The Dominion - Newfoundland

What Happens in Newfoundland and Labrador, Stays in Newfoundland and Labrador

Sandra — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:15:20 +0000

Province passes amendment that limits access to information and protects the privacy of its goverment

HALIFAX—Despite a four-day, record-breaking, filibuster in mid-June, the provincial Conservative party of Newfoundland and Labrador passed a bill that will radically reduce public access to government information in the province. Bill 29 has drawn widespread criticism from legal experts, opposition politicians and working journalists alike, who have called the bill regressive and draconian.

“It's more of a piece of legislation that sets rules on how not to release things,” Russell Wangersky, an editor and columnist with The Telegram in St. John's, told The Dominion.

The amendment to the province’s Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPPA) has the potential to drastically reduce the need of the Newfoundland government to respond to, well, anything, really.

Requests that Cabinet determines are “vexatious, frivolous [or] trivial” can now be disregarded. The definition of "Cabinet confidences” has also been expanded to include documents that have been prepared for Cabinet, but which Cabinet doesn't need to have ever seen or used.

Bill 29 took its cue from a review of the ATIPPA, released in January of 2011, undertaken by career NL bureaucrat John R. Cummings, Q.C. Among other high-ranking governmental positions, Cummings has been Newfoundland's Deputy Minister of Justice, Deputy Attorney General and Secretary to the Cabinet. The new law subsequently implemented 16 of the review's 33 recommendations.

Cummings' review was supposed to rely heavily on a public consultation process, but Wangersky sees it differently.

“The review [to] our Access to Information Privacy Act...was overseen by a former civil servant who had a number of years experience turning down Access to Information requests,” says Wangersky. “[Cummings] heard primarily from civil servants and government departments and came up with modifications to the Act that substantially restrict the release of documents and put more and more of a control over what can be released into the hands of Cabinet.”

What won't be released under Bill 29 is substantial and subjective: No definition of vexatious, frivolous or trivial were provided in the amendment. Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Services Paul Davis justified the addition of these terms into the Act by claiming that “countless” requests for information were swamping the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation subsequently weakened this argument when they revealed that the Information and Privacy Commissioner received an average of 11 requests per week from across the province.

Sections 24 and 27 of the bill are of special concern and could be potentially problematic, especially when considered in a political climate where the lines between commercial and political interests are becoming increasingly blurred. Section 24 relates to the prerogative of the 'public body,' in this case the Privacy Commissioner, to potentially refuse to disclose the release of any information that could relate to economic, technical or scientific information that is determined to have monetary value. Within this lies the potential to refuse disclosure of information related to public-private partnerships.

Section 27 applies to the disclosure of information that would impact business interests of a third-party (like labour relations or trade secrets). In these cases that the public body has the duty to refuse to disclose. In the cases applicable to section 24, the public body may also choose to do so.

When coupled with the new, wide-sweeping, re-definition of Cabinet confidences, suddenly the avenues towards accessing information stand to become quite narrow indeed.

Hugo Rodrigues, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, sees this as a step away from governmental transparency.

“When you're creating new classes of information for documents and briefings prepared for Cabinet that extend to not just what hit the Cabinet table, but to what is prepared for Cabinet but is never actually considered by Cabinet, then you're excluding that entire class of information from ever being accessible,” Rodrigues told The Dominion. “The intent there is obviously to keep information from ever reaching the public eye.”

To Gerry Rogers, Member of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly for St. John's Centre and NDP Justice Critic, there's more than just control for the sake of control behind the Conservative government's rushing through of Bill 29 just before parliament took its summer break.

“We asked a number of times during the filibuster: 'Why?'” Rogers told The Dominion. “We had a very good Act as it stood. And particularly during this time when we have huge decisions to make—why they would do this? And there was no answer.”

Rogers suspects, however, that the potential of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric facility and the interests of numerous companies—including Alderon Iron Ore Corp—the Quebec-based mining company looking to develop thousands of hectares in Labrador, loomed large in the Conservatives' decision to rush through Bill 29.

