The Committee met at 7:30 p.m. in the House of Assembly.

Pursuant to Standing Order 68, Kevin Aylward, MHA for St. George's-Stephenville East replaces Lloyd Matthews, MHA for St. John's North.

CHAIR( Aylward): Order, please!

Welcome to all members of the Government Services Committee. I am substituting for Mr. Lloyd Matthews. Also, welcome, Mr. Minister and your officials, to the Estimates for the Department of Environment.

If we could have the members of the Committee introduce themselves into the microphone, we would appreciate that.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Tom Osborne, MHA for St. John's South.

MR. FRENCH: Terry French, MHA for Conception Bay South.

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

MR. McLEAN: Ernie McLean, MHA for Lake Melville.

MS KELLY: Sandra Kelly, MHA for Gander district.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

If we could have the minister also introduce your officials before we start, Sir.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bob Mercer, Minister of Environment.

My officials will identify themselves.

MR. DEAN: Paul Dean, Deputy Minister of the Department of Environment.

MR. DOMINIE: Ken Dominie, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment.

MR. CROCKER: Gerry Crocker, Director of Financial and General Operations.

MS TURPIN: Carmel Turpin, Director of Communications.

CHAIR: What we will do now is have the introductory remarks of the minister, normally fifteen minutes or less. Then we will have a response from the official critic, the opposition, and then some further questions to yourself, Mr. Minister, and the officials.

When you do speak into the microphones starting off, especially the officials, if you could introduce yourselves, just give your name so that the Hansard people can record it. If you are answering a question, it will help with the identification.

Mr. Minister, you can initiate your proceedings, Sir.

MR. MERCER: Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

My introductory remarks will be brief, just simply to say that in the Department of Environment our mandate essentially is to protect, preserve and enhance the Province's environment. At the same time as we do that, we have to be careful that as economic development proceeds in this Province we do so in a very environmentally friendly way. I guess the keynote is one of balance. We try to balance the needs of the environment and the needs of the people who live within the environment to be able to make a living for themselves and to raise their families and their children here in this Province.

We have a very broad mandate, and to help us deliver that mandate the department has broken itself down into four principle lines: the Water Resources Division, our Pollution Prevention Division, Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Policy and Planning.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, we operate primarily out of the St. John's office here at Confederation Building, but we also have offices in Corner Brook and Grand Falls, offices which I would like to see enhanced over time; because I think the real functioning of the environment is out in the other parts of the Province, other than just the administrative centre which is St. John's. So, I think it is very important that our department be well dispersed throughout the Province and to meet the needs of the people as those needs arise.

I really do not have a great deal more to say, other than to say that the budget of the Department of Environment is - I have not sat down and compared it to the budgets of all of the other departments, but it does not appear to be an excessive amount of money. I think our total budget is somewhere in the order of $7.2 million or $7.3 million. When you net that down for some consequential revenue of about a $1 million, we have a budget of about six point two.

Having said that, total money spent is not always indicative of what a department does. The one thing that I have found since being in the Department of Environment is that we have a very professional, well-trained, well-educated staff, staff who are recognized for their abilities, not only within this Province but throughout Canada and throughout the rest of North America.

I am very proud of my staff. They are very competent, very professional individuals. Having come from a bureaucratic background myself for some twenty-six years in another government department, it is good to see good technical people doing good, sound, technical work, and that is the kind of people we have in the Department of Environment.

With those few introductory remarks, I will pass it back to you, Mr. Chair, and to members opposite.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that.

Before we start with the remarks of the Opposition, if we could open up the subhead for 1.1.01., and leave it open, if that is okay with the members of the Committee. We will leave it there.

Mr. Osborne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will start off with 1.1.01. Minister's Office. There is a difference in the revised amount under 01. Salaries, and the estimated amount for this year, a decrease of about $31,300. I am just wondering if you could give some explanation as to the difference.

MR. MERCER: Mr. Deputy, if you will.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Minister.

In the previous year there were some additional salary costs in additional staff in the Minister's Office. I believe there is one less person in the budget year for this year compared to the previous year, so that would account for the substantial difference from the revised number to the budget in the coming year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What position would that be?

MR. DEAN: It was an extra secretarial position in the office in St. John's.

MR. T. OSBORNE: There were additional staff hired on, I guess, last year over what was budgeted last year? There is a substantial increase in the actual revised and the budgeted amount for last year as well.

MR. DEAN: There was one position which was not budgeted for last year, which was hired, where there was an additional position, and there were savings elsewhere in the department to pay for that position.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What extra position was put there last year?

MR. DEAN: It was an extra secretarial position in the Minister's Office. That was, I believe, put there in April of last year and that was carried through to, I believe, February of the previous fiscal year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So the secretary who was put there is the position that is now missing this year?

MR. DEAN: That is correct.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What would explain the difference in the $213,000 budgeted last year and the $242,000 this year, then?

MR. DEAN: That would be the same explanation. The $213,000 budgeted last year and the $242,000 this year, those would be salary increases and step increases for staff in the minister's offices.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under Transportation and Communications, there was $26,000 additional last year spent as compared to the budgeted amount. Again, we are back to $50,000 budgeted this year. Any explanation on what that was...?

