Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Ed Byrne, MHA for Kilbride, substitutes for Paul Shelley, MHA for Baie Verte, and James Walsh, MHA for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, substitutes for Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

CHAIR (Sweeney): Order, please!

I would like to welcome you all here this evening, and I would like for the Committee members to introduce themselves.

MR. WALSH: James Walsh, MHA for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. ANDERSEN: Wally Andersen, MHA for Torngat Mountains.

MR. JOYCE: Eddie Joyce, MHA for Bay of Islands.

MR. J. BYRNE: Jack Byrne, MHA for Cape St. Francis.

MR. E. BYRNE: Ed Byrne, MHA for Kilbride.

MR. COLLINS: Randy Collins, MHA for Labrador West.

CHAIR: I would like for the minister now to introduce his staff.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On my right is Ken Dominie, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment. On my immediate left is Paul Dean, the Deputy Minister. On the left of the Deputy Minister is Gerry Crocker, the Director of Financial and General Operations.

I am Mr. Kevin Aylward, the recycled Minister of Environment, back again.

CHAIR: Just a little bit of housekeeping before we begin.

Kevin, I think, only has that camera right here in operation, so, if you could probably recognize yourself as you speak, he can pick it up for Hansard. I think he is probably familiar with the members here, but for the witnesses.

The first item of business is the adoption of the minutes of the previous meeting, which you should have in front of you.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Minister, if you like, you can make some opening remarks and then we will call the first subhead.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Call the subhead first and then take the opening remarks? Fine.

Subhead 1.1.01.

Minister.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to be here in front of the Committee. I will just indicate very quickly that the mandate of the department is: number one, environment assessment and policy related to that; number two, managing the water resources of the Province; number three, environmental monitoring, especially in the industrial sector; and, number four, improving solid waste management of the Province. That is a big issue and we are establishing policy in that area now.

These four aspects are really what this department covers off, and also a lot of, lately, in the last period of time, education when it comes to environmental issues, recycling and so on. It is a department that seems to be getting more and more attention, I think, with the public because of development issues that arise, along with human health issues when it comes to impact of water supplies, especially what has occurred across Canada. It is an important department. Even though the budget itself is not big in dollars, it is big on policy and it is big on what is required with the people.

I think I will leave it there. I think a lot of people are familiar with these issues and I would rather have the time for the Committee if they would like to have any thoughts on this overall. I will leave it there.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Will we begin?

Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is good to see you back as Minister of Environment. I remember a number of years ago when I was your critic for Environment and we managed to get along pretty good. Anyway, I am not going to go right into the subheads yet, at this point in time. Some of the members on the Committee here may want to get into that. I have a few questions prepared. I may appear to jump around a bit, but that is all we can do at this point.

Can the minister provide an update on the container deposit refund program? What is the value of deposits collected in the 2001-2002 fiscal year? How much was paid out to consumers? What was the surplus at the end of the fiscal year? And, did any of this money go into general revenues?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I appreciate the question. There is an annual report that is put out and I think it was tabled in the House a few months back, probably, Mr. Dominie?

MR. DOMINIE: December.

MR. K. AYLWARD: December, okay, this report here. It is an annual report of the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. Basically, all the money stays in a trust fund, whichever is not used to run the recycling system that we have in the Province. The money that is surplus to that, it has been used for public awareness, public education, and also recycling contests in schools which have been very successful. Over 240 schools are now involved in recycling programs across the Province, and last year they introduced it where they matched the money each school raised, dollar for dollar, so it has been going well.

The funds are used to run the program, number one. Number two, they are used then for more awareness, marketing of the awareness of recycling, and also in the school systems to get kids more involved in the recycling program.

That is basically where it is. When you look at the overall effort, the numbers have been going up this year because I think they increased the return to the consumer. Our numbers have been starting to rise. I think they are published in the report but we expect those numbers to go up this year, even higher, with the five cent return per item for the consumer.

Since that increase to the consumer, we have seen an increase in returns in the school system for kids. There is more fundraising going on and that has been a big help.

Overall, none of the dollars come to general revenue; they are not allowed to. They are all used for environmental projects, environmental cleanup work. Some of the money this year will be used for some of the waste management initiatives that we are going to do, so it will all go towards environmental issues, planning issues dealing with waste management this year in particular and the coming year.

MR. J. BYRNE: In that booklet you are talking about there, would you be able to tell us then how much was spent on the administration of the program?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The statement of operations. It is $1 million on operating, on the budget. That includes, in that budget, a significant dollar there for marketing and communications; marketing in particular, I think, the TV buys and The Telegram, newspaper buying of the marketing of the program. That is a fair dollar. The actual wages and benefits are $200,000, a little over $200,000. The rest of it is all running the offices and that kind of thing. It is $1 million for administration and a fair bit of that is marketing.

MR. J. BYRNE: How much was paid out then in handling fees to the depot operators over the year?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The handing fee to depot operators in 2001 was $2.391 million. The deposit refunded was $2.644 million, and they had some inventories at the beginning of the year. So, at the end of the year, they show here in the report, the net earnings were $4 million. That would have been the surplus, so the handing fees to the recycler: $2.391 million.

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to transportation costs, shipping the containers from the depots to the provincial processing centres last year, is that broken down there also?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, $728,000, I think, is it, Deputy? That is what it looks like there. It looks like that is the freight cost, so that would be the transferring.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. Thank you.

With respect to the domestic oil spills last winter, can you tell us how much the department spent on the cleanup of domestic oil spills? Has any of this money been recovered? If so, how much and by what means?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think I am going to defer that question because that is previous to me being there, but my understanding is that we have had a fair bit of work done and we have a new policy in place since then. Mr. Deputy or Mr. ADM?

MR. DOMINIE: Our policy is that cleanup costs are the responsibility of the polluter. There was one incident that we got involved in last year, an emergency situation, where something had to be done on a very quick basis. The department got involved there, and I do believe the bill was somewhere between $15,000 and $18,000. That is all we spent last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to that policy, I remember there were two individuals or two families in my district that were brought to the attention of the department and one of those individuals was on social assistance. They had an oil spill and it is fairly close to a pond. Obviously, these people could not pay for the cleanup and there has been nothing done with it. What is the policy there?

MR. DOMINIE: That presents a challenge, for sure. We do not have a fund to handle these types of circumstances. We have found several times over the past twelve months where there have been individuals who have not been in much of a position to deal with the situation on their own. Sometimes these circumstances do not get dealt with, certainly not in a very expeditious manner, but the department, or the government, does not get involved in a routine basis with cleanups, irrespective of the circumstances; and that is difficult because there are some times where individuals certainly, we found, have not been in a position to do much. There have been some circumstances where people have been stressed but they have managed to do it on their own.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is government planning on developing a policy with respect to this? Because there are two instances that I know of right there - and the department is aware of this - that have not been addressed. The families certainly cannot afford to do it and, as I said, the problem still exists. Is that the department's decision, that, so be it?

MR. DOMINIE: That is the department's position at the moment. I am not aware of any plans to change that position. What we have done, of course, with the new regulations governing tanks is that hopefully these instances will be less in the future because the standards will be higher. Also, in relationship to the program with regard to the new standards, government has introduced a policy this year for low income families to receive assistance from government. I do believe it is $300 a family, or up to $300 a family, to replace tanks. Recognizing that some tanks were not up to standard when the new regulation was put in place, there was a financial assistance program put in place as well. Hopefully, that will cut down on the number of cases in the future where that will occur.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Also, further to that, Mr. Chairman, I would wonder whether or not the Department of Human Resources was contacted on this - or community services - about these households.