On March 28th, 2012, Alderon provided former provincial Progressive Conservative Premier Danny Williams with a stock option for 1,125,000 shares—the same day that Alderon appointed Williams to its Board of Directors. Representatives from Alderon have argued publicly for Muskrat Falls, and Williams, now at least officially out of the political sphere since 2010, has gone so far as to publicly chastise the Public Utilities Board (the arm's length body responsible for sifting through the data around—and ultimately approving—Muskrat Falls) for requesting more data from the provincial government and more time to complete it's review.

That current Premier Kathy Dunderdale and the current provincial Conservative government, responsible for passing Bill 29, rode into another majority in 2011 on the coattails of Williams' local popularity, is an agreed upon truth among political pundits.

The interests of Altius Minerals Corporation, the Newfoundland-based company, add more shades of grey to a picture whose lines stand to become increasingly difficult to discern under Bill 29.

Altius is one of several companies whose proposals concerning the Lower Churchill Project—of which Muskrat Falls is but a part–was selected by the Williams government in 2005 for "more substantive evaluation and discussion.”

Altius Investments Holdings owns 32,285,006 common shares in Alderon, while Altius Minerals Corporation, under the name 2260761 Ontario Inc, owns 584,000 common shares in Alderon. Alderon, whose need for a source of power is one of the few missing puzzle pieces between themselves and Labrador mineral development riches, would arguably be one of Altius'–and Muskrat Falls'-main clients. With Danny Williams on the Alderon board, things begin to become complex.

Muskrat Falls, which has not yet begun construction, has a 2010 estimated cost of $6.2 billion and an estimated generating capacity of 824 megawatts. It is publicly being touted by the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia as a key component towards shifting their respective grids to "renewable” energy.

The scope of the proposed project is vast and involves linking the dam from the Lower Churchill River in Labrador–via undersea cable–to Newfoundland. It will then be linked to Nova Scotia via another undersea cable and will feed the Nova Scotia grid approximately 170 megawatts. It is a massive undertaking and partners Nalcor Energy—Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown corporation—with Emera Inc, Nova Scotia's private monopoly energy provider.

While 13 contracts have been signed on the deal and clear cutting has begun near the proposed site, Muskrat Falls is awaiting federal loan guarantees to begin construction.

“Muskrat Falls...is perhaps the biggest project this province has ever undertaken aside from whether or not to join Confederation,” says Rogers. “It will be very expensive. It may have a number of players. And this government ran on a platform of accountability and greater transparency. This amendment (Bill 29) came out of the blue and it's so contrary to the platform that they ran on. The other thing is that there's huge mining and resource projects in Labrador. And there's a lot of decisions that will have to be made in that area.”

Brad Cabana, who maintains the blog rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.ca, was the first to publicly write about the potentially troublesome links between the current provincial government, Williams, mining interests, financing and Bill 29. Cabana is currently in a suit/counter-suit with Danny Williams and Alderon, but maintains that the public in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, are being fleeced if they think that Muskrat Falls is in any way about them or so-called "green” energy.

“There's upwards of 13 mining developments going on in Labrador right now. And even Muskrat Falls couldn't possibly [power] all of that,” Cabana told The Dominion. “It's illogical...it makes no business sense to send power to Nova Scotia, to Emera. I propose that [former PM Danny] Williams used that strategy to hook in [federal MP] Peter McKay and company to try and get [federal] loan guarantees for Muskrat Falls...[Williams] has been trying to get the feds in and get a loan guarantee since the 2006 [provincial] election.

"I think the only way they could do it was to hook up with Emera and get that power to Nova Scotia, and I don't think it's going to happen. I think Williams is just using it as a ruse to get a loan guarantee and then they're going to find a way to get out of it. It just doesn't make any sense on any level. It doesn't send enough megawatts to earn any money for Newfoundland – 400-500 megawatts is nothing in the market. I don't even know if it replaces one coal plant down in Nova Scotia.”

