TRANSCRIPT OF THE LNG DEBATE IN THE LEGISLATURE!!!

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 1/37
Bill 70

Mr. MacIntyre, after Bill 70, An Act to Comply with the Request of The City of Saint John on
Taxation of the LNG Terminal, had been presented: I have a few opening remarks I would like to
make before we start. I would like to start by saying I think it is important that people understand
our position on the proposed tax concession for the city of Saint John and our position on the LNG
project. I have spoken on this issue many times in the Legislature, and we want to make sure there
is no confusion over it. We are not against the LNG project. We, as a caucus, are not against it. We
have supported the project from Day One, and we will continue to support it as long as the 24
conditions that are in the EIA are met. There is a lot of work to be done on those conditions. In fact,
at some point, I will ask the minister about it.
I would also have to say that while we, as a Liberal caucus, support the LNG project, it does not
have the support of everyone in Saint John. That is why it is important that we debate this legislation
in the Legislature today. It is that important. The people of Saint John who are concerned have a
right to know the content of this bill, and we are here to represent them and to make sure that they
do.
We are very concerned about the 24 conditions. We are not clear in our minds as to how we can
participate in the 24 conditions. That, again, is something we will need to find out from the minister:
How can we ask questions on the 24 conditions?
032 12:20
My colleague from Saint John Harbour did ask a question, a very simple question on TERMPOL,
but it is not a simple answer. That is an example. What is the process that gets us to the point where
we can also address some of these issues? There is a lot of concern still there on the part of the
citizens of Saint John.
While I say that we support it, not everyone does. There are a lot of safety concerns. I think that we
would get better support once that information is made public. It is not clear, either, how that
information will be made public. In my particular case, I attended a lot of the meetings. I was also
there when the minister announced that the EIA had been approved with the 24 conditions. I was
there. It is still a question of the process from there on in. How will it occur, and how will the
citizens have some input into these conditions? There is still a great deal of concern about safety.
This particular project has grown. It may not have grown, but the EIA approval did approve up to
$1 billion. The initial startup was to have been $500 000, and before we have even started
construction, it has doubled in size. What else has doubled in size? We need to know that, as well.
In fact, we have already started to look at some of these conditions.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 2/37

We want to ask some questions. We have some serious questions, and we need to know how they
are going to be addressed. We understand that the company is dealing through an engineering firm
in Saint John. We, as citizens, want to make sure that the pertinent questions are asked. That is
where we are heading for, right now.
The other thing that I need to make clear is that we do agree with economic incentives. I am the
former Minister of Economic Development, and I can tell you we were very aggressive in recruiting
companies to New Brunswick. We used economic incentives to do it. The issue that I have raised
consistently here—for the last three to four months anyway—is that I have never seen a tax
concession given to a private company. I think that is a fair question, but I have never had an
answer. If the minister can show me 28 other tax deals, or something, I will change my mind, but
I can not recall, in my time, ever seeing a tax concession given to a private company.
I do not mean that we have never given an incentive, because we have. We brought some very large
companies to New Brunswick, and we used economic incentives, not a tax incentive. What a tax
concession does is to beat at your back door forever. It is your assessment, it is how your taxes are
paid to a municipality. Really, it should never be tampered with. One person said to me: Well, I do
recall one in Moncton. It was an industrial park, yes. I can recall that one as well, but I have to tell
you that in that particular case, it was the municipality that kept the taxes. It kept the taxes. It did
not provide them to a private company. The companies within the park were not provided with a tax
incentive. We have some concerns there that I will raise with the minister as we do the bill.
The other thing is that we have talked in the Legislature here, at length, about my concern: How will
you ever, ever do this piece of legislation? We knew that it was going to come forth, sooner or later.
Our concern is how you will do it. Will you get into the Municipalities Act? Will you get into the
Assessment Act? Will you get into the Real Property Act? That really is a dark alley of legislation.
You get into that, and it makes it extremely complex. At least I understand what you did with the
bill, although I do not agree with the content. You came in with an LNG bill, which I suspected that
you might do, but that LNG bill is not the same as the one in Nova Scotia. As a matter of fact, there
is not much in this bill. There are a lot of issues that are missing in this bill that we want to talk to
you about today, as well.
The other thing that we want to address today is the whole issue of the tax incentive. I have never
seen anything that has said what it should be. Should it have been $1 million or $2 million? Usually,
if the minister were here from Business New Brunswick, he would say: On a project of this size, we
would do significant due diligence on it. We would find out what the real need was. When you say
that the Premier said—I am not going to quote the minister because I do not know how she phrased
it—Well, we are supporting our municipality. That is one thing, but I think there is a responsibility,
as a government that represents all the taxpayers of New Brunswick, to make sure that the actual
concession that is proposed is something that was given. We will be asking the minister what
research, if any, they did to substantiate the need for the way this bill is phrased.
EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 3/37
033 12:25

The other thing that we will talk about as we go through this, is the actual motion passed by the city
of Saint John. There were two motions. The first motion dealt with the $500 000, but the actual
motion that was forwarded to the minister—according to the letter that I saw—dealt with amending
the Act to allow them to do it. This bill is different. This bill actually ties the hands of the city to do
any further negotiating whatsoever when it comes to taxes. For example, if the project increases in
size, what do you do? Do you come back and do you change the bill if the construction is even
larger? The assessment that was done at the time . . . I tabled a motion here this morning that says:
Show us all the data that you used to come up with the tax assessment. The day that Service New
Brunswick released the tax assessment, I was told by the minister—I am not filibustering here, by
the way, if you think that is what I am doing, I am leading into some questions—of Service New
Brunswick . . .
(Interjections.)

Mr. MacIntyre: Well, I may be. I do not know. I guess it sounds like I am, eh?
When I spoke to the Minister of Service New Brunswick yesterday during his estimates, I said:
Well, what caused you to send a letter to the company for the $5 million, and what was the basis of
it? He said it was based on a value of between $200 million and $225 million of a $750-million
project. I asked what criteria he used, and he could not tell me what criteria he used. It was strictly
based on the $200 million to $225 million. I said a grade-school student could do the math. You just
take the $225 million and multiply it. That is a concern as well. What was the basis for it? Has the
project increased in size? If you did a reassessment based on the increase, would it be even higher?
that is another concern that we will be raising with the minister as we go through this. There is a
process here and we will be going through it.
The first resolution that came from the city states that the municipal tax rate that is otherwise
determined under section 87(c) of the Municipal Act be adjusted so as to fix the amount due to the
city of Saint John the specific sum of $500 00 per annum for 25 years. That is the bill. That is really
what the bill says. What it does not say is what is covered by that $500 000. Would the pipeline be
covered? If there is an expansion, would that be covered? What about the port? What about that?
We will, again, be asking the minister to explain to us just how they came to . . .

Mr. Chairman: It now being 12:30 p.m., we will resume at 2 o’clock.

Mr. MacIntyre: I was just getting warmed up.
(The committee recessed at 12:28 p.m.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 4/37
The committee resumed at 2:07 p.m.)
034-039 14:05

Mr. Chairman: I now call the committee back to order.

Mr. MacIntyre: I will ask a few questions in a couple of minutes. I want to finish what I started to
say this morning. I am trying to get some attention here and it is not easy.
Something I want to say is that we should not picture the people in Saint John who are in favour of
fair taxation . . . I have heard the term “redneck” and it is just not true. Over 14 000 people in Saint
John signed a petition, raising concerns about this tax deal. As a matter of fact, in my own riding . . .
Guys, I have to have some kind of attention. If the Premier can do it, I can.
Over 14 000 people signed the petition, and they could have kept going. In my own riding, there is
far more concern over the actual tax deal than over the LNG deal. There is a lot of concern about
safety which needs to be addressed. There is far more concern over the tax deal than there is with
anything else. As a matter of fact, citizens who I have never known to be involved in any type of
protest, are very concerned about this deal. You can walk about town , and in almost any location
somebody is talking about this subject.
040 13:55
I have been to the malls and to the market and everywhere, and the subject is still there. It has not
really calmed down, and I am concerned that this bill is simply going to transfer it back again to
where it is going to become a very aggressive situation in Saint John, as far as the concerns that were
raised are involved. People are still very, very concerned, and it is still a big issue with them. I do
not believe that this bill will address those concerns. Having said that, I want to ask a few questions
leading up to the bill.
There was one thing that I raised earlier. I had mentioned that there are 24 conditions. I would like
to know what the opportunity is for some public input into those 24 conditions. I realize that we
went through an EIA, but those conditions are quite stringent. If people have concerns, how can we
have some input into what would be a way that we could do it?
Hon. Ms. Fowlie: As part of the EIA process, for this project, there had to be an expansion of the
community environmental liaison committee. It meets, I guess, with the community stakeholders,
so there is a group of people from the community that meets regularly regarding progress on the
LNG facility itself. There is also a tracking mechanism of the EIA commitments, and that will be

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 5/37
available for anyone to follow to make sure that all of the conditions that are placed on the LNG
facility are followed. They can track that.
There is also, of course, our environmental compliance person. The proponent of the project had to
fund that position, but that person has been hired by the department and works out of the regional
office. That is to ensure, too, that all of the conditions, regulations, licensing, and things are
followed.

Mr. MacIntyre: I know many of the members of the citizens’ group. When I talk with them, some
of these 24 conditions are highly technical, and they do not really understand them. The concerns
change almost on a daily basis. You mentioned the tracking mechanism. Who is doing the tracking?
Is it the company?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The proponent of the project has to develop the tracking base. That is currently
being reviewed by the department to ensure that it is in compliance with what we are requesting
under the determination. It is a data tracking system that would be audited by the department and
by our enforcement officer in the area. It is something that will be monitored very closely.

Mr. MacIntyre: One of my colleagues asked you a question today or yesterday concerning a
process that occurred in Nova Scotia. To me, it is a valid question. That particular process is federal.
It is Transport Canada, and it has been there for a long time. If an ordinary citizen had a concern . . .
There are safety concerns, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. As much as there is some
good information, there is a lot of misinformation. Someone said to me yesterday that you cannot
bring a cruise ship within 15 km—I am not sure if that is exact. Why does somebody not develop
a method of informing the public on how this project and the 24 conditions . . .
(Interjection.)