MR. J. BYRNE: Both.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Were they both contacted on this? Yes? Was there any insurance on the houses?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: No insurance? Okay. I certainly wouldn't mind checking out whichever. If there are two of them, I wouldn't mind being notified of where they are. I certainly will check with the other departments to see whether or not maybe there are some resources they might have.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

I will move on. I don't know what part your department plays in this but your department, with the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, with respect to the spray program this year for the hemlock looper and sawfly, if there is going to be one this year, what chemicals will be used? When will it occur, and what will be the projected cost of the program? Also, how successful was the program last year?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, there will be a spray program this year. I will ask the officials to maybe give some more detail, but there will be a spray program. There is a major problem on the Northern Peninsula, in Central and parts of the West Coast with both of those, the sawfly and the hemlock looper, this year. I believe that the Department of Forestry has put an application in for a spray program through environmental assessment and that includes, is it Mimic, I think is one, is it Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes, Mimic and Bt. Bt is a bacteriological agent; Mimic is a chemical agent. So, these two projects have been registered under the environment assessment process. They are undergoing assessment at the moment. I do not have the dates when the decision is (inaudible), but they will come because they were registered, I do believe, about a month ago.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, the funding for these programs will come out of Forestry and Agriculture, I suppose, will it?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, it will come out of Forestry and Agriculture if it is on Crown land. If it is on company limits, it will come out of the company's budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. I have some questions here with respect to the (inaudible) but I will probably let that go because the critic would probably be more interested in that than myself.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Is that who that is over there? That is the critic, is it? Okay, I was just making sure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why, would you prefer another one?

WITNESS: I can apply for it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, I will move on for now, unless somebody else wants to ask any questions.

CHAIR: For the record, the Chair recognizes Tom Osborne who has just arrived.

MR. E. BYRNE: Can I ask some questions?

CHAIR: Sure, yes.

Mr. Byrne.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everybody.

I have some questions directly related to the Estimates. If it is okay with the minister, certainly, and his staff, maybe we could go through them subhead by subhead, just to deal with them. It is not a lot, obviously. With respect to - and this seems to be something that is emerging in all departments - under the heading of Purchased Services, or Professional Services, if we can deal with, first of all, subhead 1.2.02., which is on page 96, Purchased Services of $51,900, what would be the normal types of services that you would purchase there? Would those services include contractual relationships or is just goods and services, not necessarily people services, that you are getting there?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am going to defer this one over to Mr. Crocker. I believe it is professional services, contractual, and some advertising and stuff. Gerry, do you want to give (inaudible)?

MR. CROCKER: Sure.

Under Purchased Services, normally you would have your advertising and promotion. You would have printing costs and entertainment. They would be some of the normal ones, and purchase (inaudible) maintenance on rentals.

MR. E. BYRNE: For that subhead -

MR. CROCKER: For that subhead, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: - in particular?

MR. CROCKER: Right.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. CROCKER: It is for advertising and promotion primarily.

MR. E. BYRNE: What types of services would you be purchasing? You would have a fair idea about it; your department spent $41,000 of its $51,000 allocated budget last year. You said entertainment, that is fair enough, but in terms of professional services, what sort of professional services would you have contracted in this particular subhead last year?

MR. CROCKER: Under Administration, there were no professional services there. It was under purchased services. There is purchased services there and that would be the ones I just mentioned.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

Under Grants and Subsidies, last year the department spent $103,000 and this year you are budgeting $38,000. What would be the nature of the grants and subsidies handed out in this particular subhead, or being viewed or looked upon as being handed out?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The extra there -

MR. E. BYRNE: You saved your 8 per cent right there, did you?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That was a part of it, yes. That was definitely a part of it. You are very quick there this evening, I can tell.

Part of that difference was the conservation corps. I think we provided some funding to them in the past year, and in climate change I believe we were doing some work in that area. Is that correct, in what I am reading here?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay. You had $38,000 budgeted, you spent $103,000 and you are back to $38,000 this year, so the difference in -

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think last year the conservation corps was coming to an end with their funding program and there was a real strong effort trying to put forward to get them straightened away. That funding is put in place now, and I think it is there for the next period of time, and is probably not anticipated, I am assuming, this year for it to be. It was a one-time contribution -

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - to get them.... They had some funding, I think, from other sources and they needed some, I think, from the department last year. That is my understanding.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

In Policy Development and Planning, subhead 1.2.03., Professional Services, $131,900, what sorts of professional services would you be contemplating or envisaging seeing that you would be entering into? What is the criteria used in the selection method of purchasing professional services, whether it be consultants, administrators, or people with a background in any particular expertise in environment? How is that chosen? Is that strictly ministerial discretion or departmental discretion, or is it a combination of ministerial, departmental discretion, a combination of requests for proposals, or a combination of public tenders? I wonder if you could answer that?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Okay. A good question. What we have identified there - and Mr. Crocker, our deputy, can comment on this further - waste management is an area that we are going to be spending more time on this year in a major way. Those professional services, a fair dollar of that will be towards that effort. Now, in the process of how we do it, I will defer to these gentlemen.

MR. DEAN: I think that would be, as you described it, a combination of requests for proposals or for public tendering, or there may be a company that we would have some specialized work over a multi-year period. We may go back to that same company and say: Carry on with the previous work that you did for us last year.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is there any governmental policy on the selection criteria for this? I have been asking this question, not just of you or the minister now, but in the House in particular, over the course of several weeks dealing with a number of different departments per se and I cannot seem to get an answer. The lack of one is not necessarily a bad thing, either; I just want to know if there is one or if there isn't. I understand you have to have the broad discretion to operate a government, and if you need to respond to the situation and you need a particular expert, I mean, you are not going to have, necessarily, three weeks to go through a public tender call. If you need somebody now, you have to go get them. I understand that. I am just asking out of the sake of curiosity more than anything now.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a good question. From what I can tell - and again these gentlemen can comment further - for example, if you are looking to do, say, something like a quick evaluation of something and you want to get a small piece of work done, well, I think there is some discretion there but it is very limited, very limited. I even think that once you hit a certain amount, you have to go through processes, more processes, the higher you go. I think that is the best way to explain it at this point, from an operational point of view.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Paul, maybe you want to - or Gerry - you might have a comment about where that is in the sense -

MR. DEAN: There are Treasury Board guidelines which we are asked to abide by in the engagement of -

MR. E. BYRNE: Is it possible to get a copy of those, or are those just for your perusal only?

MR. DEAN: I am not sure on that. We are pretty (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, no, I am not suggesting here tonight that you are not. I would say it if I was going to. I wouldn't beat around the bush on that. It is just a legitimate question.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Let us check with the Treasury Board ministry, but I don't see any problem with it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

In this particular subhead, then, the purchase of - you know, a $131,900 budget is, in your view, so I am clear on it, particularly set aside for more focus in terms of development and dealing with the issues surrounding waste management and policy.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The policy issues in the department.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The retention of professional people, their expertise.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Again, my understanding is that, if we were retaining some expertise for a period of time, there has to be, and there are, processes for trying to acquire that service.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough.

In subhead 2.1.01. on page 97 - I only have three or four more questions - dealing with Professional Services again, this is a huge amount, obviously, $618,200. What would be some of the things that you foresee - I suppose this is related to implementation of strategies, I guess, or policies. That is what I am assuming, and you can correct me if I am wrong, in terms of pollution prevention. What sort of services would you be purchasing that would enhance the prevention, and advocate and advance the policies of the department?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Again, that is a good point. That Professional Services designation there in the budget is for contaminated sites work. It is all contractual work for the cleanup of contaminated sites which are identified. We have a number of them identified this year, as was done last year. That would be for that work specifically.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

In terms of contaminated sites, again, the same criteria set down by Treasury Board would apply in terms of - these would be sites already contaminated, that you are aware of, or potential ones that you are not aware of right now that may come across your desk and you have to deal with? Would that be fair to say?

MR. K. AYLWARD: At this point these are for identified sites that we have. If more get identified, we would have to seek further resources.

MR. E. BYRNE: These are for ones that currently exist, that you are aware of.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Definitely.

MR. E. BYRNE: Not for any others that may arise?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: Which leads to the next question. In terms of the purchase of services, does the department, in knowing that you have X number of contaminated sites that you are dealing with, you have set aside X number of dollars in the budget, have you set out how much and who will be doing the work on your behalf in terms of businesses, agencies, groups, individuals, et cetera? Have you set out that plan in terms of that money and who it will be spent on?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think, for example, Hope Brook is the big, large site that has been remediated. That is all tender calls. It is all done through corporate -

MR. E. BYRNE: How much will that cost, unto itself, Hope Brook?

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is budgeted for what, $15 million is it, or $10 million?

MR. DOMINIE: Ten million dollars.

MR. K. AYLWARD: On the process, maybe the deputy or Gerry, whichever, will comment on that.