Whether or not Muskrat Falls is meant to serve the potentially lucrative Labrador mines, or is truly the "renewable” energy source that the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia populace are being told it will be, will become increasingly difficult to determine under Bill 29. It essentially ensures that the public will have to take the provincial government of Newfoundland, and corporate spokespeople, at face value, and guarantees that whatever happens in Newfoundland and Labrador, stays in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Miles Howe is an editor with The Dominion and a member of the Halifax Media Co-op. Follow him @MilesHowe.

NL under lock and key

Paper Mill Seizure Boosts Populist Premier

dawn — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:00:00 +0000

"Canada's Hugo Chavez" to be challenged under NAFTA

VANCOUVER – Danny Williams, the Progressive Conservative Premier of sparsely populated Newfoundland and Labrador, recently expropriated the assets of a paper mill, AbitibiBowater, which had announced hundreds of layoffs in December. The mill had just received generous perks from the provincial government.

"In 100 years of operating in Canada we have never seen anything like this," said Seth Kursman, Vice-President of communications and government relations for Abitibi.

"We are working on filing [legal documents] as we speak," Kursman told this reporter. The mill is scheduled to close on March 28, 2009, and the government will assume control of its assets on March 31.

"For 100 years, Abitibi and its predecessors have enjoyed the privilege of Newfoundland and Labrador's natural resources," said Williams when he announced the expropriation on December 17. "It simply makes sense that if Abitibi are not going to continue the operation of a pulp and paper mill and renege on their commitment to our province they will no longer have access to our natural resources."

The threat of legal action because of the expropriation, in Canadian courts or before a tribunal convened as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), doesn't worry Gary Healey, a tradesman who has worked at Abitibi's mill in Grand Falls, Newfoundland, for most of his adult life.

"Abitibi had a covenant with the government from 1905 to make paper at Grand Falls. If they no longer want to make paper here, that covenant has been broken," said Healey, who also serves as a spokesperson for the Canadian Energy and Paperworkers Union.

The 1905 agreement between the province of Newfoundland and the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company Limited - the firm which preceded Abitibi in controlling the paper mill and connected hydroelectric power generators - said the paper company could "use and enjoy" the province's land and water resources "for its milling and logging business."

The assets, including forested land, the pulp mill itself and the valuable hydroelectric generating stations, are worth at least $200 million, according to articles in the business press. "We aren't talking about small-time dollars here," said Kursman.

Abitibi may be compensated for power-related infrastructure, according to the provincial government. No figures have been released and a spokesperson for Newfoundland's Department of Natural Resources refused to comment on the dispute.

With an international recession hindering the market for paper products, Abitibi exported power from the mill's hydroelectric station for a tidy profit. "They [Abitibi] invested money on their hydro assets, but they allowed their paper-making assets to deteriorate," said Healy.

"They were never a power company. The charter that they operated under was under the premise that they'd make paper," Healy emphasized.

An industry town built around the paper mill, Grand Falls will no doubt experience devastating economic impacts from the closure. The provincial government has not announced plans to re-open the mill as a public company or in partnership with another forestry firm.

"If Abitibi wanted to run the mill, we could have found a restructuring deal," said Healy, who believes the company wanted to exploit cheap hydropower to sell back to consumers.

While business commentators condemn the expropriation as a reckless threat to future investments, Williams and his take-no-prisoners attitude are wildly popular with average Newfoundlanders.

The historically marginalized province is currently experiencing an offshore oil boom and Williams, a multi-millionnaire cable TV magnate prior to entering politics, is credited with a knack for negotiating favourable deals with oil companies. This is where the "Danny Chavez" nickname originated.

"Williams has done well playing hardball with companies," said Steven Shrybman, an influential trade lawyer with Ottawa-based firm Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP.

"Canadians don't want to be just hewers of wood and drawers of water. The province gave water and timber rights to the company on the condition that they invest and produce paper," Shrybman told this reporter, adding that Abitibi's legal case is "anything but a slam-dunk if Canada vigorously defends its interests."

Other legal scholars dispute Shrybman's claim, arguing that the company will have the upper hand if the issue goes before a trade tribunal.