Mr. MacIntyre: I am not finished. Do not be talking to the minister. You never know. Let me finish
my question.
Why is somebody not attempting to let the public know what are legitimate concerns and what are
not? With regard to the 24 conditions, I think ship safety and docking and everything are legitimate
concerns.
041 14:15

With regard to the issue with the cruise ships, for example, I think it is important for the people of
Saint John to know what the regulation is concerning a cruise ship coming into the harbour. Is it 300
m or 900 m? Is it that they cannot come into the harbour when that ship is docking? Is it the cruise

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 6/37
ship operator who says: I am not going in as long as there is an LNG there.? That is an example.
Why is there no way of telling the public?

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: One of the things that we have to go back to is that this project, the LNG facility,
underwent a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. It was done over a period of time
where there was public input. There were public meetings. As a matter of fact, before the
determination was even given, an independent panel heard concerns, answered questions, and did
a report about the concerns of the people of the area in all regards, such as safety and so forth.
Also, a liaison committee was set up that meets monthly. In July, they will be talking about safety
issues. It is an ongoing process, every step of the way. Regarding your reference to cruise ships, and
so forth, there are no exclusion zones set at this time for the LNG facility. I think that what you are
referring to is how far ships have to stay away when there is an LNG tanker in port or is expected
to arrive. Those exclusion zones have not been set yet. That is part of the safety manual and things
that will be developed and implemented before any ship is allowed to come in carrying LNG.

Mr. MacIntyre: You are almost saying the same thing I am saying. You are saying that a process
has to take place. I agree with that. What I am asking is this: How can the public have any input?
You mentioned the liaison committee, but to me, there are lots of other concerned citizens . . . I can
go to the liaison meetings and sit in the back. They meet for an hour or so once a month. These are
huge issues. They are not issues that a group sitting around a table . . . Who informs that group? Is
it the company? Who is the one? It is the company that is required to have the community liaison
committee? Is that correct?

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: To clarify, when that committee meets, it does not meet for an hour. It is usually
a four-hour meeting. The committee in itself is co-chaired by the proponent of the project and the
community liaison committee. Department staff are there as resource people, as well as
representatives from any federal department or agency that they need, in order to ensure that
anything that is discussed, that there may be questions about, can be answered. Those are ongoing
committee meetings at which a lot of information is devolved. I am not sure what one you spent an
hour at, because they are quite lengthy meetings.

Mr. MacIntyre: I want to go back to a previous question about the cruise ships. It is not clear in my
mind what you said. What did you say about cruise ships? The first one came in on Monday. We
are not to the point yet where a cruise ship would need to be concerned about the LNG port, because
it has not been constructed. What is the answer?

042 14:20

Will there be an exclusion zone for other ships that you are aware of? I think it is a fair question.
Cruise ships bring in 80 000 passengers a year.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 7/37

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: Maybe I have a better clarification of where you are getting your 15 mi or km
that you mentioned. When the discussion on the LNG facility taking place in the area, staff from the
department talked to the Saint John pilot authorities and asked if this would in any way impact the
cruise ship industry. The answer to that questions was: Only if you put the 15-km exclusion zone
around it, which is totally unrealistic. I no way would there be an exclusion zone of that size. That
may be where you are getting that 15 km. No exclusions zones have been set yet. That is part of the
modeling exercise that will take place before any ship is allowed to come into that facility.

Mr. MacIntyre: Again, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, and I think that is a fair
one. For example, we know that this year the cruise ship business is down a little bit. It is down
perhaps 25% to 30%. With the construction of the LNG terminal . . . For example, in the Boston
harbour . . . It is hard when you get into these issues not to deal with other sites. I have been
gathering information for the last four or five months and looking at various sites. In the Boston
harbour, which is the one I have looked at, there is a 2-mi exclusion zone, and the number of ships
that are . . . With the increase from 500 000 to 1 billion or 1 million, that means more ships will
probably be coming in. There is a 2-mi exclusion zone in Boston. It has been tested and tried. It has
been there 25 years. I thought you said that you contacted the Port of Saint John and that they said
there would not be an issue as long as you do not put in the 15-mi exclusion zone. Is that what you
said?

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: I hope I said the Saint John Port Authority. What they were saying is that in
order to impact the cruise ship industry, it would have to be that large of an exclusion zone. At the
LNG facility in Maryland, the exclusion zone is 500 yds. The one in Boston you are referring to has
a larger exclusion zone, because the ships have to come in under a bridge, through a heavily
populated area, and then back into the facility. This is not the same situation in Canaport. We do not
know what the exclusion zone will be in that area, but, as I said, that will be something that will be
decided as part of a modeling exercise before an exclusion is set. It could be anywhere between the
500 yd and the 2-mi one that they have in Boston.

Mr. MacIntyre: I think I understand what you are saying. I think you mentioned the Port of Saint
John. If you did not, I am going to mention it now. I looked at the EIA. That is another thing when
it comes to a citizen’s group. It has over 900 pages. Is it 919 or 939?
043 14:25

It is over 900. That is what it looks like, minister. I know you have seen it. Most ordinary citizens,
first of all, do not understand the technical language in there. When you say that it has been through
a full EIA, I realize that. I have studied it, and there are lots of parts that I do not understand. There
is a lot of genuine concern about safety issues. I am standing here saying that I support the project,
but I have a great deal of concern about making sure that the 24 conditions are monitored. I do not
think the company should have . . . I do not know the right word, but one guy said it is like letting

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 8/37

Kentucky Fried Chicken into the henhouse. You have to have somebody monitoring what is going
on. Who is monitoring to make sure there is compliance? Here is my letter to the Port of Saint John.
I said, What have you done concerning this LNG project? There was no input and not a document
in that EIA report from the Port of Saint John.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: In regard to the 24 terms and conditions placed on the project and the question
on who is going to monitor it, we do that. That is part of the role of the department and any of the
expertise we need to bring in from any other department, whether it is Public Safety, Transport
Canada, or Environment Canada. They are all part of that. Yes, we are not going to say if it is 919
pages or 939. It is a lot of pages in regard to this whole project.
When you talk about any documents from the Saint John Port Authority, that is not how the process
is done. The proponent has to put together their response to the terms of reference of the technical
review committee. There are terms of reference for the project put forth. The proponent has to
respond as to how they will be dealing with these issues, questions, and criteria. Here is where the
Saint John Port Authority would come in. It would be part of the technical committee that would
review the responses that are coming from the proponent. They have to agree with them, they have
to approve them, or, if they disagree, the proponent then has to come forth with a different set of
responses. That is where the technical expertise of all these different groups is used in regard to the
Environmental Impact Assessment and the determination before this project goes ahead, as well as
stages through it where they also have to concur with different parts of the 24 conditions that were
placed on it. It is an ongoing and fluid process that will continue until such a time that the LNG
facility has its first ship in, if it gets its first ship in, because it has to meet all the conditions.

Mr. MacIntyre: I understand what the minister is saying. When I raise issues, people say to me,
“Don’t worry.” However, I am raising the issue because I am worried. That is the reason. I sent a
letter to the Saint John Port Authority. I think I probably copied the minister; I copied everybody.
What I am saying is, What is your responsibility? I have a big letter from Canard Lines and that is
the big line that comes into Saint John. What they say in their letter is, “The guest relations
department is in receipt of your letter regarding your concerns pertaining to port safety.” That is
somebody saying there is a concern with port safety and cruise ships. They say, Thank you for
contacting our office.” What they are saying is, the responsibility of the safety of cruise vessels in
a port with a liquified natural gas terminal is not within a cruise line, but with the officials in charge
of that particular port. So the Port of Saint John is responsible for the safety of that cruise ship. Yet,
I saw nothing in the EIA pertaining to the Port of Saint John. My concern is, when you are talking
about business decisions, it has to be good for everybody The cruise ship is very important to
downtown Saint John. We need to make sure that they have a comfort level. That is why I raise the
point.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 9/37
044 14:30

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I am not a navigator or a harbour pilot, but when ships are coming into the Saint
John area, basically, it is a marine traffic lane. Once they come to a certain point, cruise ships come
into the harbour, and other ships turn and go to Canaport. When we have cruise ships in Saint John,
uptown, they will not be affected by the LNG facility at Canaport. For the traffic coming in on the
marine lane, you are quite right. It is the Port of Saint John that would direct that traffic and make
the decisions on which ships would come in at which time.

Mr. MacIntyre: I am rather sorry that you answered that question, because you have just answered
a technical question. That is my concern. This needs to be studied. When cruise ships come in, they
have an eight-hour window. They arrive in the morning and leave in the evening. They do not hang
around; they have other ports of call. Somebody has to clarify this. This is all part of what I am
asking about—the safety issues having to do with cruise lines. I do not know the exact answers; I
was asking the question.
The other issue with the Port of Saint John is . . . It could be on the technical committee, I am not
sure where it fits. Would the Port of Saint John not be responsible for port safety? Is there any type
of fire boat or anything at the Port of Satin John? There is none, as far as I am aware. Who would
we ask? Would we go to the Port of Saint John and say: What is your role in this? How do we find
out how the conditions are going to be met? Would we go through your department? How can I, as
a citizen and as an MLA, have input through my questions? Where can I send them, and who will
answer? That is my big question: Who will answer the questions? I have lots of them, by the way.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The member opposite is referring to the Saint John Port Authority. One of the
conditions is:
(g) The simulation exercise referenced in Section 5.14.5.1.2 of the “Environmental Impact
Statement Liquefied Natural Gas Marine Terminal and Multi-Purpose Pier” dated March 23, 2004,
referenced in condition (c) above, shall be developed with input from the Atlantic Pilotage
Authority, the Saint John Harbour Pilots Association, Saint John Port Authority, Transport Canada
Marine Safety and the Canadian Coast Guard. Further, Irving Oil Limited must receive written
approval from the Atlantic Pilotage Authority for the adequacy and completion of the simulation
exercise prior to initiation of construction of the Multi-Purpose Pier.
045 14:35
Basically, this is referring to a simulation exercise. It has to be developed with input from all of
these groups. They have to get written approval from the Atlantic Pilotage Authority for the

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 10/37

accuracy and the completion of this simulation exercise, before they can even start to construct the
pier to bring it in. Therefore, the Saint John Port Authority is involved in this.
If you have a question in a certain area, who can an average person call, it would depend on what
aspect of the question, whether it would be something that Transport Canada would have the answer
to it, and so forth. However, you can always call our regional office in Saint John and ask who to
contact. We are basically very friendly there. There is an excellent staff that is working. They will
give you the information or send you in the right direction. I have full confidence in their
capabilities, and they are doing an excellent job.