MR. DOMINIE: If we engage consultants to do some investigation work, we will use Treasury Board guidelines for hiring consultants. If we are going out for physical cleanup work, we will go to public tender and get contractors or whatever, you know, who remove materials. So, depending on what the work is for, in that Professional Services money, there is a variety. There are a couple of things that could happen. We have a couple sites where we need some more investigation to determine what the extent of the contamination may be, and in that case we will use the Treasury Board guidelines. In the case where we have some physical work which we can slot out to be done this year, we will have our consultant arrange for a tender call and go to a public tender for an ordinary contractor, I call them, to actually carry out the work.

MR. E. BYRNE: In the process leading up to the two bills that are now before the House dealing with the Water Resources and the Environmental Protection Act, was there any engagement of any outside consultative services that the department entered into, either with firms or individuals, to advise the department on the direction that these particular bills were going in, or to give you any advice on the bills once they were drafted, to have a look at anything like that, or to advise you on how the public were thinking vis-à-vis these particular bills? Did the department enter into any of that, or are you planning to enter into any arrangements like that?

MR. DOMINIE: No, we did not engage any particular expertise to advise the department, but we did have a significant consultation process, a public consultation process. I think it was twelve locations we were in the Province and received a lot of input from individuals and firms or whatever.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Just a couple of more, Mr. Chair. I will be done, then, for the evening, if that is okay.

CHAIR: That is okay.

MR. E. BYRNE: I thank the members for their latitude.

Under subhead 2.2.01., again dealing with section 05., Professional Services, $374,400, in terms of water resources management, obviously an extremely important area, what has this amount been earmarked for, if anything?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That amount is for water analysis, sampling and so on. It is a hydrometric agreement involved there, so it is direct expenditures for water analysis there.

MR. E. BYRNE: So, anybody from a cabin owner to anybody else would be able to come in and have their water tested? Is that what you are saying, or this is just your own department's water analysis like you do on a systematic basis with public water systems in the Province? It is for public water systems in the Province you are dealing with, is it?

MR. DOMINIE: Under the Professional Services vote that would be on page 97, we have a hydrometric agreement. We run hydrometric stations around the Province that tell how much water is basically going into our rivers, in consultation with the federal government. Basically, it is a 50/50 cost-shared arrangement.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. DOMINIE: It is not a 50/50 agreement, but they wind up paying 50 per cent of the cost. So, that Professional Services is our contribution towards running the hydrometric stations throughout the Province. I think there are forty-odd or fifty-odd hydrometric stations we have right now.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We also test private water supplies for individuals. We make available our lab for that. Also, of course, we are testing for all the public water supplies in the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: In the same subhead, Purchased Services, $297,000, what is in mind for that? I am just trying to get an understanding; I am not trying to point the finger at anyone, folks. I want to clear on that with everybody.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Again, that is for water sampling. That is 2.2.01.06, is it?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Again, water sampling costs, that is what that expenditure is for. The Source to Tap initiative, that was last year, I think, that they did the report which was tabled in the House. That was part of the expenditure.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

This will be my last question for the evening. Then I am going to take my leave and let our critic deal with the remainder of it. In terms of dealing with subhead 2.2.02. on page 98, and not generally with any particular line item but on the water quality agreement, it indicates, "Appropriations provide for the implementation of the Federal-Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Agreement which is delivered jointly with the Federal Government". Are there any ongoing initiatives that we may not be aware of - I am sure there are some - or discussions entering into with the federal government on improving the quality of our water? Are there any national strategies that yourself, as minister, may be involved with in part with your other provincial counterparts across the country in trying to develop better strategies to deal with what is obviously becoming and may become the number one public policy issue in the country in the next several years, in my view? If you could, I guess, elaborate on anything that you may be doing or involved with on that front.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, it is a very good question. As a matter of fact, Mr. Dominie is chairing a committee from across Canada, of the Ministries of Environment from across Canada, Ken, I think. What is the title of that?

MR. DOMINIE: It is called the Water Coordination Committee and it operates under the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment. I co-chair that with the colleague from Environment Canada in Ottawa.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We will be attending a meeting in about three weeks' time with all of the Ministers of Environment. It is a major issue. It is becoming the major issue.

MR. E. BYRNE: No question.

MR. K. AYLWARD: One of the things that I have been doing in this role now, just recently here, is getting up to speed on Walkerton and on the reports from Saskatchewan which just came down, and ensuring that our protocols that are set up now are as good as they can be and that the information flow is as good as it can be. I think there have been major improvements in the past number of months on that, but also trying to think ahead and get ahead of it, that is the thing.

We are doing a lot of work with Municipal Affairs right now with the financing of chlorination systems across the Province, that probably deserved more attention a few years ago. It should have gotten more attention, and is getting more attention now. I was looking through the list yesterday. I don't have it right in front of me, but there are over 200 communities in the last twelve to twenty-four months that have benefitted from chlorination improvements to their systems, and other water quality measure improvements. That is a big focus for all of us in this department at this point, and really all the municipalities, local service districts, everybody involved in water. A lot more training is going to go on, but we would like to see the federal government get more involved in the financing of this and we would like to see them get involved in a few more things, some of the responsibilities of managing resources. This one here is one that we think they should be more involved in, so that effort has been ongoing with the provincial ministers, but also the accountability mechanisms and frameworks are, I think, still being discussed because of the results of Saskatchewan and Walkerton. I have asked all those questions to our officials here and I am pretty satisfied that our protocols are very good now, but we have to really maintain due diligence and we really have to maintain a system where we cannot have any cracks in it, in the sense of information flow.

That is where we are, and I think it is going to become a dominant issue the next few months and few years and it is going to be a priority.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ed.

Tom?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

I am usually not very critical of the department, so if you will excuse my questions tonight. I have only a couple of questions. Actually I am going to start off with Kevin, if you don't mind, with a couple of general questions.

Under the new proposed legislation, which we intend to pass expeditiously at this point in the House, there are some proposed fees for water usage. I am just wondering if you could tell me what revenues the Province is hoping to take in under those fees, the new proposed fees, and where in the Estimates they would show up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I appreciate your always constructive suggestions that you give for environmental issues and policy in the Province. I have followed you from afar in the last few years. You do your homework and that, I think, is much appreciated by everybody.

When we look at the two acts, one of them in particular is bringing together four or five different pieces of legislation that need to come together. On that specific issue, I was discussing that the other day with my assistant deputy and deputy, and I don't believe we have budgeted, I don't think, or an estimate for revenues, because I don't believe that we decided to act on that piece. Mr. Dominie, do you want to comment on that, just in a sense of...? I know there is a provision there that allows for it, and all of that, but do you want to comment on that?

MR. DOMINIE: That is correct, Minister. That is an enabling provision in the legislation to enable the government, if they so wish, to establish fees for water usage. The only fee that has been established for the past few years is one for hydroelectric generation. For four new facilities that have come on stream in the past few years, there has been a regulation passed charging for power generation only. I think the revenue for that is $200,000 and some-odd a year, estimated. Beyond that, there has been no consideration of other types of water use charges to be levied, but the legislation does enable that, should government wish to do so in the future.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. So, other than hydroelectric generation, there is not going to be any charges for the pulp and paper industry or for, you know, Voisey's Bay or Inco, should Voisey's Bay come on stream, and that type of thing?

MR. DOMINIE: Well, there could be. The provision is there in the legislation to do so, should government wish to do that.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are doing it for some hydro projects. That is the NUGS that came on, is it, I think, the small power projects?

MR. DOMINIE: I think there were (inaudible) projects started.

MR. K. AYLWARD: So, it is enabling; it allows you to do so if you deem it appropriate.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

The new tire recycling program that has been announced, I have just one question on that for tonight. Are there any costs that government have budgeted in the Estimates this year for the implementation of that program, any subsequent costs for public education programs? If so, where would they show up in the Estimates?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, the program is self-financing through the fee. It is being overseen by the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and the revenues are held until the tires are collected and processed at certain points. I think Ken (inaudible) the processes, so it is self-financing. It will be administered through the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and we look forward to seeing that occur. We appreciated your endorsement of the policy a few weeks ago when you endorsed it heartily. We have to make sure it works now, and that is what we are working on.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Are there any costs as a result of the new legislation that is before the House now, in anticipation of that legislation being passed? Are there any costs associated with any of the provisions within the legislation, new costs over and above what the department would have encountered last year?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I will ask the officials to make a further comment but also, from what we can tell at this point, we have an increase in the budget for water resources, I think, water overall, where we anticipate - we are doing more work, and we are going to do more work, but it is not anticipated to be any major cost that has to be incurred. It is more the administration of the act and so on, and Government Services inspectors do a lot of inspections for us so they will be doing a lot of that work, a lot of environmental inspections.