MR. DEAN: There was some additional travel of the minister's office in last year over and above what was budgeted. Those related to some additional federal-provincial ministerial meetings, and also the additional expenditures associated with the minister's trip to Spain to view the oil spill in Spain.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess the trips - the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment meetings are pre-planned, so I guess the $26,000 would primarily be the trip to Spain?

MR. DEAN: No, I think the estimate, as I recall, and I stand to be corrected by Mr. Crocker, is that the cost of the Spanish trip was somewhere less than $15,000 in total for that cost attributed to the minister's office.

There were additional federal-provincial meetings last year related to discussions on the Kyoto Protocol that were not planned. They were additional meetings called of Environment Ministers and Energy Ministers for Canada, and the minister found it necessary to participate in those additional meetings. I forget the exact number of meetings, but normally there were a couple. I think in the last year there were three or four meetings called, some of them called on short notice.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under subhead 1.2.01. Executive Support, there is a substantial decrease in salaries this year over what was budgeted and revised last year. What would the explanation be for that?

MR. DEAN: Last year there was an additional Assistant Deputy Minister position in the department for a period of time, and that position was, I guess, taken away near the end of the current fiscal year. There was two Assistant Deputy Minister salaries in the budget last year. There is only one Assistant Deputy Minister salary in the budget for this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Was that a permanent position, the second deputy?

MR. DEAN: Yes, it was a permanent position but it was a person who had spent some time in other departments of government, came to Environment to do some work with environmental industries, focusing on environmental industries, and the department paid the salary during the term of that assignment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Who was that? I am just curious because I thought I knew everybody in the department.

MR. DEAN: That was Mr. Sid Blundon, who has since retired from the public service.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Under 1.2.01.06. Executive Support, Purchased Services, there was a budget of $15,000, again this year $15,000, and the revised last year was $50,000. I am just wondering what those expenditures were for.

MR. DEAN: I think I will ask Mr. Crocker to answer that question.

MR. CROCKER: Some of the expenditures there related to the Environmental Awards Program, and some advertising costs and printing costs were also a little greater than anticipated. We are back to the base budget of $15,000 for this year, and hopefully we will be able to live within that this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The Environmental Awards, that is an annual program.

MR. CROCKER: Yes, it is.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What were the overruns for?

MR. CROCKER: I would imagine it was mostly promoting the advertising for it, and also the reception for it, and that type of thing. I guess there are other things also included in there, such as printing, not directly related to the program; but the whole budget for advertising for the department is budgeted under Executive Support, so a lot of the advertising comes out of that area.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Advertising for the department itself?

MR. CROCKER: All department advertising, yes, goes through the Communications area which is budgeted under Executive Support.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Would that take in advertising for the MMSB as well, or would they have their own advertising budget?

MR. CROCKER: No, they would have their own allocation. The MMSB would pay their own advertising.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On page 98, under section 1.2.02 Administrative Support, subsection .01 Salaries. There was a substantial decrease last year from $148,200 to $104,700 and this year we are back up to $141,900. Was that as a result of a position that was eliminated last year?

MR. CROCKER: There were some temporary assistance costs there that were not utilized. It was identified that we needed some additional dollars in some other activities within the department. There was less temporary assistance paid for last year out of administration, so that $43,000 was used elsewhere. This year we have it back in again. We will see what happens with the rest of the salary allocations if we have to move it again.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Transportation and Communications, there was $15,000 there that was not utilized. Was that transferred to Transportation in another area of the department?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, it would have been transferred to another area. I guess probably our telephone costs and some other related costs like that would have been less than anticipated, so it was utilized in other activities.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Other Transportation within the department?

MR. CROCKER: Not necessarily. Within the transfer policy we can move it around within any main object of expenditure across any activity. I guess, probably, you would need almost to go back over every transfer that was done during the year to see exactly where that activity went.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Information Technology, the same heading, Administrative Support, last year's budget was $167,100 and there was actually $232,700.

MR. CROCKER: During the budget process, $167,000 was basically budgeted for project costs for different IT projects that were being carried out by the department. We usually get very little funding for our hardware and software purchases. What usually happens is all the divisions, if they need new computers, printers or related software, it is usually transferred into Administration and then the purchases channeled through the administration area. So that $65,000 would be the purchase of hardware and software for the full department.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Sure. That acquisition has been done now so you are back to $189,000.

MR. CROCKER: I guess the IT budget is a little different than some of the other areas. Every year the amount fluctuates, depending on the projects that are submitted. It is not as if you are going to get the exact amount every year. You are going to get a similar figure, close, but usually it depends on what is submitted. Based on the projects that are approved by ITM in their review of our IT budget submission, that is what we get our budget from.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Policy Development and Planning, the Salaries there last year, $316,500. There was a decrease and a substantial increase this year. So I guess a two-pronged question: Why the decrease in the actual allocation that was spent last year and why the increase in the budgeted amount this year?