Mr. MacIntyre: In that tangent, I have to tell you that I would be very surprised that your staff,
locally, had technical knowledge to address these concerns. I would be very surprised. As a matter
of fact, at the provincial level, this is a brand-new project. There has never been an LNG terminal
ever in New Brunswick before. Even the expertise that you have in your own department, did you
have to hire some technical expertise in order to review the EIA? What happened there? Do you
have staff that have the knowledge to review such an in-depth . . . It is 900-some pages. Do you have
the staff that can do that at the provincial level, that knows the technical data well enough without
hiring outside consultants?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I quite concur with the member opposite. We would not expect all staff in the
department to have the expertise in all areas. When this project was proposed by the proponent, staff
in the department also had questions, because this was first of its kind. We never had one in New
Brunswick before. They also had some questions, so they went to an area where they had more
expertise. Staff from the department did go down and met with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in the United States, which had a lot of experience with regard to LNG facilities.
They also, of course, have other technical expertise on this committee. That is part of the technical
review committee that is put in place. It is not just staff from the department. You bring in the
experts that you need from the federal government. It could be Transport Canada. We have a very
good relationship, again, with FERC—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United
States. That review committee also works with Environment Canada, out of Ottawa. Therefore, it
is a large group of people who have expertise in different areas, coming together to work on this
project. If staff still have questions and concerns—which they do—when they are working on these
projects to ensure that all conditions are met under the determination, they still deal with these
people.

Mr. MacIntyre: I want to say again that I do support the project. My concern is safety. I hate to
keep saying that, but that is my concern. I have no way of inputting my concerns. That is why I
raised it. When you mentioned the local staff, as an MLA, I sent a simple note over, asking them to
review a situation in my riding, and they sent it to you. Somebody up there sent me the bill. I needed
that like a hole in the head. I do not why you did it. It is oil tanks. Somebody said: Read the bill. In

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 11/37

the name of God, the last thing that I needed as an MLA is a bill to read. It was a simple request.
That is what I am getting at.
046 14:40
The local office is not exactly underworked. It has a lot of work to do with other environmental
issues without getting into the LNG project. I am not sure what you are going to do there, but I
understand. The last person with whom I dealt worked at coordinating the project for Irving Oil. The
last time that I saw her, she was out working for it. She was good staff, but she ended up working
there. I know that you are going to appoint someone there.
Here is a question. Most of the questions that I have asked—did you notice—had to do with
shipping. That is the big concern. They had to do with shipping. Do you have any authority at all
in the Port of Saint John? It is federal water. If you do, I have some tires that need to be removed.
Do you have any authority?

(Interjection.)

Mr. MacIntyre: I do, too.
Do you have any authority? Does this department, when it comes to the EIA . . . Once you hit the
high water mark, it becomes federal regulation. Can you explain to me if it fits your authority? What
happens there? I am just interested.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: To get back to that, that is why this is not just a Department of the Environment
and Local Government project. Do we have authority on the high seas? The member opposite knows
that we do not have authority on the high seas. That is Transport Canada. It is the one that is dealing
with these things. It is a team approach to ensure that this project’s terms and conditions are met.
The terms and conditions were put on this with the input from all the expertise from the different
federal departments and provincial departments and agencies.
I understand where the member is coming from. He is talking about safety and shipping. As I have
said, it is Transport Canada. However, I agree that the safety aspect of this is the one that we
addressed in the terms of reference for this project. There is very little in the conditions with regard
to environmental impacts, because it was recognized that, with regard to the LNG facilities, it was
not the issue. They were the safety concerns. That is why there are these conditions that must be
complied with, put together with input from the federal agencies and the provincial departments,
with the Department of the Environment and Local Government basically working as the overseer,
or the one that brings these groups together, chairs the groups, and ensures that all aspects of this
are looked at.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 12/37

A couple of things that did disappoint me in the member’s statement was when he said that they sent
him a bill. I thought it was a fee for service. That is too bad.
However, I do fully appreciate that the residents and the people are asking question with regard to
the safety. This was not a quick turnaround for an Environmental Impact Assessment. It was
ongoing for two years. It actually underwent a longer assessment than the one in Nova Scotia. It
took longer and was more detailed. The other one went through it in eight months. It was two years
in development for this. It actually started earlier than that, but there was a self-imposed hiatus by
the proponent of about up to a year. It took two years to get this all underway, looking at the safety
aspects, ensuring that this is something that could be developed in the city of Saint John, while still
acknowledging all the safety aspects to ensure that it is not going to be harmful, not only
environmentally, but in terms of the safety of the area.

Mr. MacIntyre: I am aware of the role of the federal versus the provincial. However, it is a role that
has to be played together, because the province is responsible for all land-based operations. I am not
sure about the docking facility itself. I am not sure. However, it occurs to me that the simulation
exercise that is in process now . . . I know that they are working on it, because there have been some
people out of the province working on it. Construction has started. Ship safety again . . . I do not
know if you have been out . . .
You pay attention. I am not asking you any questions if you are not paying attention.
If you go to Mispec Beach, you can see the large tankers coming into Canaport. They are huge, huge
ships that have been coming in for years. Now, we are going to have 900 ft LNG tankers. I think
they are around 900 ft. Even the oil tankers that come in are double hulled. These are special ships
as well.

You are going to have the possibility of two huge tankers out in the Bay of Fundy, and I think there
is room for some genuine concern. What would happen, if in the simulation exercise . . . The worry
is that the Bay of Fundy . . . You cannot stop the Bay of Fundy tides. You cannot. It is just
impossible. The concern is what would happen if you had to move those ships very, very quickly.
Somehow the public has to be reassured. It cannot just be a document that comes out and says: We
did it all, and everything is going to be wonderful. The people want to know. I am back to my
original question. I did not mean to go on like this, but you mentioned the public meetings, and
everything. You did not get as much technical information as you would think you would get. Some
of those overheads . . . There were people in there from Quest, the company that was very much
involved, that said if it blows up, you will not have to worry about it, but it is never going to blow

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT

Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 13/37

up. There was a lot of discussion on safety and danger. When you read about it, it is rare, rare, rare
that there is an incident. The shipping, the ships and the simulation . . .
How do we have some input? When you send me off to six different proponents, I am going to be
a lot older. I will probably be retired before I hear back. Why could you not do it?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: We are not doing the simulation exercise here in the department, either. This is
the expertise that you have to bring in to do these things. I cannot emphasize enough the Community
Environmental Liaison Committee that you referred to and that you went to. It is open to the public.
People go, and they can get information from that. If they have a question, I am sure if they had
something that they could give to the chair of the committee, it can look at these questions.
In regard to safety, I totally agree. Safety is vital in this project. It is the number one prime thing that
is being dealt with. For a simulation exercise, we are not doing it. We do not have that expertise.
There is expertise in the rest of the members of the Technical Review Committee, whether it is
Transport Canada or the Saint John Port Authority or these groups: The Atlantic Pilotage Authority.
They are part of this. They have to sign off, they have to agree to it. That is where your expertise is.
It is not just our group that we have working in the department. It is not just the group in the regional
office in Saint John. I said you could contact them, so they could get you the person if you had a
specific question. There has been a Community Environmental Liaison Committee working for the
Coleson Cove project for almost three years. It is working very well. They meet regularly, they have
questions. They know the questions to the upgrades of the facility, and the scrubbers, and the things
that are going on. They are open to the public. That is part of it. If people have questions or concerns
in that area, they are welcome to attend the meetings where you have the expertise to answer these
questions.

Mr. MacIntyre: I appreciate what the minister is saying. Coleson Cove would not be a touch on an
LNG terminal as far as complexity. Coleson Cove was a refurbishing of an existing project. LNG
is a much bigger project. If by chance . . . like the simulation exercise that is on the go now, it is a
critical part of the project.
048 14:50
Construction has already started. There are different scenarios that could happen. For example, in
the simulation exercise, the Atlantic Pilotage Authority or whoever has the authority, could come
back and say that this does not work. What do you do then, minister?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I guess you are right. The simulation exercise has started. In the conditions that
were put upon it, that has to be signed off on and approved before they construct the multipurpose
pier to bring that it. That is part of the determination. They started early. They do not expect this pier
to start being constructed for a number of years, yet. As for construction in the area, what they have

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 14/37

the approval for is to do some site preparation which is basically cleaning and cutting trees. There
is no actual construction. There is no construction started on the site. They may be moving some
earth and cutting some trees, but there has been no approval to construct. Those approvals will only
be given along the way, as they meet the terms and conditions. In order to get the approval to
construct that multipurpose pier, they have to have a simulation exercise that has to be approved by
all these groups.

