our view, to do exactly the same thing. That is all we are asking for is a
ruling, so we may proceed or not, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
After consulting with the Table, the Chair advises that the resolution as
presented does not, in fact, commit government to the expenditure of any funds.
It simply purports to ask the government, in its discussions with the Government
of Canada, to ensure that there is Made in Canada solution that balances the
need for a climate change in economic development. It does not call for
government to expend any specific funds.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, any resolutions that do not pass do not commit.
Only if a resolution passes is it going to commit a certain amount.
I want to speak for a few minutes about Kyoto -
MR. LUSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Government House Leader, to a point of order..
MR. LUSH: I just wanted to again get back to the agreement that we made.
I have worked it out. For the speakers left it would be eight minutes. Now, we
would have to go beyond if we want the other speakers to speak the time, because
we have taken the time up; eight minutes. I am just telling the hon. member
that. We could make it five minutes each?
AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.
MR. LUSH: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, I get an opportunity to say a few words about this particular
resolution that is here today. We support, I might add, a reduction in
greenhouse gases, of carbon dioxide in the environment and methane. We have to
reduce it by 5.8 per cent, I think, in this country by 2012, basically, based on
the amount of pollution that was there in 1997. We understand that equates now
to a 22 per cent reduction based on what is estimated to be the 2004 levels. So
we have a significant job to do to nip it in the bud and to stop the increasing
costs.
How can we do that? There are avenues to do that, Mr. Speaker. One avenue is
to use clean electricity here in our Province, to use the power from the Upper
Churchill and the Lower Churchill to replace fuel-fired generation here in our
Province and diesel fuel generation along the coast of Labrador and in other
more isolated parts of our Province. We can do that by properly securing our
future.
MS JONES: Have you been up there?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have. The member is asking questions to interfere
with the five minutes I have, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair. Yes, I have been there in your district. I have been in many communities
there, I might add. Have you been in any communities in my district, I might
add?
We have to look at ways to do that. There is no better form of electricity
than hydroelectric power. We have the plum of North America in terms of untapped
electricity at Gull Island on the Lower Churchill. This is an opportunity for us
to do it right, to ensure that the people of Labrador will have sufficient
resources of hydroelectric power set aside for future industry, that this Island
will have sufficient power, not to utilize in other North American markets.
Shouldn't we look after ourselves first, Mr. Speaker? We should look after
ourselves in ensuring we have the power that is available.
I had an opportunity last year to be hosted in Germany and we had a look at -
the Member for St. John's South and a couple of members on the opposite side
of the House- wind power and the generation there. In fact, they are putting
windmills out in the North Sea. The technology has so advanced, they can go into
the North Sea, replacing a significant part of these pollutant forms of
emissions now that are going into the environment, to give us a cleaner
environment because we all hope to live there in a degree of comfort. As the
population of the world increases, it is very important, very, very important.
I think we have to look at new technologies. There can be new technologies
that could release less carbon dioxide, ones that can reuse the carbon dioxide,
whether it is utilized and pumped back to get higher efficiency in oil
production. There are numerous types of technologies that are available and
advanced. We have to explore these. There is a cost associated with some of
these but we have to look at what is reasonable in terms of the economics. We
have to look at what is reasonable in terms of the health and the future of the
people in the country to be able to live in a clean environment. That is very,
very important, I might add.
That is why we felt so strongly, Madam Speaker, that there is no better way
to reduce it than to eliminate emissions that are going into the environment
here and replacing them with more friendly types of electricity, whether it is
coming from hydroelectric power, whether it is coming from wind power, whether
it is fuel cells or whether it is a hydrogen based type of power. Whatever
avenues may be available there, we have to ensure that they are very important
in preserving.
That is why we wanted to tie this government down to ensuring that the
credits on Kyoto in the future are going to come to this Province, not to Quebec
or to some other area that happens to buy our power. Why should be have to bear
the brunt of it? Oil producing provinces, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Alberta,
are going to be the hardest hit. Do not let the last plum that is there get
away. We let the Upper Churchill get away; 5,428 megawatts, I know, initially -
it is still in that ballpark, I think, at peak, just slightly more - of
electricity on the Upper Churchill and 2,000 on Gull Island. That is far more
power than is used in all fuel-fired in our Province today. So, we are saying
that we have an opportunity to have efficient power, user-friendly, that is not
polluting the environments around us. We can live and grow and prosper, and, I
might add, in doing so, have availability of a cheaper form of electricity than
what we would get from fuel-fired electricity.