MR. DEAN: Just if I could add, the legislation that is before the House is also enabling legislation, so it enables government to make future regulations on a whole variety of areas. That is not to say that in the course of making those regulations or regulated activities there may not be some fees or something associated with those regulations, but in terms of the legislation itself there really are, I guess, no incremental costs to the department or to government on the acts.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Except for Wildlife Services. We are increasing the budget there because we know we have to have more staff doing that work, so that is definitely there, but really the other act, the Environmental Protection Act, has a combination of acts that we have had that we wanted to put together, that should be put together, to make it easier for the public to understand and to have it much more organized as a public policy.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So there is no foreseen additional cost over and above what there was prior to this legislation?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Not really.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

On the flip side of that, are there any anticipated increases in fees or any implementation of new fees, usage fees, for consumers as a result of the legislation?

MR. K. AYLWARD: With the waste management strategy which we have just announced, which you were at the press conference for, I believe, which is a comprehensive blueprint or red print, wherever we want to go in the future, with that laid down we will get into more recycling initiatives. There will be stewardship initiatives that we are going to bring forward in the next few months that might see - it depends on the product that we are after, to try to take out of the waste stream. There might be something, you know, similar. Some sort of levy might be appropriate to help divert from the landfill. So, as we work towards that, and we will be working with the public on this, there are other initiatives that we would like to look at as to diverting from the waste stream. Also, it would help the depots out there have more revenues because they would be diverting more material, and that would help them keep moving ahead, and it would help the landfills again as we work towards the diversion goals that we have set out in the new waste management policy.

In the next few weeks and months we will have other initiatives that will see a start - it depends on what it is. It might be a waste oil initiative that will be coming shortly. There are other types of containers that we should try to get out of the system, and we are going to talk with the industries that are directly responsible for putting them in the system. We are going to try to get them to pay for it, or be involved in the payment of it or the taking care of it. We are looking at what other provinces are doing.

That is where we are heading with it, and we are going to be doing that aggressively in the next few months.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

One final general question at this point. Under subhead 2.1.01., I would imagine that is where the majority of costs for waste management and the new waste management strategy would come under. Most of the estimates this year are identical to the estimates for last year -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: - with the exception of Professional Services, which was actually decreased from the amount estimated last year, a slight increase from the amount actually spent. What costs are in the budget as a result of the new waste management strategy that was announced?

MR. K. AYLWARD: We will be taking approximately $3 million out of the waste management fund for the waste management strategy this year from our stewardship board, and other financing will come from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because they are the department responsible for municipal financing. They have the mechanisms and the dollars to help with this initiative. We are working on a bilateral kind of arrangement with Municipal and Provincial Affairs. We will be setting out the policy and also putting some resources, financially, forward along with human resources. They will also be looking at providing the financial resources jointly with us to get the waste management committees in place to do the studies that need to be done, to do the consultations that need to be done, so that we can get agreements in different regions about how we manage the waste for the future.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What is the amount you are hoping to have put in from Municipal and Provincial Affairs?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think it is about $2.5 million, so a total of about $5.5 to $6 million overall this year between both departments.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a major priority for us, big time.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The only amount coming out of the waste management fund would be the $3 million to go towards -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, that is right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, there won't be any other funds coming out of that this year?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Except for the programing that they run now: the recycling programs with the schools, some marketing to keep people in the recycling mode, that type of thing, and some initiatives for environmental cleanup. We did some environmental cleanup projects in the last couple of years which I am going to list off, I think, in the next little while, and just talk about some cleanups of some smaller waste sites that need to be cleaned up, that type of thing.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, there will be -

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is in their regular programming over at the environmental -

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. I know last year, I think, there was $3 million. The year previous there was $4 million.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. We are taking three this year just directed towards waste management, the strategy itself, the development of that; but, in their existing budget they have left - I have to look at that again myself now - whatever they have, they have a separate budget that they still will administer this year for some other types of recycling initiatives.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, you are not anticipating taking an additional $3 million or $4 million as was taken last year or the year previous?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Not at this point, no.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

What is the amount right now in the Beverage Container Recycling Fund or that waste management fund?

WITNESS: That was asked earlier. That booklet is available.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, the annual report. We can get you an up-to-date one. I don't have it here with me tonight. This was December, right? So, it was for last year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have a copy of the book, actually.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Do you? Okay. We can get an updated number for you on that. The numbers have risen as to over 60 per cent - around 60 per cent now, I think - in the returns with the increase to five cents for recycled beverages.

MR. T. OSBORNE: They were down, though, last month, were they not?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am not sure about that, but overall it is up.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Overall it is, yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: At certain times of the year it is periodically up and down but overall she is up and we anticipate it to be going even further. We are looking at ways to drive it even further.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, right now you are sitting at just over 60 per cent?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, just over 60 per cent. She jumped 10 per cent since we moved from three cents to five cents on the return.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

MR. K. AYLWARD: A big improvement in getting the schools (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: As a fundraising initiative.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

I will have shirts for all members who are interested, T-shirts to help promote recycling. You just have to let me know your sizes. We will be providing them complimentary every summer, so I want to see the green team from the House of Assembly.

WITNESS: Made in Canada?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Made in Canada, yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would be the first time I have gotten a gift from the Environment Department.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Is that right? Well, then, (inaudible). There is a new kid in town.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: You have to become part of the green team.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Can I get a month-by-month breakdown of the recycling rights from the MMSB, or from the minister through the MMSB?

MR. K. AYLWARD: If we can get the numbers, yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

CHAIR: Randy, do you have a question?

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Actually, I have a couple of questions pertaining to the budget.

CHAIR: I am sorry. (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is the end of the general questions. I told you I would not to be too harsh on you.

MR. K. AYLWARD: This has been really good.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I realize you have a very tough act to follow, so I will take it easy on you.

CHAIR: Before we go to the budget, Randy, do you have a general question or a budget statement question?

MR. COLLINS: Just a general question.

CHAIR: A general question, okay.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

I do not have any specific questions on the budget section but I do have a couple of comments I would like to make on the environment in particular to the minister. I guess one of the pet peeves that I have, as a person who grew up in this Province in a rural area, albeit the last thirty years I lived in Labrador, but in most of the places that I was around growing up, as kids you could go swimming anywhere you wanted. One of the things that concerns me in recent years as I come back on vacations, and bringing my kids back and things like that, is that there are very few places now that you can do that in most communities. You know, we hear a lot of talk about the bubble in St. John's Harbour, but every community around this Province pretty well has their own type of bubble. Not only is it causing severe damage to the environment, and health hazards, but it is preventing people from doing things that they traditionally did in their communities. The aquaculture industry in particular is affected by this, with all of the things that happen when you have raw sewage going out into every bay and harbour in the Province, and there are no settling ponds, there are no treatment plants in most places, or anything like that. So, I am going to ask the minister what plans they have in the future. I know with the municipalities, but are there any plans within the department to address this issue?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is a good question, Mr. Collins, I can tell you. Member for Labrador West, that is a good question. There has been some work done. There is more of a problem because it is still so wide-ranging in different parts of the Province. There is more effort being done now to deal with it than ever has been. There is more attention being paid to the impact, assessing it, and then looking for a solution. I know that our officials have been spending a lot of time in the last three or four years looking at different technologies, getting plans done as to: What you would do if you were going to fix it? How would you fix it? What would be the cost?

Right now the first priority - and Ken can correct me if I am wrong on this, Mr. ADM - one of the first priorities, if not the first, is on water works, dealing with water safety, water health of course, but also dealing with these types of situations now with Municipal Affairs, ahead of paving the roads and everything else that has to be done in towns. It is becoming a priority and it is going to have to become more of a priority because tourism in the Province is the growth industry for the future. These types of situations, like all the landfills we have, have to be corrected. There are a lot more tighter regulations with Government Services as to the approvals of cottage development and so on, so that is a help, I think.

I will let either one of the officials comment on this because they have been dealing with it on a day-to-day basis.