Mr. MacIntyre: I appreciate the dialogue. Those are the exact concerns that I am talking about. It
is very complex, is it not? It is a very complex process, and you, as a provincial department, do not
have complete control over what is happening here. I am not trying to put words in your mouth,
either, but all these other departments play a role.
I, as a citizen. . . When you say that the other community meetings were held and everything, you
know really, minister, as we were going through that process, there were not hundreds of people
showing up, but once this tax deal appeared on the scene, it really blocked everything out. My
concern is that as far as the safety issues are concerned, there has to be a way of informing the public
how progress is being made. I was there the day you announced the EIAs: We got it all, we approve
it, we are ready to move on. I was there. The 24 conditions that you put on there, were put on
there . . . I do not know. Is the document just a provincial government document? Who developed
the 24 conditions?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The groups that had input into the terms and conditions for the Technical Review
Committee are: the New Brunswick Department of the Environment and Local Government; the
New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources; the New Brunswick Department of Energy; the
New Brunswick Department of Health and Wellness; the New Brunswick Department of
Transportation; the New Brunswick Department of Public Safety; the New Brunswick Culture and
Sport Secretariat; the New Brunswick Workers Health, Safety and Compensation Commission; the
City of Saint John; the Saint John Port Authority; the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency;
Environment Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Transport Canada; the Atlantic Pilotage
Authority; the Saint John Harbour Pilots Association; and, Natural Resources Canada.
049 14:55

Mr. MacIntyre: Thank you. I am amazed at the number of provincial government departments that
would be involved. Their expertise in LNG would be from 0 to -92, I would say. I cannot imagine
any expertise from Culture and Sport Secretariat, unless the minister took a course. I am not sure,
he may have. The purpose of my question was more of the 24 conditions. The EIA was announced
by you. You said it was the provincial Minister of the Environment who announced that the EIA had
been approved. The reason for my question goes back again to the beginning and the 24 conditions.
Who will monitor the 24 conditions? Who will finally say the 24 conditions are met? Will it be you?

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 15/37

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: First of all, it would depend on what the condition is you are referring to. I know
the member opposite was being a little flippant when referring to the expertise from all these
government departments would be next to zero, and when he made a bit of a jab at the Culture and
Sport Secretariat. Actually, whenever we have a project such as these large-scale projects, or even
those of a smaller scale, one of the things we ensure is that there is no archeological site in that area
that has a significance to the province. Our Aboriginal peoples may have been there first, and we
would want to protect these sites.
All these departments have relative responsibility related to their own areas. If you are saying who
would have to agree or who gets to say, I am saying that it depends on what the condition is. If the
Department of Culture and Sport Secretariat does not believe that the work had been done in regard
to archeological significance, they do not sign off on it. If the Department of Public Safety does not
feel that an evacuation plan is suitable, they do not sign off on it.
This is being monitored by that person who has been hired to work in the regional office in Saint
John. That is one person dedicated entirely to this project. They will not be doing other work for the
department. Their sole job is to ensure that all these conditions are met and that the appropriate
departments, whether federal, provincial, or appropriate authorities are signing off on them. Also,
part of what they will be looking at is to ensure that the public is informed. This can be done through
the Environmental Liaison Committee. I guess to say who has the final say, I suppose that we do.
They have to have an approval to operate. If they do not meet these terms and conditions and if the
responsible authority does not sign off on it, they do not get an approval to operate. That is the way
this is done. It is a partnership. As I said, to list off the names of the different departments and
federal departments as well as agencies involved in it, they all have a lot of input.

Mr. MacIntyre: I do appreciate the input of the provincial government. I did not realize that these
departments played that kind of role. I do understand regarding major construction, if it is a heritage
site or a gravesite or something of that nature. I was referring more to their expertise on LNG. I
accept your explanation there.

(Interjection).

Mr. MacIntyre: I did not apologize yet. I am having help from my colleagues.
Who is this great person you hired? Tell us the name.
050 15:00

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: The person who has been hired to work out of Saint John is Carolyn Walker, a
civil engineer, who has done contract work with the department over the past three years. She is a
very efficient and well-qualified individual. She will be a great asset to this project.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 16/37

Mr. MacIntyre: I do not know her. Is she someone that a person like me could deal with? Is she
authorized to deal with . . . I am the MLA for the area. It is my riding.

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: Staff has assured me that they have all been authorized to deal with you. You
can contact the department. MLAs contact the department all the time. Yes, this individual is
someone that you could contact directly and have your questions answered. You would then have
an understanding, so that when you are actually talking to some of the people who have concerns,
you will have the answers to a lot of their questions. Yes, she will be able to interact with you as the
MLA of the area.

Mr. MacIntyre: The minister said that everybody in the department is authorized to deal with me,
but I want to remind her that the last little note I sent over was sent to her. The local staff in your
office sent me an Act. I wrote you back and you have not responded. Usually, when I am dealing
with an issue in my riding, it is not political, it is about someone raising an issue to which I need an
answer. Will Carolyn Walker—and I am not going to repeat her name all afternoon—be assigned
onsite for the construction? Will she be representing your department onsite during the actual
construction?

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: Yes. When I said that all staff are authorized to deal with you, that does not
mean they are not going to tell me you are calling. I just thought I would point that out.
As part of the condition, as we stated before, that the company, the proponent, would fund an
environmental monitoring and compliance officer position for the construction and commissioning
of the facility. They are funding it, and we hired the person to work out of the Department of the
Environment and Local Government Saint John regional office.
“The duties of the Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Officer include, but are not limited
to, monitoring compliance of commitments made, coordinating review of plans among different
levels of government and ensuring the public is adequately informed.”
The department developed the different terms of reference for that position. That project has been
funded. The person has started to work and she is involving herself in the project as part of the
learning curve. She will be dedicated fully to that project.

Mr. MacIntyre: Will the minister table that job description, that information? I was not aware, until
just now, that you had hired someone. It is not public knowledge. There was no announcement, was
there?

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: That section I just read was item (j) of the EIA approval. That person actually
started working and was introduced to the Community Environmental Liaison Committee at the last

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 17/37

meeting. What I have read to different times are basically excerpts from the approval with regard
to the Saint John Harbour Pilots Association. I am reading straight out of the conditions.
051 15:05

Mr. MacIntyre: Can you advise where this particular person reports? You indicated that it is a
position that is funded by the company and that the person is in Saint John. However, who will that
person report to directly for day-to-day guidance?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The person reports to the regional director of the Department of the Environment
and Local Government. That person does not report to anyone outside the Department of the
Environment and Local Government.

Mr. MacIntyre: This person came on strength in the last week.
(Interjection.)

Mr. MacIntyre: No? Do not roll your eyes. This one does nonverbal communication like mad. She
goes . . .
She is just coming on strength now. There is a lot of catching up to be done. Unless she has a
background or was working with one of the engineering firms, she has a significant catching up to
do. Does anyone know her background at all?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The person has been there, we believe, for a couple of months. We do not have
the exact date. We can get the exact starting date, if the member opposite needs it. The person is a
civil engineer, which, as for the first couple of years of this project, it will be construction that will
be taking place. That is what civil engineers are highly qualified to do. That is what they are trained
to do, to oversee, of course, the construction. This person is very well suited to the position.

Mr. MacIntyre: I do not question that. She will be very well challenged. The level of expertise and
the technical knowledge that is there within the company and the expertise that it has hired is huge.
It has been at it for four years. The engineering is well underway now, so she will be well
challenged. However, I look forward to meeting her. Do you even have a regional director there
right now? I thought that the regional director had parted. Have you hired a new regional director?
Is it my cousin?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The regional director from Fredericton is actually covering that also, in an acting
position. There has been an internal posting for the position, but no one has been appointed to the
position as of yet.

EXCERPT / EXTRAIT
Daily Sitting 54 / Jour de séance 54
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 18/37

Mr. MacIntyre: Before we go on to some of these other issues, we were talking about public
communication and the meetings that occurred. Even though I was not elected at the time, I did
attend quite a few of them. Almost in the middle of the whole issue pertaining to LNG, the issue of
Orimulsion came up. I am not going into that. I am just saying that the issue of Orimulsion came up
and threw everything off track. Then, the issue of the pipeline came up and threw it off track again.
When we should have been discussion the LNG, we went off on these other issues at those public
meetings.
I recall one public meeting that was called to discuss LNG, and Orimulsion totally took over the
issue, especially the pipeline issue that occurred at that particular time. After one of the most recent
meetings, I was in my office on the weekend, and this person came in and said: Can you find all the
regulations on a 30-inch pressurized pipeline that the company is proposing to build through Red
Head? So, here we go again. Are you aware that the company will be applying to construct a 30-inch
pressurized pipeline? I can tell you that it was some hornet’s nest the last time that it was handled.
It was some hornet’s nest. Is there something else on the go? That came from the community liaison
meeting. It got everything off track. That is a pipeline that you would not even need for four or five
years.

052 15:10

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The member opposite was saying it in a different way, but part of the scope of
the project that was looked at was to include a pipeline from the facility. Therefore, that was the
original project and the original scope of that project.

Mr. MacIntyre: I just raised it, because the last time it occurred, you were not involved in it, I
believe. We had NB Power that was going to expropriate land for the company Irving Oil. It did not
make much sense, and it really caused quite a disruption. Then, the Orimulsion project fell through.
I think that it is really important that, when issues like this start to develop, the community is well
informed as to what is going on.
We have one house out there where the pipeline goes in the front yard. It is one thing to go in a back
field, but if you are going to put a 30-inch high-pressurized LNG pipeline, people really need to be
informed. I am not even sure what the status of that is. It may be down the road. This particular
person just asked if I could find the regulations. It is under the Pipe Line Act. It is very easy to find.
I just gave him the Web site. I am not going to dwell on that, but I have some other questions that
I want to ask.
You mentioned the panel of experts that was put together. Actually, that was in June 2004. There
was a three-person panel put together. There was a public meeting held. I think you even said where
it was. There is a motel out on Rothesay Avenue. I think it was out there. That was one of the
meetings that no one seemed to know anything about. Therefore, I do not think that they had much

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 19/37

input. Was there a report ever filed by this group? One of them was a professor from the Université
de Moncton. I know that. They are considered to be experts. What was the purpose of that public
meeting? I think that they only had one public meeting, and then they wrote a report. Why did they
do that? What was their purpose in having that public meeting? The other public meetings were
ongoing already, and they were always out in the community.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The panel that the member across is referring to is something that we looked at
as part of our changes to our EIA process. We had heard before that you get a project underway, and
you have the proponent sitting there, making a presentation. The Department of the Environment
and Local Government tries to respond to questions when it is not really its role in these public
meetings. Therefore, this panel was put together. It actually worked very well.
There was a person who sat on that who had quite a bit of expertise in the LNG industry. I believe
that they were quite excited to be invited to participate in that. The meeting, in itself, was not held
at a hotel. It was at Loch Lomond Villa. It was well advertized. They felt that they wanted a larger
venue for the number of people that might be coming to it. About 60 people actually showed up to
the meeting. The panel did its work that evening. It listened to concerns, questions, and comments
from the audience.