So, we have an opportunity to do it right. The Lower Churchill is an
opportunity to tie into this, and any government that signs a deal on the Lower
Churchill without looking at the implications of Kyoto is making a big mistake -
a mistake as big as what was done on the Upper Churchill deal back some years
ago, so it is very important that this not be done.
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that the time agree to has expired.
MR. SULLIVAN: In conclusion, the Premier indicated that we need more
details; we do not have any of the information. The same basic thing, I think,
in developing the Lower Churchill: we need more information. We need the
opportunity to be able to utilize this resource for the benefit of people in
Newfoundland and Labrador in a clean environment that recognizes our roles and
responsibilities in having an environment that is free all around the world, and
doing our share in a country that contributes 2 per cent, I think, today, of
this pollutant into the air. We have a responsibility to make sure we utilize
that to the best of our advantage.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I wanted to have a few minutes just to indicate also our position with the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. My colleague, the Minister of Mines and
Energy, and our Department of Environment have been working along with the
Premier and the Premier's Office to get a Made in Canada plan that is
acceptable to the Province. It is very important. This issue is important for
our Province; it is important for Canada. Canada is trying to show leadership in
North America,
whereas the United States has not bothered to try to ratify, or
indicated that it is going to - Canada is attempting to do so. There has to be
an arrangement worked out that deals with the regions of the Province, that can
be acceptable to the regions, and we are working together on that. We are quite
confident, and we are still optimistic, that will be worked out. In this
Confederation, we are supposed to take into account each of our regions and also
the contributions that we can make.
Much has been done in our Province to work towards a climate change
arrangement that will be acceptable. We have brought forward - and are bringing
forward and finalizing - our own climate change program in the last number of
months. As a matter of fact, a number of new environmental initiatives in our
Province are going to help us a great deal in the future. The new provincial
waste management plan that was just announced this year is going to help reduce
the number of landfills, and again methane gas will be reduced there. There is a
whole list of other initiatives that we, in this Province, are attempting to
undertake to deal with and to help deal with climate change. So, a complication
of what is occurring now is getting everybody to work on the same wave length,
and that is really important.
The appeal that is being made to the Prime Minister and to the federal
ministers involved here, and the federal government, is to work out a plan that
takes into account the concerns of the provinces and to work together, because
it is not going to work if some of the groups are offside. What we are trying to
do is to get this worked out properly so we can see an effective plan put in
place. That is very important for the future. Everybody recognizes the
environmental situation in the world. Not everybody in the sense of the
industrialized nations do as much, I believe, as Canada is attempting to do, but
we also face the challenge of developing our Province and developing our country
and its economy. Sustainable development requires that you also, in developing
your economy, deal with the environment and protect the environment.
As we move forward, we expect to have meetings next week. Right now they are
being scheduled with all the Ministers of Environment, also the Ministers of
Energy across Canada. In the last day of so we received a letter from David
Anderson, the federal minister, and we are reviewing that now. They are
committing now to substantial discussions in the next ten to twenty days to see
if an arrangement can be reached that we can go forward on. We take that
seriously. We are working together to do that so that we can move this issue
forward. It is very important for us to make it work but also for it to be
realistic and something that the consumer will support, that our constituents
will support At the same time also, this issue is complicated and we have to do
a better job of explaining, what is this Kyoto Protocol? What is it meant to do?
What is it meant to have, and what will its impact be on the residents? That is
also something that we expect you will see more of in the next period of time.
This is a very good resolution brought forward by the Member for Conception
Bay East & Bell Island and we are looking forward to working towards a
resolution that will take into account our differences, and to make it a
workable deal that can make this issue front and centre. It is very positive to
see it front and centre in Canada. It is positive to see a lot of attention by
governments, be it dealing with an environmental issue. That is important. I
think the resolution of it is going to be important, but at the same time the
imposition of a protocol when not knowing what the actions are going to be by
the federal government is something that we have to work out. A process will
only work if consultation occurs, and we are looking forward to seeing that
occur, so we support the resolution and we are looking forward to seeing a very
positive resolution to this, we hope, in the near term so that Canada can do
what it needs to do and our Province can do what it needs to do on this
important issue.
As I said earlier, we are coming forward with an aggressive environmental
agenda in this Province to help, and we are looking forward to seeing that
occur.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to speak to the resolution put forward by the Member for
Conception Bay East & Bell Island. It is a timely resolution. Climate change
is something that most Canadians are concerned with, as polling shows, and in
particular this Province. When you look at our reliance on resources such as the
fishery and so on, climate change can have a drastic effect on how the fishery
reacts to warming waters and so on.