Abitibi plans to sue the federal government under NAFTA, Chapter 11, a controversial clause designed to mediate disputes between states and investors. Critics allege that corporations use Chapter 11 to target legislation that favours human health, workers' rights and the environment over private profit.

The federal government, rather than Newfoundland's provincial government, will have to fight the court battle because only national governments can sign foreign trade deals. Ironically, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a political enemy of fellow conservative Williams, will be forced either to defend the expropriation, or to pay Abitibi hundreds of millions of dollars from federal coffers.

Along with preparing lawsuits, Abitibi is "lobbying the highest levels of government on both sides of the [Canada-US] border," according to Kursman. Political manoeuvring from the world's eighth largest integrated paper company has included meetings with US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Canada's Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day, US Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins and other senior officials in the Prime Minister's office.

While Kursman says his company will do "everything possible to protect shareholders," lumber-worker Healy thinks the corporation should accept its fate.

"Just because a big company didn't have things go their way, doesn't mean [the seizure is] wrong," he said. "The Premier had to take some action to protect these assets; these assets belong to the people."

The original version of this article was published by Inter Press Service.

Chris Arsenault holds the Phil Lind Fellowship at University of British Columbia's Department of History. He is currently writing a history of sabotage and the Alberta oil patch. Anyone (nameless or not) who can provide information about this should contact him at arsenault_chris[at]hotmail.com. His first book, Blowback: A Canadian History of Agent Orange and the War at Home, will be released in March.

Danny

Waste Not, Want Not

dawn — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:59:25 +0000

One company's fight against Newfoundlanders & Kanaks

FREDERICTON, NEW BRUNSWICK–The province of Newfoundland and the archipelago nation of New Caledonia in the southwest Pacific seem to have little in common.

New Caledonia, also known as Kanaky after the indigenous Kanaks who inhabit it, is a French colony in the southwest Pacific. Kanaky-New Caledonia separated from Australia some 85 million years ago and is referred to as a Jurassic Park of prehistoric Gondwanan forest, habitat to plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. The New Caledonia Barrier Reef, which surrounds the country, is the largest coral reef and lagoon system in the world. The endangered dugong, a manatee-like marine mammal, makes its home there, and the green sea turtle depends on the reef as a nesting site. The nautilus, a living fossil species, is still found in these waters. Kanaky-New Caledonia’s tropical lagoons and coral reefs are listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, identifying it as a site of outstanding natural importance to the common heritage of humanity.

Halfway around the world, on Newfoundland's Avalon Peninsula, Sandy Pond lies about 100 kilometres west of St. John’s. Sandy Pond, a 38-hectare headwater lake near the community of Long Harbour, is the centre of a controversy that is forcing people to pick between employment or the environment. The economically depressed region is hungry for jobs but the toxic legacy of the community's 40-year-old phosphorous plant has environmental concerns at the forefront of many people's minds. Sandy Pond is home to trout, rainbow smelt, and American eel, a species of conservation concern.

****

Vale Inco (formerly Inco, then CVRD Inco) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brazilian mining company Vale. Its nickel mining and metals division is headquartered in Toronto. The merger between CVRD and Inco in 2006 created the world’s second-largest nickel producer. Inco, a Canadian company, dates back to the early 1900s. Dark parts of Inco history include its provision of Canadian-mined nickel to Hitler’s Germany and its dealings with brutal dictatorships in Indonesia and Guatemala. Vale Inco's failure to fulfill human rights requirements had it struck from the FTSE4GOOD index in 2006. The company has been criticized repeatedly for its pollution and its treatment of indigenous communities and workers. Residents of Port Colborne, Ontario, affected by the company’s nickel refinery, are currently suing the company in the largest environmental class action lawsuit in Canadian history.

Today, Vale Inco wants to dump about 400,000 tonnes of waste every year into Sandy Pond as part of a proposal to process Voisey’s Bay nickel at Long Harbour. In Kanaky-New Caledonia, the mining company wants to build a pipeline into the ocean to dispose of mine waste.

****

A 2002 Canadian government decision means that natural bodies of water may be renamed as "tailings impoundment areas." This reclassification is part of the Metal and Mines Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act.