053 15:15

We do not have a copy of that with us, but if the member opposite wanted a copy of the report that
came forth from the panel, that could be provided.

Mr. MacIntyre: I met some of the company officials at that announcement on the new Atlantis
office in Saint John. There were a number of them there. One of the suggestions I made was that the
province or Irving Oil or somebody should have a Web site where you can ask questions and get
answers. You may think that is complicated, but I have the one from the Quoddy Bay terminal. I just
want to refer to a few very simple questions, but the answers say a lot. Here is one that says: Can
this region really use more than one LNG import terminal? Can more than one LNG import terminal
actually be supplied? There is one in Saint John and one in Nova Scotia, and there are a number
along the East Coast of the United States.
The response from the company was: The volatility in natural gas prices is due to a relative shortage
of natural gas imports. Natural gas import terminals are needed throughout the United States, and
especially in New England. The need for more than one terminal in the northeast is substantial and
growing. The transmission system in New England will reflect supply and demand and can be
altered to transfer significantly more natural gas. LNG is cleaner-burning than oil, so any increased
use of LNG will have substantial environmental benefits.
What they are saying is that there is a huge future market for LNG, and the prices are going up,
almost on a daily basis.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 20/37

Another question that was posed—you can have a copy of this if you want it—was: What industrial
facilities typically colocate with an LNG import terminal, and how do they typically use the
facilities? The response from the company was: Commonly, a cogeneration plant will colocate with
an LNG import terminal, creating electricity with the natural gas from the facility and using the heat
created in the process to heat up the liquefied natural gas, helping it to change to its natural form.
At this time, no specific proposal is being engineered for our cogeneration plant, although future
plants are under consideration. A cogeneration plant could potentially lower energy costs and
generate electricity for surrounding communities.
Using that same scenario for Saint John, would this tax bill exclude that cogeneration plant from any
form of municipal tax? Would the bill exclude this plant?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: We are having some discussion about whether the member had said “excluded”
or “included”, so I am going to say this very, very clearly. Under the piece of legislation that is being
introduced today, An Act to Comply with the Request of The City of Saint John on Taxation of the
LNG Terminal, the only thing that is included as part of the LNG terminal is the pier where it is offloaded
and the storage tank. Anything else after that has all applicable municipal taxes associated
with it.

Mr. MacIntyre: That is a good answer, actually—very good. I will remember it. Do not come back
with another bill.

054 15:20

What pipeline does the company plan to build to connect the terminal with existing LNG pipelines
in Maine? The answer is simple. Do you know what they said? They said that the LNG import
terminal would connect with the existing Maritime natural gas pipeline through a new branch
pipeline, approximately 30 mi in length, from the LNG terminal to the Maritime pipeline. We are
studying various alternatives such as supplying natural gas to nearby communities, both for home
heating and for commercial use, they said.
I am not going to open that file. I will tell you that I had a press scrum at noon today saying that this
government might be bringing forward a bill that had something to do with the distribution of gas
in Saint John. Do you have a bill you are sitting on besides this one, Madam Minister?

(Mr. Williams took the chair.)

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I am not sitting on this bill. It has been filed on the floor of the Legislature. That
is why we are in Committee of the Whole debating it. I have no other pieces of legislation to
introduce.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE

June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 21/37

Mr. MacIntyre: Does the Minister of Energy have a bill to bring forward? Why am I answering
questions in the press if you are not doing something? I do not like these secret things. Tell us what
you are doing. Are you going to answer?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The Department of the Environment and Local Government does not have any
legislation in this regard. As for the Minister of Energy, there has been some discussion of the
introduction of a bill. I know he would like to get to it, but right now, there would not be anything
from us.

Mr. MacIntyre: This is good information. I do not know why somebody is not doing it. Questions
on property values and homeowner insurance are questions I am getting all the time. What are some
examples of falling or rising property taxes or homeowner insurance premiums for property,
especially residential property, that is within approximately 5 mi of the current LNG facility or a
similar-sized industrial park? Their answer is interesting. They say it is unknown at this time. You
would think somebody would know, wouldn’t you? This is not the first LNG terminal. Will it cost
more for insurance? I think that this is a fair question. Here is another part of that question: What
are the effects on local property values and homeowner’s insurance premiums that Quoddy Bay LLC
expects as a result of the construction of the Gleason’s Cove LNG terminal? What they are asking
is what the effects on property taxes will be.
Do you know what is out in Red Head? There are many cases of families that have been there for
years. The Harrises moved there in 1939, and the whole family lives there. That is one example. The
Red Head subdivision has been there since 1968. There are families like the Beverlys that have been
the since the forties. These are communities where people do not move away, so the issue of
property values is important to these people.
This is the response to the question of what the effects on property values and on homeowner
insurance premiums would be: “Real estate values are influenced by a variety of factors.” This guy
must have been a politician. “Three of the most important factors are the health of the local
economy, existing conditions in a given neighborhood, and nearby zoning.”
They are saying that it might bring the region significant revenues and that it might have a positive
impact on the overall real estate market, but they never addressed the issues of the homes that are
within a 5-mi radius. Has anyone looked at the possible impact on the neighbourhood? We know
that there will be an LNG plant, we know about the road, and we know about a lot of other things,
but what about people living in the area? Has anybody done any research on the possible impact of
having an LNG park in their backyard?
055 15:25

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: I am sorry for the bit of delay, but as you indicated, that is a rather thick
document we are dealing with. If you look at that document, and I can pinpoint it for the member

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 22/37

opposite, because I think he said that he read it. It is page 623, 624 and 625 of the document. It was
the environmental effects associated with the land use operation. It says:
It is anticipated that the LNG facility will not result in a measurable change in local property values.
Adjacent lands during the operation will not be exposed to substantial public health and safety risks,
traffic levels and facility activities will not result in a substantial increase in noise level,
So, this was addressed and looked at under this entire lengthy review process.

Mr. MacIntyre: I knew there was some information in there. The point is that not every resident
has that 919-page document. This particular document that I am reading from . . . I am not going to
give the responses, but I am going to ask a few questions. How much LNG is expected to come into
the terminal every week after the terminal is operational? I do not want you to answer these. Do not
even try to get it out. I am not asking you to answer them. I am making a point. How many ship
arrivals are expected weekly? How much LNG is expected to be sent out of the facility each week?
Of what is sent out, how much will go to the local area?
What I am getting at is, Why couldn’t . . . A good suggestion is a good suggestion. Why does not
somebody develop a site to respond to many of the questions that are in the document? It took four
pages. You mentioned pages 623, 624 and 625 to say, really, it may not be that bad. How many
ships are expected to arrive weekly? One ship will likely arrive every 7 to 10 days. I do not know
about Saint John, because it has changed. There have been some changes to the amount that is
coming in. How much LNG is expected at the facility each week? This particular facility will be .5
BCF to 1 BCF of natural gas—whatever that is.
056 15:30
I think your staff should have a look at this document. I am going to send it over to you. You should
have it. This is something that should be done for Saint John. This is too big an issue to say it is all
covered in a 919-page document. It even covers issues of safety. It talks about how many incidents
there have been around the world, at how many different LNG terminals. Today, access to Web sites
is very common practice. I went in and printed this in preparation for this.
What is the expected size of the exclusion zone during transit? In New Brunswick, we are saying
it will be 300 m. The exclusion zone around this one is 1 000 yd. It sounds familiar if you translate
it, doesn’t it? This is good information. What is the exclusion zone? Has it been increased? I don’t
think so.
The document talks about fishing, and fishing is a huge issue. There are only 15 or 16, but they have
been fishing there for generations. One of the things I have learned through this process is that the
company owns a waterlot. I did not even know private companies could have one, but it has had one
for years; it is not something that was just purchased.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 23/37

Here is what it says about fishing. They are negotiating like mad, and here is what it says: Fishermen
and pleasure boats cannot move inside the exclusion zone. Given the projected speed of the LNG
tankers traveling through the passage, how many minutes during each trip do you expect the
exclusion zone will take to pass a point? That was a mouthful. Here is what they say: In some cases,
registered fishing boats can move inside the exclusion zone. We will give you more information
soon. I think they are dealing with the same company. We will give you more information soon.
They are trying to address the issues of which the public is aware.
I am going to send this over to you. Even if you throw it out, do not throw it out while I am looking.