MR. CROCKER: The $44,000 difference in the Revised is related to a vacant position during the year. The additional funding that is provided for 2003-2004 is $116,000 difference. We had an additional position approved, plus you have salary increases. There are other things that relate, I guess, to all of the salary allocations. There are always salary increases, the annualization of salary increases, steps, and then the fluctuation in different salary options from one year to the next.

For example, last year under Policy and Planning there was a salary option to save approximately $57,000. Where that was not required, we did not do that this year. So that money was sort of put back in. I guess it appears to be an increase.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What position became redundant last year in Policy and Planning?

MR. CROCKER: No, there was no position which became redundant. There was vacant position that was not filled.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, that just was not filled?

MR. CROCKER: Right. At least there was a delayed recruitment of that position. It may be filled now. I will check for sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You say that position has been filled?

MR. CROCKER: I will have to check for sure and see exactly which position it is.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

In addition to that, you say there was an additional person hired?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, there was an additional position. We had additional funding out for $63,800 for another position, and we offset it with some revenue. That is why the revenue is also up to $63,800; the related revenue.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The additional position at $63,800, what position would that be?

MR. DOMINIE: That is a person who is providing support to the Policy and Planning division to deal with the waste management issues in the department.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. So it is specifically for waste management issues?

MR. DOMINIE: Generally, yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That would not come under Pollution Prevention?

MR. DOMINIE: No, that is providing support to the Policy and Planning division. We have allocated that position there.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How long would that position be required to deal with policy planning for waste management? How long do you anticipate that position being within the department?

MR. DOMINIE: Of course you are aware that the waste management strategy was announced last April, just about a year ago now, so it is just in the early stages. It is difficult to say how long, but certainly in the early stages we felt that the extra assistance would necessarily provide some direction in kick-starting the waste management strategy. It is going to take eight or ten years to roll out the strategy totally, but whether this position will be necessary for that full duration I am not sure.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Professional Services, there was $34,000 budgeted last year and again this year only $15,000 spent. I am just wondering what the reason is for the difference in the allocation last year?

MR. CROCKER: There was $34,000 budgeted there for services related to the analysis of issues relating to climate change and coastal zone management and other environmental planning and management projects. During the year there were less consultants hired. So we only spent $15,000, but it is back in there again for next year, $34,000.

MR. DOMINIE: Most of that was not spent - was on the ocean strategy business. We started some work on that last year but we did not do quite as much as we anticipated. On the climate change I think we did spend a fair bit of money, but on the ocean strategy, the coastal management projects, that was the area where we did not spend as much as we thought we would. I think we got overtaken by events on the waste management strategy. That piece did not advance as quickly as we thought it would.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Pollution Prevention, 2.1.01.01. Salaries. There is a difference in salaries there this year of - from what was budgeted last year, what was revised last year, $1,201,800, this year it is $1,371,600. I was just wondering what those increases would be for?

MR. DOMINIE: We had a number of positions in the department that were vacant. We sought approval this year and got additional funding to refill those positions again on the Pollution Prevention side of the department. That is why we had an increase in salaries there. We had three positions that were obligated last year to keep vacant because there were not enough salary dollars to cover it all. We went out this year and sought approval for those three positions and we did indeed get approval for them. The recruitment is underway, and I do believe two are actually on staff at the moment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What would those three positions be?

MR. DOMINIE: One was a pesticides inspector and a couple of biologist engineering-type positions dealing with waste management studies or the various contaminated sites around the Province that people come in and ask for approval on their properties; people who deal with those types of issues. We have recruited people from the university with masters degrees in environmental sciences - type of people we have on those particular projects.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So, there is one pesticide inspector and two under waste management?

MR. DOMINIE: Well, it is just pollution prevention dealing with, like I say, the issues like contaminated sites. That is the area we are in. They are classified as environmental biologists but, essentially, they are engineering biology type people.

MR. T. OSBORNE: How many pesticide inspectors does the Province now have? Last year we had one. Is that correct?

MR. DOMINIC: Yes, I would say right now we have one-and-a-half. We have one person on the West Coast who dedicates some time with pesticides and one full-time working out of St. John's who would, essentially, cover other areas of the Province as well, obviously.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess I should ask, is that adequate to cover what needs to be done under pesticide inspection?

MR. DOMINIE: I guess it is always difficult to say how many inspectors are adequate. What we are attempting to do is work with the industry more and put some onus, as well, on the industry and how they would sort of - I should not say self-police, but certainly there is an obligation on the industry to ensure that they follow the rules as well. So we are working with the industry to see how we can get an adequate or a proper enforcement or inspection program throughout the Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: With the new regulations that are anticipated for pesticide use in the Province and municipalities bringing in pesticide bans, or hoping to, what type of activity would be undertaken within the department to meet those demands?

MR. DOMINIE: We are looking at revisions to the pesticide regulations or administrative regulations on the books since the early seventies or mid-seventies anyway. Of course, they are still just under discussion at the moment. We will be talking with the industry to see how they would be managed if we did bring in changes.