MR. DOMINIE: As the minister said, we have been working for the past three or four years looking at different technologies because, when we did a cost estimate - Mr. Wayne Churchill, (inaudible) Municipal Affairs and myself - a couple of years ago, we felt that to continue the way we are going right now is over $3 billion just to service the municipalities in this Province with water and a sewage treatment plant. I think the sewage treatment plant cost alone was - I think that figure was for the treatment plants themselves. You can see that is a very expensive bill and something that is probably out of reach in the long run. So, we are looking at different technologies.

The emphasis was put on our fresh water bodies and we have been successful. We only have one inland community in the Province at the moment that does not have sewage treatment - that is right, two. Two communities left. That was a priority, obviously, to get the inland water squared away first. Then you look at the major centres, the major growth centres like in Conception Bay South. St. John's is a priority as well and there is movement afoot there to put the proper funding in place. It is major monumental undertaking. We did come up with some new technologies and there are experiments being undertaken as we speak in different communities.

Also, the Department of Municipal Affairs has challenged their consultants over the past three or four years. They don't just accept consultants' words that this is what shall happen. When it comes in, they say: What are the alternatives? So, they are really stretching the consultants' minds to come up with alternative proposals and different ways of handling communities as well. It is a monumental task, in the billions of dollars.

MR. K. AYLWARD: In the meantime, with that challenge we are trying to get the major issues dealt with. There is a lot of work being done on that. It is a big priority. The water issue and water impact issue is the biggest priority now that gets funded through Municipal Affairs. It was not there five years ago; it is there now. We are looking for all kind of ways, especially with the tightening of the regulations on cottage development and so on. Years ago it might have been a little more lackadaisical. Well, it is a lot tighter these days as to what you allow to develop around ponds, and stuff like that. All that goes through environmental assessment. Cottage lot development goes through environmental assessment now, I think, Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: All those things have to meet the regulations. Sometimes we have some history of not having that done many years ago. Well, we are suffering for that now in some places, and that is the problem; but for the future, at least, new development is being dealt with appropriately.

MR. COLLINS: The incinerators around the Province, I think you announced a while ago that their demise will take place.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, their demise as well.

Everywhere that we get a landfill site that is going to be shut down, I am going to put up a big sign. I am going around and everywhere I get one, I am having ribbon cuttings, where I get landfill sites shut down, the sites that we have all over the Province. We are going to be making this a big event because we have to get ride of those landfill sites, that are just open dumps that are in locations they should not be and they are having impacts that they should not have. We have the gem of the planet here for attracting people to it and we have to get it moving. This policy has to happen.

MR. COLLINS: The other thing that I would like to talk about for a second is the recyclables. In Labrador West, the green depot there is owned by Bill Walters, who I think the minister knows; who, by the way, told me to say hello to you.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, good.

MR. COLLINS: The green depot there can only collect beverage containers - that is all they are geared up to do right now - and they have an 80 per cent to 85 per cent recyclable rate. I think it is the highest in the Province. There are other things that can be collected there, as you are well aware.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. COLLINS: However, the processing equipment is not in place. So, what happens right now, the green depot that is in Labrador West now does not even collect these other things that could be recycled; for example, glass. Anything glass, they do not accept. Corrugated cardboard, both mining companies have been after them to accept that but they cannot take it. That is a tremendous amount of corrugated cardboard from the mining industry. What they do is, they do up a load, a shipment, and that has to go to Goose Bay to be processed.

Now it leaves Labrador West and goes all the way to Goose Bay for processing. Even recyclables in Churchill Falls are trucked to Labrador West, it is taken care of at the green depot there, and then they are sent back past Churchill Falls again to Goose Bay. According to my information, that costs $1,750 a trip and they make a trip every week to ten days with a load to Goose Bay. That is what the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board pays.

In talking with the people there from the depot, they are saying that if they had the processing equipment in place in Labrador West - where they have a high rate now, 80 per cent to 85 per cent on what they can get, and the schools are really involved there as well - they could really tackle recyclables in a way that probably we have not seen in the Province before, particularly where the mining companies are after them as well.

I think there is a person - Mike somebody - from the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board going up to Labrador next week. I am just wondering whether or not the minister would look at that in establishing the processing equipment in Labrador West and work out something with the person who has the depot going there. It is not job intensive or anything like that. It would probably create another job or so in the area, but the amount of recyclables that could be recovered is tremendous. We strongly feel that is something that should be done.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is a good point that you are making. With the geography in Labrador, we have to be sensitive as to: How do we make the system work? How can we make it work more effectively? Right now, for example, we are looking at the next processing for the future in the Province. We have to look at the geography in Labrador and make sure that it can work. I think that is something we should be looking at.

There is a representative who may be going up there, but I wouldn't mind hearing from Bill there about any thoughts he has about how we can become more effective. Even if he were to put something together to us in writing, I think, Mr. Deputy, would be a help.

MR. COLLINS: I think (inaudible) process is cheaper than the cost of transportation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, exactly.

He can see that, and the capital cost of equipment and stuff, we might be able to do something there because it is not the same as on the Island. It is different because you have big geography in between.

MR. COLLINS: It is a 1,200 kilometer return trip.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is right. That is worthwhile for us to do some inquiry on, big time, and we have to get inventive about making that policy work up there. They are doing a great job; 80 per cent to 85 per cent is....

MR. COLLINS: It is the highest in the Province, and I think that depot also won a provincial award last year for their structure, cleanliness, and everything else.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Excellent. That is good.

I would encourage him to put together some thoughts on paper and send them in to us, right into my office, and we will certainly have a look at what he is thinking in the sense of any inventiveness he wants to bring to a solution on that.

We are looking at other streams of waste that could be diverted to his depot. That is what we are looking at for all the depots so they can get more product that can come there and help them with the recycling activity, if they want it to, because that is how the system will survive. It is not going to just survive with just one product line. It has to get other product lines in there.

MR. COLLINS: I just have one more and I will address it to the minister - I am not sure if Paul is familiar with it - the work of the Department of Environment in Labrador West now concerning the mining activities in terms of the lake system through Wabush, Little Wabush, Big Wabush, Julienne, and the tailings. Has the government been in constant contact with - I know that the plans are in place and are steadily being worked on, but I wonder if the government has had any recent conversations with the mining companies concerning what they are doing at the current time.

MR. DEAN: I think we have had several meetings with the previous minister, with both mining companies, on looking at the plans for tailings impoundment in Wabush Lake in the case of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and in Flora Lake with the case of Wabush Mines. This is something that we are reviewing jointly with Environment Canada. I think we are relatively happy with the plans that the companies have brought forward, but I am not certain that has the sanction of Environment Canada at the moment. I don't think it does. Ken will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the companies are getting favourable response but nothing official from Environment Canada on their plans for impounding the tailings which have been deposited in the lakes, not impounded to date.

MR. DOMINIE: The work that is being undertaken is being undertaken to satisfy the federal regulations. The federal regulations call for certain timing and for certain things to have a certain date. That is what is under discussion right now with the federal government. The federal government is happy with the plan, but they are working out the details of the actual timing of the undertaking of the works. From my understanding, it is about a ten-year project and it went through the provincial environmental assessment process and has cleared that process. So, it is just a matter of the company finding the several millions of dollars. I think it is $30 million or $50 million or more that is necessary to undertake that piece of work. It is a significant project on their part anyway.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The minister is going to visit the site. When I was the Minister of Environment, our department was involved then, about five years ago, with dealing with the situation there with the tailings and the whole plan. The plan, I think, at one of the sites we had to deal with, so I am looking forward to going back there to have a good look at what has been happening since and where we are.

MR. COLLINS: Okay.

I have one final question on the process that the department uses to grant permission for somebody, or some company or whoever, to do certain things. I am referring specifically to last fall. I think there was a - don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with what is happening, but the process caught people unaware. There was no public meeting held to explain, when Wabush Mines was pumping out their pits, something which is going to start again now, into Duley Lake - and Paul is aware of these areas I am talking about specifically - on the effect that would have down stream from the tremendous amount of water. Now, there is no oil in that water - it is pure water - but it certainly could have created a potential danger for particularly ski-dooers who are not used to the area. But, they were granted permission for that and I do not think anybody from the department was down to visit that prior to permission being granted.

Is there a process in place where they visually inspect it, or just a request made by phone or a letter?

MR. DEAN: I think you and I had a conversation about this, Mr. Collins, and we did contact the company and ask them to post the appropriate notices.