Mr. Chairman: We will take a 10-minute recess.
(The committee recessed at 3:33 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:05 p.m., with Mr. C. LeBlanc in the chair.)
057-063 16:05

Mr. Chairman: I call the meeting to order.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I would just like to open with a few comments before I get into questioning, if you
can bear with me, Mr. Chairman, as well as the minister. I would like to go back a bit to when this
all happened and why it happened. I spoke at length a couple of weeks ago, and I just want to let you
know that I have not changed my stand on this. My colleague from Saint John Champlain mentioned
the fact that we fully agreed with the caucus decision that the problem was that the province should
bear the burden of the tax break rather than the city of Saint John. I would like to let you know
openly, again, that I agree with the caucus, but I disagree to the extent that I am totally against this
LNG, for a whole lot of purposes that have not satisfied my mind or the people I represent. It has
been an ongoing issue with the people in Saint John as well.
I have read many articles, and what really bothered me about this whole thing was how the
government, how our mayor and council, and how our small business people have been totally
intimidated by the Irving interests. Just last week, they ran half-page ads with two or three lines.
This piece of propaganda states that Saint John should be happy with the LNG. That came out of
the Times & Transcript. I believe that is a Moncton paper. It came through my office from an Irving
person. Every person in the Irving empire received a copy of this.
I also had calls from small businesses that deal with the Irvings. I have been told by an individual
that the Talk of the Town show has lost over $70 000 in ad campaigns because the company, the
Irving interests, have intimidated these people so that they cut themselves off from this station. That
means that, here, you are not allowed to voice your opinion. The beauty of this House is that we are

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 24/37

allowed to do that. We are given the right to represent the people in Saint John and throughout New
Brunswick.
When I look back at all this interest that I have found since I came here—and I still call myself the
apprentice, on this side of the table, anyway . . . I have heard Louis Robichaud’s name mentioned
so many times, on both sides of this House. I did not find a lot of interest in that for one reason, but
I went back and got the book about K.C. Irving and how he had the right to come to this House and
go before a bar and spend over 45 minutes discussing and complaining about equal rights in New
Brunswick.
064 16:10
What actually took place was that the Premier of the day, Louis Robichaud, said that whatever was
good for Saint John, Moncton, or Fredericton would be good for the north. That should impress
every one of us, and it does. His name will go down in history, because people and businesses were
all treated equally.
Here we are, some 40 years later, and what do we have? We have his namesake, Kenneth Irving,
intimidating the people of Saint John, intimidating small businesses. They could not even come out
and sign a petition stating that they did not feel it was fair for him to have a tax break when other
people in Saint John, including me, did not have that right. It is wrong.
I can stand here and feel quite confident that with everything that has gone through this House,
everything that has gone through Saint John, when we go to third reading, it is going to be a tight
vote. I know that the people on the opposite side of the House, in the government, have made a
commitment. The people on this side of the House have made one as well. I do not agree with it, but
I am part of that caucus, and I am allowed my free voice. I have expressed myself to the extent of
saying that I disagree totally with LNG because nobody has given me any piece of mind for the
people I represent.
I look at the minutes of a meeting; they were sent to me by one of the individuals who went to
council that night. The motion was a vote on the proposed package. What really bothered me the
most was that I went to a meeting in Red Head, and the mayor, I think, was totally intimidated by
the crowd that night, because he had extra police. What he said that night, when a question was
posed to him, was that there were six ministers—he was not talking about the Anglican Church or
the United Church, he was talking about the government—and seven deputy ministers. This was
prior to March 14. I questioned why six ministers and seven deputy ministers would be in a meeting
with the Mayor of Saint John. Two weeks prior to that, he had been in Florida. Then, he arrived at
a meeting on March 14. He arrived home on March 10, I think, and he started to meet with his
councillors individually. These councillors met, and they got a real enlightenment.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 25/37

On the night the mayor had his in-house meeting with his colleagues, with the councillors we elected
in Saint John, it was decided that Councillor Billy Farren would read the motion. I questioned
whether the mayor wrote it or the Irvings wrote it. Who seconded that motion? It was Peter
McGuire. This might not sound so professional, but I look at their status, and I look at the
negotiations in which they have been involved as labour people. Then, they voted on something
because somebody said: Here is all the candy. You only have a couple of minutes to think about it,
and this is how you are going to vote.
The vote was 7 to 4. Then, there was the other little issue of rescinding the vote. It remained the
same.
Our mayor stood very proudly and said that the people of Saint John were for this. You know that
we have presented petitions in this House on behalf of the people of Saint John. When we look at
the number of people who are living in the city at any given time, it is somewhere in the vicinity of
52 000 people. We represented over 10 000 of them, so we are looking at one fifth of the population.
065 16:15
When you take that and start calculating, how many of these people represent a family? The heat
got on: Do not sign it. People were scared to death because they worked for an empire that could
wipe you out, just like that!
Let me tell you, I did not know K.C. Irving, but he is a man I have a lot of respect for because he
came here to make his argument. The other Kenny Irving, the grandson, or, whatever he is, snuck
in the backdoor, dealt a deal, and intimidated Enterprise Saint John. We, as a government, gave
Enterprise Saint John so much money to operate, and the city of Saint John gives it so much money
to operate, and this is the kind of deal that Kenny Irving Jr. made , 40 years later—backdoor stuff.
He is not like his grandfather. His grandfather must have had some principles to walk in there and
take on the Premier of the province and the government. This bothers me to a great extent. I look
across the floor, and each and every one of us represents the people throughout New Brunswick, and
we are going to make decisions on this come Tuesday or maybe Wednesday. I wonder about and
I question my own conscience: Am I on the right side of this thing? Do you know something? I am
on the right side of it, because nobody really has offered me any solutions to why there is a fair
taxation for the Irvings and not for the people. On the other hand, nobody has offered me
anything . . .
I heard my colleague for Saint John Champlain question the minister from the Bay of Fundy and her
team of people behind her. I made my living in the Bay of Fundy in the Port of Saint John. As far
as doing any fishing or working out in the Bay of Fundy, I never did that. I tied up ships. This was
not out in the Bay of Fundy at Canaport, because we were not allowed out there. We talk about the
pilot station. The pilot station is in the Bay of Fundy. There are places where they can anchor ships

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 26/37

in the Bay of Fundy, and it is all within a two-mile radius of the city of Saint John. It is my
understanding that there is a channel they all use to proceed up to the Port of Saint John. These
channels are in a selective position.
I showed my colleague a piece of paper that I got from the Canard Line. The question to the Canard
Line, the cruise ships that come into the Port of Saint John: Who is responsible? Are you responsible
if something happens? They said: No, the Port of Saint John is responsible. That means that what
the minister is saying today is that the Port of Saint John is to ensure the safety of any ship that
drives into port, or any ship that goes out into the Bay of Fundy or tied up to the monobuoy.
You know, it is a wonderful thing about nature. Would it not be great if we all had control over
nature in the Port of Saint John or in the province of New Brunswick? I questioned a good friend
of mine on this who is a pilot. Where they are building this thing, and where they were supposed to
build it back in 1976—I think that was the date—was Tiner Point. It was then the pilots’ position
that of any area that they wanted to build, that was the safest place. What I hear today from the
minister about the Atlantic pilots is that they are in concurrence with the ship going where it is. It
is my understanding that they are not, and that the terminal should be in Lorneville at Tiner Point.
He also talked about a southwest wind. I do not know how we can control the wind, but here is what
he said: A southwest wind, where this terminal is going, will have lots of problems. It is the most
predominant wind, and there are 12-foot seas with a southeast wind shifting to northwest at 25-
miles-an-hour. That ship cannot remain on that terminal where they are going to build it.
066 16:20
That is what I call an expert. These are the guys who know what it is all about. They are responsible
for that ship.
I have a question, and I guess this is the best time to pose that question. My colleague from Saint
John-Champlain asked a little about that. We have an oil tanker sitting on the monobuoy. We also
have an LNG ship tied up at this proposed terminal. For all intents and purposes, when that ship tied
up, everything was normal. The swells were probably at 6 ft. On an ordinary day in the Bay of
Fundy, the swells or the sea or whatever you want to call it, is at an average of 6 ft. to 8 ft. All of
a sudden, we get this wind, and it exceeds itself up to a 25 mph wind. Then what happens? That ship
cannot stay in that berth. So you have two ships within a half-mile of each other. One tug is sitting
on the monobuoy. Where are the other tugs? Where are they going to come from to get that ship off
and it is going to be safe? That is the question.
I guess that you are in a position to maybe answer that question. Maybe you are in a position to have
control of what those winds are going to do. I am asking you—the Saint John pilots in the Atlantic
Pilotage Authority have told me different, that it cannot remain there—how safe is it?

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 27/37

Mr. Lamrock: While the minister contemplates that, I would seek the consent of the House to take
a recess at this time. I believe that in my talks with the Government House Leader, we have an
agreement to do that.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: Any closing comments?
(Interjections.)

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: Pardon? I just had a quick response. I am not going to go on. I heard what the
member opposite said. One of the things that must be developed is a marine terminal manual. That
is going to deal with the host of issues that are related to that pier. I know that there was some
concern, and some of the concerns brought up by the Saint John harbour pilots—who work for the
Atlantic Pilotage Authority—were very specific in nature. They were the weather, the tides,
conditions, visibility the number of tugs that would be available, different things like that. A lot of
their issues will be addressed, will be looked at, under the simulation exercise, and the marine
terminal manual that has to be developed. That has input from all of these groups. The questions that
you are asking are the questions that they, I assume, were asking. I do not have a list of their specific
questions. These are things that have to be part of not only the simulation exercise, but the marine
terminal manual that has to be developed before any LNG ship is allowed to come into that facility.

Mr. Chairman: We have consensus between the two House leaders to take a short session, and then
we will resume.

(The committee recessed at 4:24 p.m.
The committee resumed at 5:12 p.m.)
067-076 17:10

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Prior to starting, I offered the minister a couple of photographs of the proposed
terminal in the Bay of Fundy. My question would be that the original one talked about two separate
tanks and a base. This other one came alive not too long ago, and it adds two and a half tanks to fill
it out, for a total of six. Can the minister explain to me why that came about, because my
understanding in receiving these is that they gave these to the residents rather than to the committee?
I do not know if this is part of the EIA or if has to go back to PAC in Saint John for this addition.
Could you please explain that?