With regard to municipalities, there was some thought that they would perhaps have a bigger role, but the Federation of Municipalities actually voted last fall, at their conference in Corner Brook, that they did not want an enhanced role in pesticide management in the Province. They would rather leave that to the Province. The way they put it, I think, was, to leave it to the people who have the expertise.

Right now, municipalities have the ability to regulate pesticides on their own properties, any municipal properties, public properties, but with regard to regulating -

MR. T. OSBORNE: But not publicly?

MR. DOMINIE: No, they do not have the ability to do that now under the Municipalities Act, and the signal we received from the federation was that they do not want that authority. There was a resolution put forward at the annual meeting last fall in Corner Brook, by the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

I guess I would have to ask again, that being the case on pesticide use within the Province, and seeing what many other jurisdictions are doing with the control of pesticide use with, I guess, first of all, one-and-a-half positions in the Province as far as pesticide inspectors, what plans does the Province or the department have to control the use of pesticides in the Province?

MR. DEAN: I think we proposed to overhaul the pesticide regulations, but to go back to what Ken Dominie was saying earlier, that we licence pesticide operators - and there are terms and conditions of those licences - I do not think we would ever have enough inspectors to be out there looking over the shoulder of every company that is applying pesticides or has a licence. I think we do have to rely on the industries that have these licences to abide by the terms and conditions of the licences.

We are also interested in, and we are examining the sale of, pesticides. For instance, you can go into Canadian Tire today and buy pesticides. We are very interested in how pesticides are sold and distributed in the Province. We really do not have a good handle on the inventory and the sale of pesticides in the Province. This is something we want to examine and consult with other stakeholders on, how we move forward.

To go back to your inspection question, I do not think we would ever have enough inspectors to be out there enforcing every permit that we would issue, and that would not be our intention.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What type of control does the Province have? I mean, you drive across the Province and, in a number of locations across the highway, you see vegetable stands. What type of control or what type of ability to oversee the growers of this produce and the type of pesticides and chemicals that they are putting on the produce - I guess what I am asking in a more direct way is, what assurances do the general public have on what they are consuming?

MR. DEAN: One of the things, in terms of authorizing pesticides for use in Canada, that, in fact, is done by Health Canada, by the federal government. So, in terms of the testing and research that is done on a particular pesticide before it comes on the market, that is essentially done by what is called the Pest Management Regulatory Authority, which is an arm of Health Canada. As a consumer, you would sort of say, well, Health Canada has or has not approved this particular pesticide for that particular use.

In terms of how much is applied, well, the person applying it should be abiding by whatever is on the label, or whatever is appropriate, and that labelling is controlled by Health Canada.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So it is very much buyer beware, basically. The buyer of the produce -

MR. DEAN: The buyer of the produce, of any farm produce.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know in other jurisdictions, here in Canada even, there have been improvements in regulations on products that can be sold on shelves, such as Canadian Tire or hardware stores, Wal-Mart, that type of thing. Are there any plans by the Province to regulate or control what is actually being sold for private use or private spraying within this Province?

MR. DOMINIE: I think when Mr. Dean mentioned that we are going to have a handle on the inventory of pesticides, that is what he is referring to. With regard to commercial pesticides - and there are only a handful of suppliers in the Province - we do have a good handle on that, but it is the area like you just mentioned, like Canadian Tire, the convenience stores or whatever. That is the area where we are looking into what level of control is necessary on that sale, what we call domestic products. That is an area which we are looking at how we would get involved in the sale and distribution of domestic products in the Province.

On the other side, the larger stuff, we know what comes into the Province, how it is dispersed and sold, and they are all licensed. It gets a significant issue when you talk about all the domestic stuff. You can go from Canadian Tire down to the smallest convenience store. That is the area that we are looking at now, how we might manage that under a revised set of regulations.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Back to the commercial applications, is there any guarantees, on a commercial application - we know what is coming into the Province and supposedly what is being used on an annual basis, but there is no way of knowing for sure what is sitting in somebody's barn or, for that matter, what is being disposed of improperly. Does the Province have a handle on the semi-professional growers, I guess you would call them, who set up vegetable stands on the side of the highway and derive a likelihood out of selling produce to people travelling the Trans-Canada Highway?

MR. DOMINIE: Apart from the people who apply pesticides to lawns and things like that, and people who are very visible, I think one of the biggest programs we have had in the department in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, Forest Resources and Agrifoods, is working with farmers. We have had a very, very active program with them, education-wise, over the past, probably, ten years now. I think we have made a lot of gains with regard to proper use amongst farmers. One of the very successful programs we have run this year in conjunction with the industry was getting rid of the old pesticide containers. You may have seen that program. We had depots set up in half a dozen places across the Province and we just invited people who had pesticides or containers to come forward. There were certainly no penalties, just give them to the organization that was doing it and they were taken away and disposed of properly. Farmers were very responsive and very responsible, and when they had something in their sheds or whatever for years, they took advantage of this program last summer. It may be repeated, I am not sure, but it certainly was a good pilot project last year. We did one in Labrador and I think it was four or five on the Island part of the Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Government properties, such as, I guess, here at Confederation Building, Pippy Park and other areas - is government still using pesticides on public properties?