Eleven natural water bodies, many of them fish-bearing lakes, are slated to be reclassified as mine-waste disposal sites in the next year or so. Due to legislation protecting lakes and natural water bodies, the practice is not permitted in Quebec, New Brunswick, the United States and many other countries.

Canada is becoming more attractive to mining multinationals because using a lake for waste disposal is cheaper than constructing a tailings pond. Vale Inco estimated that using Sandy Pond would cost $62 million whereas constructing a tailings pond would cost $490 million.

Environment Canada has shortened the time allowed for public input at the national level, making it difficult for Canadians to organize to save their ponds and lakes. Chris Doiron, Chief of the Mining and Minerals Section at Environment Canada, argues that the environmental impact of man-made containment can be larger than the environmental impact of using a lake. Absent from this accounting system, however, is the lost value of a lake ecosystem.

The amended law requires that mining companies proposing to dump waste into fish-bearing lakes and rivers must devise a plan to compensate for loss of fish habitat. Vale Inco plans to compensate for the destruction of Sandy Pond by transferring its fish into two nearby smaller ponds, which will be merged and dammed to contain the water. Concerns have been raised about the impacts on all these water bodies, including the introduction of predatory fish to new habitats.

In June of this year, Newfoundland's Department of the Environment accepted the Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Vale Inco to use Sandy Pond as a mine waste disposal site.

The Fish, Food and Allied Workers (FFAW/CAW) who represent Placentia Bay fish harvesters are opposing a plan to dispose 1.6 billion gallons of waste effluent each year into Placentia Bay. Fish harvesters are worried that the proposal will severely harm fish habitat and adversely impact their livelihoods. The proposed processing plant will emit an estimated 555,000 kilograms of chemicals including lead, hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxide and sulphuric acid into the air every year, according to the company’s Environmental Impact Statement.

Those who support the use of Sandy Pond as a tailings dump do so for the local employment opportunities. With a current population of 211, down from 522 in 1991, Long Harbour is still reeling from the collapse of the cod fishery and the closure of the phosphorous plant. The mayors of Placentia and Long Harbour-Mount Arlington Heights have both put their support behind the Vale Inco project, hoping it will revitalize the community’s economy.

****

Many residents in the proposed area grew up in the shadows of radioactive pollution left behind from Erco’s phosphorous plant. Heaps of waste slag near the plant contained uranium and thorium, and were known to emit carcinogenic radon gas. The fisheries were closed down in 1969 after dead cod and herring were reported in the bay. According to Newfoundland and Labrador’s Heritage Website, investigations revealed that the untreated waste caused the fish kills, and that the plant's smokestack emitted fluoride that damaged nearby vegetation. The website noted: “Deformed moose and rabbits were found near the plant. Snowshoe hares were dissected and tested, and high levels of fluoride were found in their bones.”

“Canada should not be providing the mining industry unaccounted subsidies by sacrificing natural water bodies for mine waste disposal," says Catherine Coumans, Research Coordinator with Mining Watch Canada. "Destroying Sandy Pond is clearly not sustainable development and it is not even good practice in mine waste disposal, as Vale Inco acknowledges that Sandy Pond will leak waste into groundwater, creating a contaminant plume. Additionally, the pond will require three dams to hold the waste and these dams will have to be maintained in perpetuity."

****

Vale Inco’s Goro mine in Kanaky-New Caledonia is expected to start production at the end of 2008. Since 2001, the Rheebu Nuu Committee, an indigenous group, has been protesting the mine. It has promised to use all available means to stop the construction of a pipeline into their ocean. Rheebu Nuu has already successfully stopped the company from laying its pipe in Kwe West by building a village of traditional homes in the path of the proposed pipeline. In April 2008, hundreds of Rheebu Nuu supporters gathered to set up a totem pole on a sand bank in the lagoon to show their firm opposition to the waste pipe and to challenge the company to meet with them in dialogue.