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 28/37

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The picture that the member for Saint John Lancaster gave me—the darker one
that you said showed the six tanks—is the older of the two. Originally, they were considering putting
six tanks there, but their EIA was for the three tanks that you see. If they ever wanted to put more
tanks on that site, they would have to register that project for an environmental assessment.
Therefore, it is the three tanks that say storage tanks. Those are the three that they are looking at
developing. If you look closely at your other picture that is more the map, you will see that there are
three. It says proposed LNG facility. If you look on that one, there are three circles. Those are the
three tanks that they are proposing. The date of that one was 2004. Therefore, it is the three tanks
that are on your map more than your aerial photo with that imposed on.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Let’s get it clear. The fact is that there were two original tanks and the base for
a possible third one. What they did here was double their capacity. Where does that go from here
to get that authorization? You are saying it has to go back to the EIA.
077 17:15

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The comprehensive environmental impact assessment was done on the premise
of 1 billion standard cubic feet per day. That is those three tanks. The entire environmental impact
assessment was based on that.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: It is safe to say that the addition is not authorized yet.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: Are you referring to the extra tanks, the original picture of six tanks? Yes.
Actually, as I said, this one is older than this one. A long time ago, when they were looking at this,
when they started talking to people, it was six tanks, but they have approval for three tanks which
have a capacity of 1 billion standard cubic feet per day. If they ever want to put another tank on the
site, they will have to register that project. If they ever wish to exceed 1 billion standard cubic feet
per day, they will have to add another storage tank and reregister that portion of the project. This
whole thing was based on the three tanks. Nothing else exists or can be constructed without a
reregistration.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: It amazes me. Maybe you could clarify this for me. Maybe going back to 1996 is
going a little far back, but there is a little place near Lorneville called Tiner Point. In 1996, there was
some talk of an LNG terminal, and the pilots and all the other people you mentioned before were
involved. When people objected to this going to Tiner Point, my understanding was that it was a
safer place and that there was more water to handle this. Why is it that the Atlantic pilots are now
totally supporting the 1976 issue in the Bay of Fundy for that terminal?
078 17:20

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The area you are referring to, Tiner Point, which you and I know is in the Coleson
Cove area, was looked at. That may have been very close if there was an Orimulson project attached

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 29/37

to this, so it would have been beneficial to NB Power. As I said, this was looked at during the
process. It says that the site had more shelter, but that it would require very extensive dredging, and
it is also within a protected area. The other factor, of course, was the fact that Lorneville was
considered to be too far from the refinery in itself. What we looked at environmentally is the fact
that there would have to be a lot of dredging in the area, and the fact that this is within a protected
area. That site was looked at.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: When we talk about the dredging in the area, that would not have been a cost to
the provincial government, that would have been a cost to the Irvings, or Repsol, or what have you.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: It is not a monetary cost. That would have been a large environmental cost to the
province.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: The other question I have is, Why would this be given to 16 or 17 residents in that
confined area, rather than a committee that represents the people in that area? Could you answer me
that question, please?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I guess we cannot qualify why the company, as you said, handed out 16 of these.
That is not something that we control. Maybe if you had a date of when this was done, we could
narrow some things down that way. As for the community environmental liaison committee, the one
I have talked about before, it has all of this information. It meets regularly to go over this and look
at issues. Staff have said that the July meeting is in regard to safety. If you knew when that was
passed out, we could ask how many were passed out, for what purpose, and how they were passed
out. I do not have that information.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I respect that and I thank you very much for that. All I can say is that these
residents, in turn, passed it on to the committee, and that is how these people obtained it. When they
gave me that information today, I thought it was a pertinent question to all of this.
I would like to talk a bit about the terminal and the Bay of Fundy. You are probably quite right about
when we go back to 1976 and what the purpose was in that. My big concern here is, What will
happen with two vessels tied up—one at the monobuoy and one at the terminal—if we find
ourselves in a position that we get a shift in the wind, which creates a bigger swell, which moves
up to 25 knots per hour. I know what you told me earlier. Again, we are putting ourselves in a very
awkward position for the people who live in that area, as well as the people in the surrounding area.
It is my understanding that if anything does happen, it can basically affect up to two—maybe to
six—miles in radius through carrying it in the air, and what have you. I really have a problem with
the safety and the reinsurance. As I said earlier, I do not agree with the caucus I sit on, to that extent,
and they understand that. I am hoping that somewhere you can reassure me, and the people I sit with
here today, that it will be a safe measure, and how I am going to get that off that terminal without
creating a problem.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 30/37
079 17:25

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: Those types of questions are the questions that need to be answered. They will
be answered under that marine terminal manual that I referred to. That is what the experts that deal
with these things . . . They have the simulation exercise that needs to be done. They also have to
develop that marine terminal manual. That is section H of the conditions that refers to that.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: It is an organization called the Society of International Gas Tanker & Terminal
Operators Ltd. I am just going to read one paragraph, because I think it is important.
The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators [SIGTTO] was formed in 1979
to encourage safe and responsible operation of liquefied gas tankers and marine terminals handling
liquefied gas; to develop advice and guidance for best practice among its members . . .
I am going to stop there, because I have a list here. I have no problems sharing that with you. I do
not see Repsol or Irving belonging to this select group that services—whatever the case may be . . .
They do not belong to this terminal group. It is called the Society of International Gas Tanker &
Terminal Operators Ltd. I have asked this question on a couple of occasions—not here in the House:
How come Irving and Repsol do not belong to this, if they want to get into this LNG? As I
understand it, this organization is sort of the Bible of the LNG world. Can someone possibly share
their experience explaining to me why they do not belong to this organization?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: At their last Community Environmental Liaison Committee meeting, that
question was asked with regard to the organization that you are referring to. What was given to the
Community Environmental Liaison Committee from Repsol was that they would be meeting all of
the criteria of that organization.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Repsol is well known throughout the LNG world, and it has not belonged to this.
Now, it is going to come to New Brunswick and, all of a sudden, we will abide, and we will join.
That is all. That is just a statement. It is not looking for an answer. However, if I could refer to an
article out of the Mobil Register, from Mobil, Alabama.
080 17:30
I am not going to read all of this because it is quite lengthy. I am going to read some excerpts from
this. It says: By the scientists contacted by the mobile registered I am formally warned the safety
net may have a hole. Federal regulations do not address the hazards posed in the nearby
communities from the accidents involving a 1 000-foot-long tanker ship that carry LNG to terminals.
The register also had been unable to identify who, if anyone, would be responsible for estimating,
setting, and enforcing the thermal exclusion zones around the ships. Scientists who have developed
a semi-LNG research believe that an accident involved in the terminal, on water, could cause
damage far more widespread than an accident at heavily reinforced offshore facilities. The LNG that

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 31/37

carries on each 33-million gallons of a double-haul tanker is capable of producing 600 times as
much energy as equivalent volumes of natural gas.
It goes on to say, and I am only going to read one line from this paragraph because I think it is very
important: “People two miles away from a tanker could suffer second-degree burns.”
I want to bring you to the person who did the consulting, or the EIA, for the Irvings, They are called
Quest Consultants and are out of Oklahoma. I do not know what the Hackberry document is. It says
here that the Hackberry document also reported the results of a controversial estimate developed in
2001 by an Oklahoma company called Quest Consultants. Numerous published studies which select
the Quest estimate have been significantly reviewed, and predicts that fires produced by limited
tanker spills could be five to six times larger. This Quest Consultants, my understanding is, has done
some work for the Irvings in the Bay of Fundy, as well as being part of the EIA. Here is a sort of
reply that this person who, as a pilot, checked this out. Quest is the same forum that the Irvings used
for the public sessions that you had to attend. It goes on to say: As I remember Quest consultants
stood up and told everyone that LNG basically is harmless, that it would dissipate too rapidly to be
too concerned. There in big print it says, “WRONG”.
I guess my question would be, How can we justify when the energy of the United States, that
company and this other Professor Faye who is a volunteer to another big organization, has some
reviews, some questions about this company. Here we, in Saint John, New Brunswick, because it
is a big firm out of Oklahoma, are not questioning it. If they are under review in the United States,
where do we get off allowing this situation to arrive? Can you justify Quest Consultants? You must
have it there.

081 17:35

Mr. Chairman: I will caution the two members that this is not the place for this debate. We have
the debate on the bill, and we will stick to speaking on the bill. I will caution the members.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: The understanding that we have over here is that the study or simulation that you
are referring to that was done by Quest, was back in 2001, and it was done “quick and dirty” after
9/11. They were looking at what the potential impact would be of a missile hitting a tanker, and were
looking at the zones around it.
When that was done, and it was agreed that the study was not comprehensive and not accurate, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States, or FERC, they also did some work in
the area. That has all been revised. With regard to the consequence analysis of what would happen,
as you said, in the worst-case scenario, if there was an explosion in a 2-mi. radius, that was looked
at by Environment Canada. It actually looked at what was being proposed, and changed that to
expand it somewhat. We believe the analysis that was done with the oversight, too, of all the federal

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 32/37

regulators, and so forth. We expanded on that zone and we actually refer to it as a 4-km . . . It could
go up to 4 km which is where your 2 mi. would basically relate to.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I want to talk a little bit . . .
Hon. Ms. Fowlie: One more thing on that . . .

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Okay, go ahead.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: What we are referring to there is a worst-case scenario, if you had a total
breakdown or a discharge of one whole cylinder on the ship.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Again, I want to reiterate what I said earlier. If we have a wind shift that we do
not have any control over, and this ship is tied up at the dock or terminal, whatever you want to call
it, the swells get to be quite huge and out of control.
082 17:40
The purpose of that ship could give us a lot of problems at the terminal. You are right, we are going
to get into a manual, and we are going to be able to justify that. I appreciate that, but I just want to
rehash that a little bit.
I want to talk about the motion and how legal this motion is. It is a big question in Saint John, how
legal is the motion that was made by common council. Then we had some press in the paper by
some of the councillors that made some statements about that. I will just read the Committee of the
Whole and I will give you the final analysis of that.
Committee of the Whole reports the tax incentive at the LNG terminal. Consideration was given to
the report from the Committee of the Whole having heard it earlier this evening. The mayor advised
that negotiations between Irving Oil and Repsol YPF of Spain to develop a $750 million LNG
terminal and Irving Canaport are in the final phase. By reducing municipal, read property tax,
payable during the life of the terminal. He outlines a very positive spin for the effect on the city. The
motion that night was made by, and I said this earlier, Councillor Farren and seconded by Councillor
McGuire, resolved . . . and there is probably one, two, three, four, five issues. It goes on to say that
the municipal tax rate, as otherwise determined under paragraph 87(c) of the Municipalities Act, be
adjusted annually so as to fix the amount due to the city of Saint John from the specific zone at
$500 000 per annum for the next 25 years.
I want to revert back to the changing of the Act. It is my understanding that there had to be some
real foot dancing. I am not here to criticize, but on that side of the table there was some question of
how we were going to get around that. It was to change, probably, the Act back in the early 60s in

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 33/37

Robichaud’s day, but they came in with a new tax. I am wondering and I question the fact. Where
is the legality of this thing? Is it legal for what you are proposing here today?