MR. DOMINIE: To the best of my knowledge, yes, but they would have to use a licensed operator the same as anyone else would in the Province.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

Again, under Pollution Prevention, 2.1.01, Transportation and Communications, we have gone from a revised of $78,000 for last year to $123,800 this year. I am just looking for an explanation on the increase in that allocation.

MR. DEAN: I think the revised last year was just that we had less need for travel. This year, as Mr. Dominie said in his comments, we actually have three additional people on staff, so there will be additional operating costs and travel costs associated with those extra three people who we are in the process of hiring or have already hired.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That allocation, then, wouldn't be as a result of the new waste management strategies, it would be three new people hired on?

MR. DOMINIE: As the minister said, the place for these people is not in St. John's, it is out across the Province. We hope to have these people out working in areas outside the head office, certainly during the summer months.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Professional Services we have gone from a budgeted amount of $618,200 last year to $118,200 this year; $500,000. Why the decrease in Professional Services?

MR. DOMINIE: We had an allocation of $600,000-odd last year and it was to deal with a number of sites which the Province is responsible for: Jerrys Nose, West Bay, some small mining properties in the Baie Verte area. We were picking away at it, I guess, and we have made some progress. We finished up several sites. There is certainly a need for some dollars, perhaps some significant dollars, to deal with these sites over time. I guess government found themselves in a position to share that. The small allocation we had was probably not properly dealing with these properties. We still have a small amount of money there to deal with emergencies, but I think we will set out a plan for future years to perhaps more properly deal with the near ones, I call it, that we still have left to do.

The small amount of money we had, we have made some progress. We have decontaminated (inaudible). I am trying to remember them now, but there are some properties on the West Coast, out in the Stephenville-Port au Port area. We had some, I would say - the Baie Verte area is another one we are completely finished with right now. We use some of this money to deal with New Harbour, which you are familiar with, we sponsor studies out there. So we still have some money to continue on with that but we still have some sites left to do which will require an infusion of funds over time. We are confident, at this point in time, that there is nothing that is an immediate risk to health and safety. If we do come across those types of situations I am sure will find the wherewithal to deal with it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The remaining $118,000, what is that allocated for this year? What particular projects?

MR. DOMINIE: The only one we have on our radar screen at the moment is New Harbour. We still have committed more work for that group out there to do some work, and that is the only one we sort of feel that we have to make a commitment to this year. The consultant right now is developing a budget for some more work out there, which we anticipate to do around June month. The rest of it, I think, as the need arises we will allocate it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Purchased Services, there was an allocation of $80,000 that was spent last year; $19,000 this year, a $61,000 reduction in that particular area. I am just wondering why there is $61,000 less being spent for Purchased Services this year?

MR. CROCKER: There was a vehicle there that was involved in an accident which was replaced. So that was a significant portion of that. Plus, there was also greater than anticipated cost for vehicle repairs, advertising, printing, training, and acid rain monitoring was also greater than anticipated, for the total of $61,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just a couple of questions - not focusing, in particular, on an allocation.

With the New Harbour site, there was some confusion, as was in the media, some sparring back and forth between myself and my counterpart. On the backhoe operator, Hobbs Construction still claim that they had not dug to bedrock. I am just wondering whether or not the department contend that they had gone to bedrock or, I guess, what the explanation is for Hobbs saying they had not dug to bedrock and the department being satisfied with the latest test results?

MR. MERCER: I can't speak to Mr. Hobbs' contention that he never got to bedrock. All we do know is that the contract which was given to the company was that they were to go to bedrock. There were people onsite from the monitoring committee. It would seem they were satisfied that the operator had gone to bedrock, and the consultant assures us that he did. Now, that is the piece of information as we know it today.

Mr. Hobbs - I have no idea who the gentleman is. Why he said he never went to bedrock or whether he was the operator who actually was taking the samples at that level, I am not sure, but the requirement to go to bedrock was clearly stated in the contract. The contractor states he did go and the people who were onsite confirms that he did. You would have to talk to Mr. Hobbs as to why he made the observation that he did.

MR. DOMINIE: I attended a public meeting one night last week in New Harbour when the results of the study were presented. That question was asked, and the consultant had photographs there. He felt confident that he had done what he was asked to do under the contract. Mr. Hobbs was at the meeting, I do believe, and he did not challenge that statement by the consultant at the public meeting last week. He felt comfortable that he had gone down there and he had photographs demonstrating what he had done. Like the minister said, I think we can only assume - Mr. Hobbs has not come forward since that time in disputing that fact again since last week.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Unfortunately, I was not in town. I was not able to make that meeting. I have not spoken with the chap from Hobbs Construction since but if he was at the meeting and did not challenge the company, I guess we have to be satisfied with that.

The other question I have is, Newfoundland Environmental Industry Association put out a news statement shortly after the budget was released, concerned about the reduction and the allocation under Waste Management, some $170,000 less this year under Pollution Prevention. I believe it was the amount that they quoted, I cannot recall now, but in their news statement they say there was an actual reduction in the allocation for Pollution Prevention this year versus last year, and concern that there is not enough movement in the direction of waste management in the Province. I am just wondering what the department's reaction to that news statement would be?