Inco’s past refusal to speak with indigenous Kanak groups such as the Rheebu Nuu Committee has been responded to with blockades and in one incident, to the alleged destruction of US$10 million worth of equipment. Sixteen members of the Rheebu Nuu group were arrested following this incident in April 2006. The court acquitted six of the accused and gave suspended fines to the remaining 10 in July 2006. Work at the site eventually resumed, with French military police acting as guards at key areas.

The Kanaks have requested that Vale Inco restore the areas it has destroyed by removing its installations and reforesting the area. According to the Rheebu Nuu Committee, critics have been detained by police for several hours and then released without charge. Youths have attacked security installations and vehicles of mine employees. The Rheebu Nuu Committee has also reported that hooded police have been raiding people's homes in the middle of the night and taking people away for arbitrary detentions and beatings.

Indigenous groups have taken to confronting police guards on ocean waters to stop the waste pipe that Vale Inco is trying to lay in a hurry. The defiant actions of the indigenous groups and the growing opposition from the non-indigenous population are all thought to have played a role in the eventual signing of an agreement between the company and indigenous community representatives.

Jacques Boengkih of the indigenous organization Agence Kanak de Developpement Nouvelle-Caledonie reports that indigenous groups, including the Rheebu Nuu Committee and the Kanak traditional authorities, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Vale Inco regarding the Goro Nickel plant. The agreement recognizes the legitimacy and rights of the indigenous people as declared in the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, and lays out terms for inclusive sustainable development structures. The Kanaks are now waiting to see how the national and provincial government authorities respond to the agreement.

Activists in Canada are making the connection between Vale Inco's operations at home and abroad. "Pipelines of waste should not be laid into Sandy Pond, Long Harbour or into the lagoon in Kanaky-New Caledonia,” says Coumans, who works with communities fighting Vale Inco's mining operations in both Kanaky-New Caledonia and Newfoundland.

The fate of the pipeline into the Kanaky-New Caledonia lagoon is awaiting a decision by the Southern Province government. Sandy Pond is slated for destruction in 2009.

Tracy Glynn is the Acadian Forest Campaigner at the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and co-editor of the Mines and Communities website.

New Caledonia Water Protest

New Caledonia Protest

Where Have All The Fishes Gone?

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:38:57 +0000

Newfoundland losing lakes to mining waste

The reclassification of the two lakes in Newfoundland marks the first time that Schedule 2 was used to allow a known fish-bearing water body to be used as a tailings impoundment area. photo: Maretarium

The death knell of Trout Pond and an unnamed lake in central Newfoundland's Exploits River headwaters sounded quietly on October 18. The two lakes became the first casualties of Environment Canada's amendment to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER)--a regulation under the Fisheries Act--that adds these water bodies to the list under 'Schedule 2.' Schedule 2 allows the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada to exempt the companies from the law that protects fish habitat, notably Section 35 and Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitat and the deposit of deleterious (toxic or harmful) substances into waters inhabited by fish. Mining companies need only get water bodies added to the Schedule 2 list to legalize the use of natural water bodies as 'tailings impoundment areas' or mine waste disposal sites.

DFO and Environment Canada officials are justifying the amendments by altering nearby areas to create new fish habitat as part of an 'environmental compensation plan.'

The threats of this amendment to Newfoundland's largest watershed, the Exploits River system--one of the most visited natural destinations in the province--has many concerned, including Dr. John Gibson, a former DFO biologist who lives in Newfoundland. Gibson knows the two lakes that have recently been added to Schedule 2 to be used by Aur Resources' Duck Pond copper and zinc mining operation. He notes that, "The two lakes have populations of Atlantic salmon and trout, and associated wildlife, such as beavers, otters, and waterfowl, all of which will be poisoned. The life of the mine is expected to be six years, but the ponds will become toxic waste sites in perpetuity. Over that time, there is a possibility that there will be leakage of copper and zinc, which are toxic to fish, and if the retaining dam breaks there will be massive mortality of salmon down the Exploits River."

Gibson reviewed the mining company's environmental compensation plan and calls it, "totally inadequate and merely an excuse to allow the mine to pollute the two lakes. Trout Pond has effectively been privatized for the mining company to use as a toxic waste dump. The Fisheries Act, previously held in esteem, has been considerably weakened."