MR. COLLINS: They have done that.

MR. DEAN: My understanding is that they have complied with that. In terms of whether we had someone there to view it before, I am really not certain that we did or did not view it. We certainly put it through our regular environmental assessment process, but in terms of whether we had an official there, I am not certain of that.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

Those are all the questions I have, Minister.

CHAIR: Any further questions?

Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Under subheads themselves, page 95 in the Minister's Office, you have Purchased Services there at $2,700 budgeted for last year, and you spent $14,000, five times really. In fact, there is $2,700 this year. What would the Purchased Services have been, the increase?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is a good question. I am not sure. Gerry?

MR. CROCKER: Under the Minister's Office there was additional funding put in there to cover advertising, printing and entertainment.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. CROCKER: Advertising, printing and entertainment.

MR. J. BYRNE: On the same page, subhead 1.2.01., Executive Support, Purchased Services, again you had $15,000, you spent $48,500, which is over three times, and this year you have $15,000, the same as what was budgeted. What would that have been for, that extra $33,000?

MR. CROCKER: There was some additional money spent on the environmental awards. There was also some additional cost for media monitoring and for printing.

MR. J. BYRNE: Printing of?

MR. CROCKER: Printing of various material for the environmental awards or for any publication that needed to be reprinted.

MR. J. BYRNE: These awards that you are talking about, were they anticipated to be presented last year or given out last year? Why wouldn't you have included those costs in that at that time?

MR. DEAN: One of the costs here was that we did two major consultations last year. We did a consultation on the legislation which we discussed earlier, and we did consultation on the waste management strategy. Those are things that we really did not anticipate going into last year's budget. Those were printed documents that were made available for the public consultation process. Those were significant costs for printing both of those documents.

MR. J. BYRNE: The consultations that you had - two, you said - were they for public consultation or was it consultation with specific individuals to give advice or anything of that nature?

MR. DEAN: They were public consultations in both cases.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

On page 96, 1.2.02., Administrative Support, under Employee Benefits there, you had $9,000 budgeted, you spent $1,500 and it is back up to $9,000. Also, the difference there in Transportation and Communications, you had budgeted $125,000 and spent $69,400 and it is back up to $125,000. If you had budgeted $125,000 and you only spent $69,400, with the cutbacks that are going on in government over the past year or two years, why would you have budgeted $125,000 when you only spent less than $70,000 last year? Would that be a place to look to cut?

MR. CROCKER: We had to save the additional 8 per cent in operating, but instead of just going to one particular account in a particular activity it was spread throughout the whole department. Usually what happens all the time during the budget process, we go back to the amount that we had in the previous year even though it may have been a little less, like this year under Transportation and Communications there was some lower postage and communication costs and under Employee Benefits there were some lower costs there for the monthly claims that we get from the workers compensation for injury on duty. Because those costs fluctuate, we usually go back to the original budget.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just have a problem with that, when I know there have been cuts throughout the civil service and you have a place there where you only spent X amount last year. Why would you almost double it, even though you had budgeted $125,000 the year before?

Under Information Technology, 12., you had $167,600 budgeted and you spent $215,500, just the reverse.

MR. CROCKER: For Information Technology, usually we don't get any funding for the purchase of software and hardware. Most of the $167,600 is budgeted for projects. What usually happens there is, if any division wants to buy additional software, hardware, during the year, they transfer from their operating accounts into Information Technology under Administrative Support. So, basically the difference there of $47,900 was for additional software and hardware.

MR. J. BYRNE: Under subhead 1.2.03., Policy Development and Planning, 03., Transportation and Communications, you had budgeted $7,100 and you spent $52,800, seven times what was budgeted. Any explanation for that?

MR. CROCKER: That relates again to public consultations by the Waste Management Advisory Committee. Basically, we had $131,900 budgeted under Professional Services, but because we did public consultations we had to transfer some money into Transportation and Communications, into Supplies, and into Purchased Services. That is what happened there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Under subhead 2.2.02., page 98, Purchased Services, there was $20,000 budgeted, you spent $5,500, and you are back to $20,000. What would those services be, Purchased Services?

MR. CROCKER: Purchased Services under Water Quality Agreement?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. CROCKER: It would be the same generic line objects such as advertising, purchasing, miscellaneous repairs and maintenance, and rentals. This year we had $20,000 budgeted and we only spent $5,500 so the additional funding was moved down into Information Technology in order to buy some new equipment.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

I am finished with the subheads but I have a few more questions, general type questions, that we can move around on. Is that okay?

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, under 1.2.01, Executive Support, Transportation and Communications, there is an additional $20,000 spent there. I was just wondering what they would have been for?

MR. CROCKER: Last year, when they split the two departments - it used to be Environment and Labor - basically what we had left was only $40,000 for T&C which proved to be insufficient during the year. We had some additional travel costs there, so we ended up having to transfer in $20,700.

MR. T. OSBORNE: And it is back to $40,000 again this year?

MR. CROCKER: Yes. Unfortunately, during the Budget process no one is very willing to give up any bucks because, of course, in order to transfer into Executive Support some other budget would have to be reduced. So we prefer to do it during the year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under the Minister's Transportation there was $20,000 less spent than was budgeted. We were told by our Forestry Minister that we can expect a huge increase in that this year during those estimates. I just though I would let you know.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Was that my colleague who said that about me?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Absolutely.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Is that right? I will remember that. Some of us like getting around the Province so we can see the issues.

MR. T. OSBORNE: He told me that the previous Forestry minister had spent a lot more than he spent or anticipates spending. So I said: I guess we can anticipate huge increases in Environment, Minister's Transportation? He said: I would imagine.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I appreciate that comment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Water Resources Management, 2.2.01, Transportation and Communications, there is a huge increase this year over what was spent last year, some $72,000.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think Mr. Byrne asked that one already, didn't he?

MR. T. OSBORNE: I don't think.

CHAIR: Yes, he asked questions on most of those topics.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On 2.2.02, Transportation and Communication? No, I marked off the ones that were asked.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The other Mr. Byrne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I marked off his as well, I think.

MR. DOMINIE: As the Minister mentioned, we do have extra money in the Budget this year to deal with the water issue. One significant part to that Budget allocation is for training of operators. The process that we are going to use this year, because a lot of the small municipalities cannot afford to send their operators into larger centers like Gander or Grand Falls or Corner Brook, is we are going to take the training to the operators so we need extra staff and extra travel costs to go out to the really small areas of the Province to assist them with training their operators. That is what the extra allocation is, both in staff and operating costs.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Supplies, just underneath Transportation and Communications, subhead 2.2.01.04, that has increased from $43,000 to $79,000; in fact, actually a $40,000 increase from the budgeted amount last year. I am just wondering what -

MR. DOMINIE: Again, that is Supplies relating to the delivery of the program for operator training and various resources.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Very worthwhile spending, I might add.

MR. DOMINIE: Yes. I think we are quite proud of the way - as a matter of fact, I think we are kind of the leaders in the country as to delivering training directly to the operators.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One final question on the Estimates and that is on Salaries under Environmental Assessment, subhead 2.3.01.01. There is a decrease for Salaries compared to what was actually budgeted and what was actually spent last year. I am just wondering if there a change in staff.

MR. CROCKER: The $24,400 difference there relates to the enforced savings that was approved by Treasury Board. All of our salary accounts were reduced by about 5 per cent.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have one or two general questions again and I have to go, so I will ask those. Any new landfill sites, Minister, that come into existence, are they going to be lined, you know, proper technology?

MR. K. AYLWARD: There is a new policy that we have outlined in the document setting guidelines for the future. New landfills are going to have to be approved by us. That is our intention. What we are doing now is consulting with the regions. We do not want to approve new landfills unless there has been a regional consultation, unless we have a number of them being shutdown to do a new one or use existing sites and redo the existing sites. That is the thrust of where we are heading with it.

The future landfill: If there is a regional landfill it might be at an existing site but it will have to be redone. It could be a new site where we shut down six, seven, eight or ten. That new site will have to meet the guidelines that we are talking about in the policy.

Ken, any further comments, or Deputy? Do you want to talk further on it?