MR. DEAN: I did not see that statement, Mr. Osborne, so I cannot comment on it. I know that we have a reasonably good line of communication with the Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association and they are big supporters of the Province's Waste Management Strategy that was released a year ago. They keep saying to government: This is a good strategy; you should keep with it and move on with it.

There is an advisory committee to government on the implementation of the Waste Management Strategy, and NEIA is one of the groups that is represented on that advisory committee. I believe there is a meeting later this week, Mr. Dominie, of that advisory committee, to meet with senior government officials on the strategy.

In answer to your basic question, I did not see the release and I am not sure any of us saw the release from NEIA with respect to the Budget. I was aware that they did make a presentation to the Minister of Finance when she was doing her public consultations throughout the Province, saying that there should be more funding for a number of initiatives, but I was not aware that they had put out a release since the Budget came down.

MR. MERCER: I am just going to ask my deputy for a point of clarification, because we have met with NEIA. I am just trying to fix my mind, when was that, pre- or post-Budget? Do you have any recollection?

MR. T. OSBORNE: Post-Budget.

MR. MERCER: When we met with them?

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. MERCER: Then they certainly never made -

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know they sent a copy of the new statement to my office. I can only assume that they released it, if they sent it to my office.

MR. MERCER: My only point, Tom, was that I had met with NEIA. I am going to ask my deputy whether or not we met with them after the Budget or before. They certainly never raised any issue of that nature with me, and I have met with the full board. Can you confirm that was before or after?

MR. DEAN: That meeting was after the Budget did come down.

MR. MERCER: If, in fact, they did have concerns and we did meet face to face, they never raised them with me.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What plans does the department have this year dealing with waste management? Where is the Waste Management Strategy? What plans does the department have this year for it? I guess, in talking about waste management, the chair of the Waste Management Strategy Committee has been vacated for some time. What are the plans to replace the chair of that committee?

MR. MERCER: I will speak to that briefly. That is a question more appropriately asked of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and he will be making an announcement as to the replacement for that person in the very near future.

Our role in the Waste Management Strategy is to develop the guidelines and the regulations with respect to waste management, composting, transfer sites, disposal of industrial materials and so forth. Most of those things we have done, and most of those documents are now out before the public for discussion and feedback to us, but the actual establishment of the actual waste management sites themselves is more a function of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Once they have, in fact, determined the site, they will, of course, be required to submit a registration, the normal process, and we will do our due diligence at that point.

I think that is the information that I would have. If my deputy would like to add to that -

MR. DEAN: Just to add a few things, I think the minister is right. There were several commitments - in fact, a large number of commitments - in the Waste Management Strategy released a year ago. One of the things that was committed to be done in the first year was to do the new standards for the new waste disposal sites, and we now have a draft of those standards and we are talking to organizations such as NEIA to review those. So, that is happening.

We have, I believe, six or seven - correct me if I am wrong, Ken - waste management committees that are active throughout the Province. There is a very active committee in Central Newfoundland, Western Newfoundland, Burin Peninsula, Northern Peninsula, and now in Southern Labrador as well, regional groups coming together, and they are all at various stages of developing regional plans for their region. A lot of that work is supported through the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

I would say that government, the Province, and the regions themselves, municipal leaders in particular in the regions, have been very active in the past year and are getting on to addressing things in their regions.

We are also dealing with disposal bans and you will recall that the minister, in March month, announced the implementation of the used oil program. We will be looking at other programs in the coming year to consider for waste disposal bans, waste diversion programs.

There are a number of sites that have closed down. There are a number, on an interim basis, where regions are together, they are co-operating. For instance, I believe the Town of Pasadena has closed its site and is going into Corner Brook. We have seen it coming together in Green Bay, and we are now seeing the closure of the incinerator in Conception Bay North with material coming into Robin Hood Bay and elsewhere. We are seeing this kind of pattern throughout the Province. The Northern Peninsula is proposing, I think, Minister, as I recall, going from thirteen sites to three at the present time, so it is very active.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In areas such as Conception Bay North, where there has been a great deal of media attention over the past year or so, what is happening out there? Where is their waste going at present? What plans are in place to deal with that situation over the next coming months and, I guess, maybe up to a year before they are really settled away?

MR. DEAN: Just by way of background, municipal waste is a municipal responsibility so we leave it to the towns in the area to make their accommodations. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I think, very successfully talked to the City of St. John's and encouraged them to co-operate and to take the waste from Conception Bay North on an interim basis, until there is a new regional Avalon site, but that was an agreement essentially facilitated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on behalf of the towns in Conception Bay North.

In terms of day to day, the waste from Conception Bay North could go to any authorized site on the Avalon region, including Robin Hood Bay, so it is whatever arrangements the towns in Conception Bay North want to make. My understanding is that have gone to tender, looking at collection and transportation into St. John's. I am not exactly sure where that is in the tendering process, whether the tenders are closed or anything has actually been awarded.