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I was not quite sure if you were finished, because you do not sit down when you
are done, and I am not used to that.
When you refer to the motion and you ask about the legalities of it, the fourth paragraph down says
be it resolved that common council establish insofar as it is within the city’s authority . . . So, the
motion itself is legal. They are not saying that they have that authority. They are saying “insofar”.
The legislation that we have brought into the House, which as we are aware is referred to as an Act
to Comply With the Request of the City of Saint John on Taxation of the LNG Terminal, this bill in
itself is legal.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I can recall that night very well, and when one of the councillors raised the
question to their legal counsel, he said: Definitely, it was not legal, but they went on to vote against
it anyway. I question that.
Let me read you a little bit of what come out in the Saint John paper after, and what your
government position is on what they are trying to do. It goes on to say that it is not only surprising,
but misleading, that the provincial government, to use the terms in an Act to Comply With the
Request of the City of Saint John on Taxation of the LNG Terminal, the proposed Act does not
comply with the city of Saint John’s request. In fact, the Act is being established by the Province
to control the tax against the LNG terminal and its development.
083 17:45
I am not going to read it all, but I am going over a couple more lines.
“The city has no legal say for the government to say that the Act is complying with the city’s
request. It is blatantly wrong. The title could be changed forthwith, and it may be clear that the
province is proposing a tax reduction not in compliance with the city.”

Hon. Mrs. Fowlie: The resolution that was made at the council meeting says that the municipal tax
rate as otherwise determined under paragraph 87(c) of the Municipalities Act be adjusted annually
so as to fix the amount due to the city of Saint John from this specific zone at $500 000 per annum
for a period of 25 years. That was the request that we received from the city of Saint John. That was
their specific request. This bill does just that. This is a bill that will comply with the request from
the city of Saint John on taxation of the LNG terminal. This is it—no more than that. They requested
it. This Act is an Act to comply with that request.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Showing no disrespect to the minister, I have to disagree with her.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 34/37

If you would give me a minute, I would like to read the first paragraph from a letter I received from
a constituent, not one of mine, but from Saint John Portland.
The taxpayers and the citizens of Saint John are disappointed and disgusted by the way we have
been treated for so long. This deal would have to stay here no matter what all of you have been
stating. This tax concession for 25 years will hurt everyone. The stubbornness of the mayor and
councillors, Premier Lord, and his ministers, and MLAs, to insist that this is the only way is
ridiculous and criminal at the same time.
I stand here, and I read that, and I wonder. I have sat here and I have listened to my colleagues, I
have listened to people throughout the city, and I am listening to you, Madam Minister, with your
team that has put all of this together. It really, really upsets me to think that we are going to put
something in place as huge as this LNG terminal in the Saint John area.
I heard the member for Madawaska la Vallée say what is going to do for Saint John. I sit and I think
about what has gone on in Belledune over the years. I listened to all the spinoffs of what happened
in Belledune. I read with some interest about Lake Charles in Louisiana and the spinoffs that LNG
created there. Now, what do they call it? “Lake Cancer”. We are putting ourselves in the same
situation in Saint John, because Enterprise Saint John has misled the people of Saint John. If I were
in a position to fire any one of them, I would, but I am not.
I will just tell you how bad it is—and I represent the people in Saint John Lancaster—that I would
not even attend one of their meetings, because they live in a world all their own that is all lies. That
is what bothers me. I sit here at this side of the table, and you have heard me say that my caucus has
not put any handcuffs on me to the extent of saying: You cannot say what you are saying about the
LNG, that you disagree with it, that you should be staying within the tax break. I represent people
the same as you represent people in Saint John.

084 17:50

It bothers me that you, as a caucus, as a Cabinet, cannot speak out on behalf of the people and say:
I do not have any realities. I am waiting for the manual to come out on the Port of Saint John that
is going to reassure me of that. That manual is going to tell me all about the winds that I am going
to have total control over in the Bay of Fundy. That is not going to happen.
I can recall when ships were washed up at Red Head and on the rocks. I saw them as a kid. The Fort
Avalon hit the pilot boat and killed six people in the harbour in dense fog. I can recall being a kid
of nine years old when the Beaver Brae came up the harbour and sank right at the foot of the
Reversing Falls Bridge. These things are a reality. The things that I heard at a meeting not too long
ago at Harbour View High School, the reality of LNG . . . On the West Coast of the United States,
there is none, and on the East Coast, there is. I think that is very important.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 35/37

We are sitting here in judgment of a time bomb. The minister referred a few minutes ago to Quest
Consultants and why it was a quick-shot deal to come into the port, and then the other organizations
come in after, because of the terrorists that took out those two buildings in New York. Is that farfetched?
That could happen in the Bay of Fundy and in Saint John. It is not far-fetched that it could
be in the channel in movement up to the Port of Saint John, and clear over to the West Side, as well
as Red Head. This is how important this is. It is not only the tax breaks that we are looking at. We
are looking at something very serious. To sit there, today, in all honesty . . . I firmly believe, in my
own heart, that you do not agree with this to the full extent, because of your statements today on the
aspect of what is going to take place to ensure safety in the Port of Saint John. You are like me. It
is the fear of the unknown. It is not going to happen. These things are important to the people of the
city of Saint John.
How the Premier and your Cabinet can tie the hands of the members from Saint John and not allow
them . . . I have a petition to present on Tuesday before this House. Over 1 000 people were taken
into consideration, and 800 or 900 of them—I am not sure of the number . . . Eighty-seven percent
of those over 1 000 people said no to the tax break. If you want to get into it a little deeper, and they
asked the other question, they would say the same: I am not sure how safe this is going to be.
It is not people like me who are painting this picture. I have it from the pilots. I have it from an expilot
who just retired, Jimmy May. He said: I could come up that Bay of Fundy, and it could be a
paved street. Then, all of a sudden, when it is tied up, the wind could change, and I would be in
trouble. That is how serious the Bay of Fundy is.
It is so serious that I am standing here today, saying that it is wrong. Ken Irving, who blackmailed
the council, who is blackmailing this government, is now being branded as being the government.
He is the government. It is the Irving government that you sit there, Madam Minister, and represent.
His father, 40, 50, and 60 years ago, stood there proudly and came in here and debated the issue. We,
as individuals, are not allowed to debate this. We can, but the people out there whom we represent
depend on people like you and me and the others in this House. I think it is wrong for us to sit here
in judgment.
The only thing I can say is that, in the next five minutes, my questions are basically your conscience
and what you represent. It is easy to walk down the streets of Saint John and say: I agree with this.
I think it is going to be an economic engine. Let me tell you, it is not the economic engine you think
it is going to be. I will tell you right now that the six Cabinet ministers and the seven deputies who
met in Saint John did not meet just about economics. They met about the LNG. The Premier and
yourselves all met prior to this. You set the mayor up because he does not have the brains of a twoyear-
old kid. He took it before council, and the idiots . . . I can call each and every one of them that,
and I told them that to their face, because I do not run behind any of their backs. They said: Here.
We have to do this in four hours.

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 36/37
085 17:55

People who had prevalence in the negotiations. That mayor walked that in as a mayor who was told
by you people: We do not put the cart before the horse. We were there before the 10th, and that is
it.

(Interjections.)

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I am not done, yet. When I am done, you will have the floor. I am still talking.

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me. It is 5:55 p.m., and we want to get the last response. We have to call

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: I would like to have two more minutes and give her three minutes to respond. Is
that possible?

Mr. Chairman: It is 5:55 p.m. We have to call Mr. Speaker. I would ask the member to resume. He
has 30 seconds to resume.

Mr. A. LeBlanc: Thank you, minister. I will sit down now.

Hon. Ms. Fowlie: I am not going to go into that diatribe, but I do want to point out that I do support
an LNG facility for the city of Saint John. I have not been muzzled in any way. My hands have not
been tied. I support economic development for the Port of Saint John, for the city of Saint John, and
for New Brunswick. I support that.
Many of the things that were said do bother me, but there is one thing I want to point out, because
it keeps coming out. I know we have people up in the gallery. There was no meeting of ministers
and deputies. There was no meeting in Saint John where ministers and deputies went to meet with
the mayor, or any of them, with regard to the LNG facility. The only meeting that they are referring
to is a breakfast meeting that took place in Fredericton many months ago. They were talking about
economic development for the city of Saint John.
The concept, LNG, is part of economic development, but what seems to be the issue here, is the tax
incentive that the city proposed. We had nothing to do with that. It was a motion of council. If the
member opposite has an issue with a motion that was made by council, then that member opposite
should be dealing with it. What we have done is introduce an Act to Comply With the Request of the
City of Saint John on Taxation of the LNG Terminal. In that legislation, we are defining “LNG
terminal”. It will be for the off-loading and storage only of LNG. If the company, Repsol or Irving,
wishes to do anything with that, it must regasify it. Everything after that storage unit is fully taxable.
It is for off-loading and storage. I support economic development in Saint John. I am proud to stand

HANSARD DAILY / FASCICULE
June 22, 2005 Not finalized / Non finalisé le 22 juin 2005
S:\HANSARD\HANSARD DAILIES - FASCICULES\2004-2005 55-2\54 2005-06-22\rqBill70.wpd 37/37

on the floor of this House any day and support economic development for all of New Brunswick,
and Saint John, and I will represent the people.

Mr. Chairman: Call Mr. Speaker.

(Mr. Speaker resumed the chair when the committee rose.)
Committee Reports

(Mr. C. LeBlanc, after requesting that the Speaker revert to the order of Presentations of Committee
Reports, reported Bills 39, 40, 63, 43, 73, and 60 as agreed to, and progress on Bill 70.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Rule 78.1, put the question on the motion deemed to be before
the House that the report be concurred in, and the motion was carried.)

Hon. Mr. Green: I move that the House do now adjourn.
(The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.)