The Kyoto Protocol is like signing a blank cheque at this point. We are not
sure what the Kyoto Protocol will contain. For a Province such as Newfoundland
and Labrador, that is going to be relying heavily on the offshore oil -
hopefully onshore oil in coming years - as well as other resource-based
industries, we have to be very cautious because this Province at this point,
Newfoundland and Labrador, hopefully is on the verge of being able to improve
our economy, provided we treat our resources, and any deals that we get on our
resources, with respect for this Province. That is another issue when talking
about Voisey's Bay and the Lower Churchill and how those issues, how those
deals, should be signed. That is another issue, and whether or not they are
being signed to the best interests of this Province, but with the natural
resources that this Province has we have an advantage if we utilize those
natural resources to the best interests of this Province.
The Kyoto Protocol may not allow us to do that in the best interests of this
Province. I will submit that on resources such as the Lower Churchill, that can
provide clean energy. If we go with the proper deal, it can allow us to close,
or shut down, diesel-operated producers of energy such as in Holyrood, the
potential diesel operation for Argentia that will power the hydromet facility.
Perhaps the diesel operation may be in Voisey's Bay, subject to those
operations going ahead of course, and subject to the proper deal on the Lower
Churchill that will allow us to utilize our clean energy to displace what is now
dirty energy.
I will submit, Madam Speaker, that not only should we be looking at a Made in
Canada response to Kyoto, but we should be looking at a Made in Newfoundland and
Labrador response because there are several areas in this Province, such as the
old antiquated teepee-style incinerators that are still operating, that create
tremendous amounts of emissions, dioxins and furans. There are waste diversions
and recycling that can reduce emissions in this Province. I will submit that
there are several ways that we, in this Province, can reduce emissions and take
respect for our environment without ratifying Kyoto.
It is the responsibility of government to put in place measures to expedite
the closure of the old antiquated teepee-style incinerators, open burning at
dump sites, to increase recycling and waste diversion. It is an area in this
Province where this government, the current government, has fallen short on
their responsibilities. When you compare what provinces like Nova Scotia have
done - eight or nine years ago they put in place the same things that we are
only studying today.
We, as an Opposition, have been calling on government. We have put forward
policy. We have put forward suggestions to government. I remember studying paper
recycling, tire recycling and oil recycling. Myself and our current Opposition
House Leader, who was the leader at the time, held news conference after news
conference - and the issues that I had studied and gone to Alberta and Nova
Scotia to determine what they were doing right, that we were not doing in this
Province, we were virtually ignoring, and how we could put those into practice
here. We made very solid and sound suggestions to government, that now are only
being studied by this government.
So, Madam Speaker, without putting our economy and our resources at jeopardy,
this Province has a long way to go. There is much that we can do in this
Province to reduce emissions and climate change before we ever look at something
like ratifying Kyoto.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I realize that it is very difficult to deal with the issue of the Kyoto
Protocol in this resolution in the five minutes that we have agreed to use, to
try and get as many speakers on as possible, but I will have to do my best.
Let me say, first of all, that this resolution, while some of the language is
couched in saying: Well, all we want is not to ratify Kyoto right away. The
speakers, in fact, and the resolution itself, has said that we do not want to
ratify Kyoto at all. I am so shocked to hear the Member for St. John's South,
who is always on about thinking globally and acting locally. He says: We do not
want to ratify Kyoto. The only process available in the world to stop a global
problem - this is not only a Newfoundland and Labrador problem. The problem is
not made here. We are a part of it, and as someone mentioned, a small part of
it. This is a global problem that requires a global solution, and Canada, I am
proud to say, was in the forefront of coming up with this global solution.
It was 1972 when the United Nations first had an international conference on
global warming and climate change and had been working for twenty-five years to
come up with the 1997 Kyoto Accord. It is a global problem that Canada is
contributing more than its share to. We are, in fact, at the bottom of the
barrel on greenhouse issues. We rank twenty-eight out of twenty-nine countries
in environmental performance. In fact, there is only one country of the
industrialized nation that is worse than us and that is the United States. So,
now we are being asked by this House to ignore the fact that Canada has
contributed significantly to global warming. We, in fact, with our 30 million
people produce 2 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases; with only 30
million people.
The Americans, of course, we might add, contribute about one-third of the
greenhouse gases, and I can see why they do not want to play by the rules that
are going to limit that. But, Mr. Speaker, that has never been Canada's
position. Canada's position has been to take a leadership role and do its
part. This is just a process, Madam Speaker. The process of Kyoto is to get the
ball rolling to try and make a difference in the world environment and the world
economy. It is going to cost money and we should be talking about what the
consequences are going to be from one part of the country to other, to ensure
that there is a fair transition, that there is fairness across the country. That
is what we should be talking about. I do not have a problem with that, but the
What we are talking about here is what is going to happen internally between
Newfoundland and Labrador verses P.E.I., verses Quebec, verses Ontario.