MR. DOMINIE: I just understood that tenders have closed and there has been some evaluation of the bids that were received, ongoing at the moment. I haven't had direct contact, but I read that in the newspaper.

If I may, just for a moment, you did mention a number of committees. I think there are about eleven, actually, in the Province, some big and some small. We have been able to secure funding as well this year to bring these groups together, probably a couple of times a year, so they can discuss common issues and learn from one another. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. As a matter of fact, there is a meeting next Thursday, the eighth day of May, in Corner Brook, which we will be going to with these - hopefully, all the people will come together, all of the eleven groups. They have been invited, anyway, to come together and discuss common issues. We started that last year during the Federation of Municipalities meeting and found it very useful. I think the groups themselves found it very useful, so that will continue at least for this year and see where we go from this. They found it very helpful. There was a lot of work done in the St. John's area. There is no need to go reinventing the wheel for Western or Central or the Northern Peninsula, on a lot of the issues that were discussed, so that is a very, very useful process.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Of these committees, the Avalon Waste Management Committee, I guess, have more direction from government, perhaps, than the other committees. Would I be correct in saying that?

MR. DOMINIE: I think that one was born out of a bit of a crisis. You might say we have a crisis in the entire waste management program in the Province but that one, of course, was born out of a crisis when Harbour Grace folks indicated they were going to shut down the incinerator in Harbour Grace. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs at the time, I guess, stepped in and took direct action in setting up the committee, and worked with them to carry the project as far as it has gone to date. The others, you know, have developed out of their own local interest, and anything you need in the long run for action in their areas. I guess the needs are a bit different and then the committees got structured in a slightly different way.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I am going to allow my colleague from Conception Bay South to ask some questions here.

CHAIR: Mr. Osborne has now stopped his inquisition of the minister and we will now move on to Terry French.

Mr. French.

MR. FRENCH: First of all, gentlemen, you know I have a couple of issues in my district and that is basically what my questions are about here this evening. First of all, I would like an update on the scrap metal proposal for Incinerator Road in Foxtrap.

MR. MERCER: The proposal to relocate from, I believe it was Long Pond, the existing operator has a scrap metal yard in Long Pond, in the middle of a residential area, and he has proposed to relocate to the Incinerator Road.

It is my understanding that this is his second request to relocate. He had made an application one or two years ago - two-and-a-half years ago - to relocate to a site on Incinerator Road. It followed due process and it frankly was approved. That gentleman subsequently decided to apply for another site on Incinerator Road and that process is nearing its conclusion.

I would say, Terry, if the gentleman had wanted to go back to the original site that he was approved for two years ago, he certainly could have done that. Why he chose to move from the original site that he had applied to move to on Incinerator Road to this one, your guess is as good as mine. The fact of the matter is, he has been approved once already to move to Incinerator Road and the request which he has made this time has now gone through the process. Actually, the due date for my decision on that, I believe, was April 2003.

WITNESS: Original?

MR. MERCER: Original.

We subsequently spoke to the gentleman and asked to have an extension. He has agreed, and I believe the new due date was Friday past. So, we have already gone past that. Suffice to say, we are still considering the issue and I have yet to make a final decision on that particular application. We have, as you know, received considerable representation particularly from the new subdivision there on the Foxtrap Access, which is located some three or four kilometres from the Incinerator Road site.

MR. FRENCH: I would like to remind the minister as well that you have received these from the school council as well, area farmers - the list is endless - petitions with hundreds of names on them. There is no debating, I think, that the current site has to be moved. That is not an issue, I do not think, on anybody's mind. It is just that the current situation on Incinerator Road is, we believe that area should be cleaned up before it entertains any new applications.

If you visited - I have aerial photographs that you are more than welcome to see - if you see the current site, you can understand the contamination that has caused where it currently exists.

MR. MERCER: I have been on the site. I have walked the site.

MR. FRENCH: Well, you know.

MR. MERCER: I have seen what you claim to be the environmental damage there. The point, as I understand it, is that the existing operators who are there are there in compliance with the zoning of the area, which was, at one time, under the Town of Conception Bay South but somehow got changed to the City of St. John's in 1992.

MR. FRENCH: That is a story in itself.

MR. MERCER: Therein may lie some of the concerns with the particular site in question.

The Rothsay rendering plant, for argument sake, was establishment in 1977, and there are concerns with that site, there is no doubt, but it is regularly inspected. It is checked for compliance. I understand the Rothsay plant, as of last fall, has installed some new equipment to treat the affluent from that plant which has been a bit of a problem. That work is in the process of (inaudible) up. I do not know what the due date for commissioning is, but it is very near, if it has not already been done.

MR. DOMINIE: Construction was started about last October or November and we understand commissioning is underway at the moment.

MR. FRENCH: I am familiar with that, that is a good move. I salute you guys for approving that because, from what I understand, it is going to treat the water that is coming out of the Rothsay plant. It is a water treatment facility. Anybody who has lived in the area or has had a chance to barbecue some evening on their back porch could certainly attest to the need for water treatment for that facility.