MR. DOMINIE: That is the notion, that the regional landfill sites will be lined. One of the first exercises that we have to undertake during the development of our strategy, the implementation of our strategy, is various guidelines for a number of facilities, composting facilities, landfill sites. All of that will be worked on in priority as the first step in the implementation of the strategy.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is the hope of the department. Would there be anything to prevent them from being lined or will it be basically carved in stone that any new landfill sites will be lined?

MR. DOMINIE: We hope to have all the standards developed in six months.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, final standards. They will have to be Canadian standards. We are trying to go Canadian all the way in a sense of the environmental standards that we are trying to set. Overall, lined landfills and regional landfills are the way to go.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Last night, just prior to the Moon Man -

MR. K. AYLWARD: Prior to or after?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Prior to, I think.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It was prior to the Moon Man. Okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Somebody was on talking about the Buchans recycling depot expected to be closed and, in addition, some changes to recycling pickups along the Trans-Canada out in that area. Is that a fact, that the Buchans depot is supposed to close?

MR. K. AYLWARD: There is a new contract for the transportation of recyclables by the MMSB and there is some concern by some of the sub-depots, which are linked to the thirty-seven, I think, we have across the Province. We have some sub-depots in some of the smaller rural areas and they had arrangements worked out, I think, with the previous transportation contract. So they have to be worked out again and we have asked the MMSB to work them out, to make sure that those smaller sub-depots find a way to make sure they get their recyclables to the major depots. So, that is being worked on at this point. There has been a confusion because they transferred the contract. There is a new company that going to do the transportation.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One last question before we change over. The sales tax being charged on the $3 recycling fee, we spoke briefly on that, Minister, and I know that is the policy in other jurisdictions. I mean, when you break it down, seven cents out of every fifteen cents that is collected goes federally anyhow. So out of the $45,000 that you anticipate collecting in sales tax on the 100,000 tires, you are only looking at $24,000 for the Province. When you factor in transfer payments, what they are going to claw back because of the sales tax collected, the cost of implementing the sales tax collections on those and everything else, when you break it down, there is probably not a great deal of benefit to the Province from that in any event. As it stands right now, I know that is leaving a bit of a sour taste in some people's mouths, the fact that they are paying a sales tax on a recycling fee.

Is there any possibility that the department will rescind that decision and just implement the three dollar fee, as opposed to charging a tax on it?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Of course, what I hear is asking us to review it. I know that you support the policy. Obviously it is a very good policy, it is working and it is going to be working quite well in the future, but Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as I indicated to you, are doing the same thing at this point. So, while it does not make it right, it is certainly nice to have company.

The thing is, we are trying to minimize the cost to the consumer. We are going to be looking at the numbers. What the board is telling us, the MMSB, from what I have read, is that they need the three dollars, they need the full three to make this work, to make this program happen. So if we go about trying not to do that, then there could be less money to work with, and right now we are focused on getting the program to work. We are going to see where it takes us, but we are going to be scrutinizing the costs on an ongoing basis. I am going to look into it a bit more, but at this point it is set up as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are and I think that is fair ball. We are also cognizant of the impact on the consumer at the same time. That is where we are at this point. We are going to scrutinize it and see where it takes us.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I think there are brownie points to be earned by just the suggestion and by relinquishing (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, you have your numbers there. We will have $24,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: A lot of the suggestions that we have made - tire recycling - you have looked at in a very positive light.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I won't remind you that they were in our policy about five years ago and that they definitely were reinforced by you. We do appreciate that.

CHAIR: There seems to be no other questions.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have a few questions.

CHAIR: Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few prepared questions here. I am finished with the Estimates, the subheads, and I will just read the questions.

Can the minister provide a detailed accounting - and this goes along further with the Member for Labrador West - of the cost of chemical and physical monitoring of drinking water in this Province, including the testing of such water for THMs? Have expenditures in this area increased over the last few years? If so, by how much and for what purposes?

MR. K. AYLWARD: We can get a copy of the breakdown. I think we can get that for you. The costs have definitely increased, and a lot more attention is being paid to water testing and more resources being devoted to it. We can get a breakdown, I think. Would that be safe to say?

WITNESS: Yes.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. We can have that for you by tomorrow.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

WITNESS: Mr. Byrne, if you wish, you can table your questions and we will provide the answers.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is alright, I want to ask them. I want to be on the record in the Estimates.

How much did it cost for the advisory committee on the development of a comprehensive provincial waste management study, chaired by Mr. Flynn? How much did it cost to hold the round table discussions around the Province and to prepare its report?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Derm Flynn did a great job, I must say.

MR. J. BYRNE: No one is saying he didn't.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I know I didn't hear that from you. I don't think I did, anyway.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you didn't.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't pull what your leader pulls all the time, now.

MR. K. AYLWARD: He did a great job, and so did the whole committee. I think the Mayor of Corner Brook was on that committee. Anyway, it was a great group and they did a great job. I think the costs were in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, but the deputy can correct me. Is that pretty close?

MR. DEAN: I do not have an estimate but that certainly is available and we can provide it, Mr. Byrne.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is in that area.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

On May 28, 2001, the Department of Environment announced that, "Government will spend about $50 million over the next three years addressing water quality issues. Key elements of government's plan include: increasing the number of inspectors; increasing the frequency of water testing; providing municipalities with 100 per cent funding up to a maximum of $100,000 to install or upgrade chlorination equipment; working in partnership with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities to provide operator training and education; and, keeping the public informed and being more open and accountable."

So, where in the Estimates has this $50 million been allocated? Or, what percentage of that $50 million has been allocated in the budget this year, and where?

MR. K. AYLWARD: That would be allocated through Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the funding for those initiatives. As a matter of fact, I have a list that I will table in the next day or so that I got from Municipal Affairs. Over 200 communities in the last year, or year-and-a-half. I was talking to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and he tells me that last year it went up to $8 million and this year it is around $10 million. We are averaging (inaudible) a year, so that is going to be $50 million over the next five.

MR. J. BYRNE: How many new inspectors have been hired since this announcement?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Deputy or ADM?

MR. DEAN: It is important on the water initiatives to recognize there are four departments involved in the water initiative: Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the minister mentioned; Government Services and Lands, who actually do the sampling from microbiology; and the Department of Health. The number, I think there are approximately five staff, if I am correct, in Government Services and Lands, new inspectors. There were three water quality officers in the Department of Environment. We will have a similar increase in those numbers in the coming year. We will have, I think, five new inspectors in the Government Services Centre, we will have four new people in the Department of Environment, and I think there are two additional people in the Department of Health involved there as well. So, I would say we are probably looking at, you know, twelve to fifteen new people involved in the water quality initiative.

MR. J. BYRNE: To what level has the frequency of water testing increased since the announcement?

MR. DEAN: I think we have probably doubled the sampling frequency in both the Department of Environment where we do the chemical sampling and in the Department of Government Services and Lands where they do the microbiological sampling for the Department of Health. I think the number of samples is probably up by 100 per cent over last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: The funding that went to the municipalities, I suppose I could ask this question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to which municipalities and how much each municipality received, that type of thing. It would not be a consistent figure. It could be anywhere from $1,000 to $100,000, depending on the problem.

MR. DEAN: That is right.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

How much did it cost for the Domestic Fuel Oil Spill Prevention Committee to conduct its activities and report to government?

MR. DEAN: To the best of my knowledge, it was just all internal costs. There was staff time involved in holding a few meetings, all here in St. John's. There were essentially no costs; it was done with existing budgets. There was no particular new allocation. There would have been printing costs, obviously, to print the report of the committee, and things like that, but essentially it was all done with existing resources.

MR. J. BYRNE: That committee developed some new regulations which came into effect April 1, 2002, similar to what are in Prince Edward Island, I believe. How much will it cost to implement these new regulations?

MR. DEAN: The management of the regulations will be done by industry. There will be oversight by our department and there will be very little cost because the inspectors will be actually approved by the department and there will be industry inspectors. We will have a small oversight role. Indeed, like the tags which we put on tanks, they will be cost recovered. We just bought, I think it was 17,000 tags, and each new system that gets approved, or existing systems that get approved, will get a tag attached with all the information. That will be cost recovered from the industry or from the individual, so essentially we are doing it within the existing resources.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

With respect to the assistance program, I think it is up to $300 to implement that, to go towards assisting individuals who want to replace their system. Do you have any handle on how many people have taken advantage of that so far and how much you have paid out?