The Trout Pond Action Group, a local coalition of concerned individuals and environmental groups from across Newfoundland, contends that Aur Resources, the local Environment Canada Environmental Protection Branch, the Newfoundland Department of Environment and Labour, and the DFO did not fulfill their legal obligations to examine properly alternative mine waste disposal options. The group does not believe that the best option is sacrificing Trout Pond and putting the Exploits River at risk. Exploits River has had $30 million of federal money invested in it to enhance salmon habitat.

Previously, artificial impoundments were the accepted method of disposing of mine waste; critics of the plan worry that mining companies are finding the practice too expensive and have chosen to go back to the old days of dumping waste in natural water bodies. At the Louvicourt copper-zinc mine in Quebec, where Aur Resources is a 30 per cent owner as well as the mine manager, man-made structures hold the mine waste. Aur Resources and Canadian regulatory authorities have called it a viable alternative to the destruction of fresh water bodies.

But Maggie Paquet, a biologist in British Columbia who participated in the revision process of the MMER, says, "We reviewed all the public documents made available to us and could find no evidence that Environment Canada provided any advice to Aur Resources about less-damaging waste disposal technologies at this mine."

Pages 23 to 25 of the project's 2001 Environmental Impact Statement contains 11 lines of text, one map, and one chart based on a Multiple Account Analysis that concludes that the destruction of Trout Pond is the best alternative for mine waste disposal. This conclusion appears not to have been challenged by any of the provincial or federal government reviews of the project's environmental assessment.

Aur Resources bought the majority of the mine property in 2002 and mulled over ways to minimize costs to exploit their small but rich deposit. Aur finally made the decision to go ahead with the current plan in December 2004. What is not known is whether a bond has been posted that is adequate to cover costs of perpetual monitoring of ground and surface waters around the mine and perpetual maintenance of the dams to keep the highly acidic and toxic mine waste from contaminating the Exploits River watershed.

These are just some of the issues that The Trout Pond Action Group say should have been addressed in public consultations. Meagre public consultations regarding this project occurred several years ago and reached few people. They were conducted before mining regulations and standards were amended in 2002. Many affected parties, including residents, recreational fishermen, tourism industry workers and aboriginal groups, were not informed about the potential environmental impacts of this project. Aur Resources did not have to hold new consultations when it took over the mine. Environment Canada employees Chris Doiron and Patrick Finlay of the Mines and Minerals Branch claim they did not become aware of the project's intention to use Trout Pond as a mine waste disposal site until February 2005. There are concerns that the amendment revision process to include Trout Pond and the other lake on Schedule 2 was hastened to accommodate Aur Resources' desire to start operations in 2006.

Trout Pond is not the first natural water body in Canada to be used as a tailings impoundment area. For decades, mining companies dumped waste in a number of water bodies across Canada. But in 2002, changes under the Fisheries Act aimed at restricting the practice were passed.

Schedule 2 was also added to the MMER in 2002. This happened without any wide public consultation. Schedule 2 legalized historic mines' use of lakes--ostensibly, those lakes were non-fish-bearing arctic and alpine lakes--and also allowed new mines to dump waste into fish-bearing waters. The reclassification of the two lakes in Newfoundland marks the first time that Schedule 2 was used to allow a known fish-bearing water body to be used as a tailings impoundment area.

Environment Canada confirms that at least nine other mine projects in British Columbia, Nunavut, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories are seeking similar amendments to use lakes for waste disposal.

Environmental organizations and some First Nations are currently considering legal interventions to do away with Schedule 2 before more mining companies sacrifice freshwater lakes and fish-bearing water bodies.

Activists hope the loss of two lakes in Newfoundland to mining waste isn't the beginning of a new trend. Tracy Glynn learns

Pepsi vs. Folk

Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:22:36 +0000

St. John's bottlers' strike revives age old debate: who benefits from new technology?

New technology could eliminate more jobs in Newfoundland.