If nobody thinks there are consequences for this Province about global
warming just look at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's Annual Report. You will
see on page 33 of the most recent report that in 2001 we had 40 per cent of the
electrical needs of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - leaving out
Churchill Falls - came from thermal generation in Seal Cove; 40 per cent of our
power, that was in 2001. That is vastly different than 2000, 1999, 1998 and
1997; and that, Mr. Speaker, is Bunker C oil. So, when people think that they
have clean heat in their house because they have electricity and have electrical
heat, let me remind them that they are burning Bunker C oil out in Holyrood at
the thermal generating station to allow that electricity, that so-called clean
energy, to be used in their house.
We have a long way to go and a lot to answer for here, Mr. Speaker, in
solving some of these problems. We should be concentrating on finding solutions
to those problems here. Solutions that, I might add, are being found in other
provinces. In Prince Edward Island they are producing over 2 per cent of their
electrical needs through wind generation at a price about one-third of what it
would cost for the twenty-eight diesel generating plants that we have around the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What are we doing about that? Very little
to nothing, Mr. Speaker, treating it as some sort of experimental technology
that we would not know existed or would even work.
We have a long way to go in solving some of those problems here and we have
to recognize that we have a responsibility as a country. Yes, this Province and
every other province have to ensure that there is a fair transition, that the
rules that we play by within Canada are fair to us, that the burden is shared
equally; but, no, we cannot have a Made in Canada solution. This is a world
global problem that is not going to be solved in Canada. It cannot be solved in
Canada, but we have to make our commitment to the international community.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank all members who took the time to participate this afternoon
in the debate with respect to the Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to bring to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador just some of the underlining facts. First of all, after ten years, the
federal government still has no plan to meet the Kyoto targets. That is because
there is no way to do it without serious economic risk. There is no such thing
as a cost factor for what Kyoto will impose upon the people of Canada.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who happen to be a strong opponent of the
Kyoto proposal, have released a study claiming that the cost to Canadians could
amount to as much as $2,700 per family, and that study is based on the limited
information that has been provided by the federal government.
It is extremely important that we take the time, as Canadians have done so
often in the past on many other issues, to find a solution that is truly Made in
Canada, that, at the end of any day, will meet the needs of all the provinces
and the territories.
The resolution that we are putting forward today asks the federal government
to stop, take the time, listen to the leaders from the provinces and the
territories, and look for and find a Made in Canada solution. Passing the
resolution is just one aspect, but the willingness of the federal government to
agree, not just to hold a meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial
leaders but to make commitments that indeed they will look for a Made in Canada
solution.
On October 26, Jeffrey Simpson, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek
article
referring to the great Canadian effort to save the planet, said: Climate change
is a global challenge, except that most countries aren't participating in the
Kyoto Protocol. Then why did we, as Canadians, sign on?
He goes on to say: Because we Canadians were bamboozled into thinking the
Americans would. We accepted a target only because it was close to the now
abandoned U.S. target.
Bottom line: the United States and other areas, but in particular the United
States, do not have to do anything because we are being - and willing to do what
they have not.
Mr. Speaker, we lost a fair amount of debate time this afternoon because
there was a resolution put forward that asked all of us in the House of Assembly
to amend my original resolution by asking all of us to be willing to use Gull
Island power by 2012 to meet not only the needs of Labrador but indeed the needs
of the Island. For a flash, for a momentary time this afternoon, I actually
believed that the Opposition were standing in support of government's proposal
to develop Gull Island. I actually believed from the resolution put forward that
the only way that we could develop Gull Island would be to accept the proposals
that we are willing to put forward in the coming days to develop Gull Island. I
found out very quickly that, no, it was just a ruse to try to change the
resolution that I put forward. However, I am sure that when they find out all
the details with respect to the development, they will probably be onside and
willingly.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution in its simplest and simplistic form simply says:
It is time for the federal government to step back, be willing to understand the
needs of all Canadians in their own jurisdictions, the provinces and
territories, as opposed to simply trying to meet the needs of a singular, small
group of individuals sitting in Ottawa wanting to impose this Protocol upon all
of us.
I ask, in closing debate this afternoon, that all members of the House join
with me in supporting the resolution as put forward this afternoon, calling upon
Ottawa to support the provincial and territorial leaders, to take the time to
meet with them and indeed find a Made in Canada solution.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?
All those in favour of the resolution, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution carried.
This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.