MR. DEAN: No, that program was just announced, of course, and the Department of Finance is actually administering that assistance program, so I do not have any handle on whether they have any update on the program yet or not. There was $2.5 million allocated - $2 million or $2.5 million - through the Department of Finance for that program this year. Again, I have not stats on what applications they have received to date.

MR. J. BYRNE: An issue, too, that has been in the media a lot lately - and I do not know what part your department would play in it - is with respect to the oil spill off Cape St. Francis, and the vessel that sank. I know that DFO are involved in that, but does your department have any involvement with that at all? If so, what is it and to what extent?

MR. AYLWARD: We have been part of the emergency team that has been overseeing it. DFO Coast Guard have jurisdiction, and Mr. Dominie or the deputy can comment on this. There was a response team put in place. It was done within so many hours of the incident occurring. I got a report on it again just a couple of days ago. There is a protocol that is followed when something like this occurs, and I am apprised that that occurred.

Ken, do you want to give a further update on it?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes, as the minister indicated, there is what is known as a regional environmental emergency team which is managed by the federal government for these type of instances offshore. We are part of that team. We have technical staff assist on that regional emergency team. Personally, I get daily updates. Whatever updates are done by the regional team, I get copied on all of the reports, so we are in constant contact with them. We also asked recently that the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture be put on that team as well for the purposes of this particular incident and they get the daily reports as well.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting various opinions and various reports with respect to the threat to the bird sanctuary out there. Is there a real threat or is there not a real threat?

MR. DOMINIE: I would rather not comment now because I have not gone into that detail as to what the threat may be, but we have people who are monitoring that. I assume that, from the provincial side, if they see a threat, they will certainly ask that the proper actions be taken.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Right now we have been advised that there has not been a threat to the sanctuary; that the diesel fuel has been dissipating, has been going out to sea and dissipating, breaking up, and that there has been no imminent threat to it. I think there were so many litres of fuel in the ship and it was leaking on a gradual basis, but so far, up until the last day, they feel comfortable with it, the officials who are doing the monitoring. They are doing the on-site cleanup and so on. So far, that is where it is sitting at this point.

MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to the vessel itself being hooked on and towed down across that area, what is being done with respect to not allowing something like that to happen again? That seemed to be pretty foolhardy to me, now, looking at it.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I asked that question, actually. I asked that question a few days ago and was advised that they did an inspection of the ship. They could not get on the ship itself - and the ADM can go into some more detail on this - but the ship itself was not able to be boarded. In other words, it was dangerous for human persons to board the ship and try to take the fuel off. So, whether or not they could have brought it to a shore base a lot sooner is the question, I think, and it is one that I have asked for more detail on, as to the decision making on that piece. Any further comment, Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: Well, the people from the Coast Guard and the marine inspector people must have felt, in their professional judgement, that the vessel was safe to tow, and you rely on these marine people to make that judgement call.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Back to the waste disposal and the plans that you have put out here, this here. Of course, we are all concerned about waste disposal across the Province, but we had a situation in Harbour Grace and they were taking about how something had to be done by September, whether council was going to (inaudible) - or November, whenever.

MR. K. AYLWARD: November.

MR. J. BYRNE: Then we have the plans, that there be a central location out around the Trans Canada Highway or somewhere. The lifespan of St. John's Robin Hood Bay is constantly changing. I am hearing every ten years for the past thirty years. If there is something put in place - eventually, I suppose, there will be. You take it, if we have to take garbage from Pouch Cove ten miles out the Trans Canada or wherever the case may be, the extra cost involved in something like that, are there going to be any plans in place with respect to assisting the municipalities in handling that?

MR. K. AYLWARD: There is a committee working on this right now. There have been some consultations. The committee that is in place that is reviewing this also has representatives from some of the municipalities involved. As a matter of fact, I think the Mayor of Harbour Grace is on the committee that is doing the Avalon review along with a councillor from the City of St. John's and others. They are looking at different options. They have a consulting group that is doing the technical review. We had a meeting this morning with the Mayor of St. John's and his officials as to a process in place for consulting with them as to the future regional landfill site. Nobody is sure what the cost will be at the end of the piece.

What we have to look at is - right now, even in the City of St. John's, from the west end and bringing it over, you are talking I do not know how many miles. With the Outer Ring Road available and with good transportation systems we are looking at all of the options. There is going to be an ongoing dialogue the next few months. A lot of attention is going to be paid to this issue. We are working with the Harbour Grace council. There have been meetings with Municipal Affairs and with our department about resolving that issue in the short-term while we figure out a long-term solution. So it is going in the right direction. The costing is going to be worked on with Municipal and Provincial Affairs and also we are going to be asking the private sector to look at how they can participate with the partnerships.

MR. J. BYRNE: You made a comment with respect to the efficient road systems. Maybe it might help if you can give me some support with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in getting the Torbay by-pass constructed. That will cut down on some of the costs for that.

Anyway, my next question, and it comes under Pollution Prevention, which was touched on before under Professional Services when you talked about that $618,000 going towards the cost with respect to contaminated sites. Mr. Dominie might be able to answer this question for me. Have you had any representation made to you with respect to Red Cliff down in Logy Bay, the former American base down there? Some people seem to think and believe, and I have a tendency to agree with them, that there is a lot of stuff buried up there in that area, in those tunnels and caves or whatever you want to call it up there in that area. I know a lot of it went over the cliff up there, a lot of the garbage and stuff in those days. I am just wondering if there is anything new that we could be looking at there with respect to assessing that as a contaminated site?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Red Cliff: I do not know if we have any representation on it, formally, have we, Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: The town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove wrote us and we have looked at it. I think the first question we had to address was what the land ownership is up there. That exercise was undertaken some while ago. There is private ownership and there is some still with the federal government. So, there is a variety of land ownership. I think that is the first thing: Who would be responsible for anything that is up there at the moment. I think there is some provincial land ownership too, because that was a former military site and when the land came back to the Province it was further distributed, and I think some stuff stayed. As I recall the map now, I do believe the RCMP and, I think, the telephone company has property there. There is a variety of land ownership up there which has to be looked at first before we can determine the course of action and who might be responsible for it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Before I became involved in politics I was involved in a different business, type of thing, up in that area. I am quite familiar with that, with respect to the land ownership and the property owners. It was transferred, I think, from the feds to Transport Canada. Like I said, Newfoundland Telephone and maybe Newfoundland Power have towers up there. The boundary is pretty easily determined with respect to that site. The Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove has been interested in developing that into a tourist attraction type of thing. Basically, all of this comes back to the land ownership problems.

I remember we had the Junior Forest Wardens up there a few years ago to clean the place up. We had to put a gate across and lock it from people coming down from, I will not say where, and dumping garbage there on Saturdays when they could not get into Robin Hood Bay. In the meantime, there is really nothing further happening now with respect to that site, to its being assessed as a contaminated site?

MR. DOMINIE: It is not one that we are dealing with directly, under this particular forum anyway. I will check to see what the status is with regard to dealing with the other landowners.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, how do we get it to be one of the sites to be assessed?

MR. DOMINIE: The only sites that we are dealing with here now are the ones that are the direct responsibility of the provincial government. If it is a private property or -

MR. J. BYRNE: It is not private. The problem is a lot of the land may have leases on it but it is still Transport Canada. The last I heard it was being transferred to the Province.

MR. DOMINIE: We would look, in those cases, to the federal government, if they are the landlord, to take some type of action where it is deemed to be necessary. It is not something we would undertake as a department. We would try to facilitate it but not fund it.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the question I am asking. How do we pursue that to make sure that happens?

MR. K. AYLWARD: We can pursue them. If the land ownership is the federal government, you know, we would go and pursue them.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can I expect, then, that the department would pursue that, as an official request?

MR. K. AYLWARD: We will get the full file out on it and find out where it is. We will pursue it, Sir, and come back.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The question has been called.

CLERK: Head 1.1.01 through 2.3.01 inclusive.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.3.01 carried.

On motion, Department of Environment, total heads, carried.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just want to thank the minister and his staff for coming here this evening. I appreciate it. It wasn't that long, really, less than two hours. I appreciate the time and the answers.

MR. WALSH: I appreciate, Mr .Chair, all the members of the committee here this evening and their patience and the officials working for the House of Assembly. Also, we will have our green team shirts available for all people including committee members here.

On motion, the committee adjourned.