Machines do not need lunch breaks, collective bargaining, food, or even wages. Not surprisingly, they have replaced human workers in sectors like banking, manufacturing and transportation, to name a few. This, it is often said, is progress: it "streamlines" businesses and makes them "cost-effective".

As the latest targets of mechanization, the unionized workers of Browning-Harvey in St. John's (Newfoundland's largest,and Canada's only, privately licensed bottler of Pepsi products), have a different view about what "progress" looks like and who it benefits.

Browning-Harvey plans to introduce a new piece of equipment, manufactured by Swiss company SIG, designed to make a soft-drink bottling production line more efficient. The new equipment will eliminate ten jobs at Browning-Harvey's St. John's facility.

The workers at the plant are striking to force the company to negotiate an appropriate severance package. NUPGE-Newfoundland Association of Public and General Employees Union (NAPE) Local 7003 is representing its workers at the bargaining table. During the strike managerial and security personnel remain on the job, assuming shipping duties by loading trucks with product made prior to the strike.

Rick Kieley, an employee and member of the negotiating team, strides the picket-line and shakes his head in frustration as another truck pulls up to the plant. He is calling on Newfoundlanders to "boycott scab Pepsi products" as Pepsi tries to curb losses by importing product from other bottlers and distributors in Canada.

Kieley acknowledges that "new-technology is good for the future of the company and its people and shows that they are here for the long-haul." At the same time he says he is "disturbed" that the company needs to lay-off reliable, hard-working employees to make way for new technology. But if they feel it is the best decision then "all we want is an appropriate severance package... something we can live on," he says.

At the time of publication, members of Browning-Harvey management had not responded to calls and interview requests.

The issue has led the close-knit group of employees to "lose faith in a company that we believe in and have worked for, for so long." Even friendships between divisions are becoming strained.

Non-unionized truck drivers are paid by-the-case of Pepsi products they transport. To keep earning, they cross the picket line every day and are sometimes "boxed-in" by picketers at retail locations across the city. One truck driver, who preferred to remain anonymous, said that he will "pick up Pepsi from Browning-Harvey [which he gets paid for] but won't fight the picketers if they block me from delivering the product," he says. "After this is all over they are my friends and we all have to work together, but I still have to feed my kids and pay the rent."

NAPE Local 7003 president Jim Kavanagh is proud of his members. "They stuck together, supported each other, dug in and are putting pressure on the company to make change." But he is also frustrated with the negotiating process saying that sometimes "the company won't even meet with us." Chris Henley, a NAPE representative, says that, at a minimum, Browning-Harvey needs to "provide those workers with a future" in the form of an appropriate severance package. Given the average workforce age of 53 to 57 years old, says Henley, "this is no time for a career change." According to Henley, the severance and benefits package that the union has proposed is "similar to if not the same as the severance package offered to management level employees."

"The amount of money [Browning-Harvey] are losing on this strike could solve these workers' problems," said Henley. There have been no official figures as to Pepsi's losses due to the strike but dwindling store supplies could be an indicator, and with local support for the strikers, Coca-Cola could be profiting in a place where Pepsi usually holds a 75 per cent market share in the soft-drink industry. According to Kavanagh, they "are losing a massive amount of money every day our workers are not producing product."

A frustrated Kavanagh points out that "a number of year ago the Canadian government financed new technology at the Browning-Harvey facility because it would generate 16 jobs." But the development of that technology paved the way for the new machine, which will eliminate at least 10 jobs. Kavanagh muses, "I guess my tax dollars paid for them to eliminate my job."

Living on meager strike-pay income, the workers could become the latest casualties in the ongoing battle for companies to efficiently create product at the minimum cost while forcing an aging workforce out the door a few years away from retirement. Already a leader in high unemployment rates, Newfoundland and Labrador remains in the precarious situation of deciding whether to "compete" in a globalized corporate reality by "streamlining" and using technology to increase profit margins at the expense of the workers, or to plot an alternative path.

A St John's bottlers' strike has revived an age old debate: who benefits from new technology? Jacob Fergus investigates.