Just to go into a little bit of a process: If somebody complains of a current company or a current facility that is contaminating a certain area, what happens?

MR. MERCER: If it within the jurisdiction of the department and the gentleman or the operator of that site is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of his permit, then we will - I presume we do - conduct an inspection and note the deficiencies and so note to the operator to have them corrected. That, I assume, is the normal procedure.

MR. FRENCH: I don't have a permit for anything, and hopefully I am not a polluter, but let's say, for example, this evening on my own property I could open an oil barrel and throw it into the drain, and obviously I didn't have a permit to do that. If my neighbor questioned my motives and phoned somebody, what would be the process, if he phoned government and said, Company ABC is polluting in the area? What would be the process?

MR. MERCER: There would be an investigation, of course, and if the allegation was proven to be correct charges would be laid. There is nothing unusual about that.

The whole issue of Incinerator Road - I understand your concern is that there be a complete environmental assessment done of the area, not of any one particular operator.

MR. FRENCH: Absolutely.

MR. MERCER: My understanding of the environmental assessment legislation, as we now have it, is that is not within my authority to do. It is within my authority to approve or disapprove any proposal for development, but to do an environmental assessment upon an area, it is my understanding and advise that it is not within our authority to do that. Correct me if I am wrong here.

MR. FRENCH: In the case when there are a number of companies who have been, and are serious polluters, my God, you must have teeth to be able to go in there and say: Okay, well hold on guys, we want to check this out. We have to check this out. You do not just let that go on and on and on, surely God.

MR. MERCER: Well, lets go back to the site in question again. At the site in question - and the brook that you are referring to, the stream that moves down through and comes out, I believe, somewhere in the vicinity of the playground, the swimming pools and whatever. The rendering plant is certainly close to that site, which was established in 1977.

Perhaps the biggest polluter of the whole works in there is the former waste disposal site operated by the Town of Conception Bay South, which is right on the brook itself. Any waste disposal site - this was established in the 1960s, so it is now getting mature. It is forty-odd years old. There are obviously materials coming out of that site. Someone has to take a look at it and perhaps do some rehabilitation work. So there are a lot of problems with any of our waste disposal sites which are located in or near a water course. Obviously a situation like that - the same as there is at New Harbour barrens - it is an old waste disposal site. You can paint it up anyway you want, over time there is material that will come from that waste disposal site. Unfortunately, when these sites were located twenty, thirty, or forty years ago, not a lot of people were thinking about leachates from those sites, but that looks like a site which may be containing some contamination. We may have to ask the Town of Conception Bay South, at some appropriate time, to do some remedial work there.

MR. FRENCH: I certainly do not disagree with that. Let's face it, years ago we were all guilty of dumping our garbage in places maybe that we should have had a second look at as communities. I think now we have taken the bull by the horns, or it seems to be that we are getting ourselves together on this issue. One aspect of Incinerator Road certainly is that.

I have had calls from constituents, as recent as last week, concerning the Pardy's Waste Management. I have people who have sent me pictures. I am sure you have these pictures because they told me they were going to e-mail them to you as well. I have water samples taken from the water right next to this Pardy's Waste Management. I have seen the sewage in the ditches. I have seen the oil in the ditches and I know that there have been complaints made. I know that inspectors visit that site once a week, but yet there is nothing done from the department. There is something wrong there in my opinion.

MR. MERCER: Well, just to recap your point - and pictures, I am sure, are available. I always find it better to be on the site and I was on the site last week. I actually went into their composting facility. While it had a certain distinctive aroma, it was not an aroma that I was not unaccustomed to having come from a farm. But it wasn't, in my view, creating any kind of an environmental problem. Pardy's did have a problem there about two years ago, a year-and-a-half ago, and there is not doubt whatsoever, they did violate the terms and conditions of their permit. There were certain things done which should not have been done. They have been taken to task for that. They have been asked to do certain remediation; some of which they have done, some of which they have not.

The site as it is right now - and the complaint came to me last week that they were, quote: dumping raw sewage on the site. I think I can recognize raw sewage when I see it. I also recognize composted material. What is on the site, as I saw, was a facility whereby sewage was being brought to the site, being pumped into a large tank which was basically a refuge, the water was separated out and the water was going into storage tanks. The sludge was going into the building for composting and the water, as I understand right now, is being back-hauled to the West Coast for disposal in another municipal sewage treatment facility.

There is, in fact, a fair amount of composted sludge on the site. It is old sludge which has been there for many years; five, ten years. The difficulty with it, and the only difficulty as I understand it right now, is simply in transporting it from that site to an area which will take it. The permit - which they now have been issued and have been issued for some time - allows them to take the composted sludge to, I believe, Robin Hood Bay, as one example, to act as a cover on the garbage dump down there, subject only to them providing to the Department of Environment analysis to show that the material has, in fact, composted. I understand that is in the process of being done. I know it is not a clean site, but again, it is an industrial site. That is what it is zoned for and that is why -

MR. FRENCH: But because it is an industrial site, surely God there is no excuse for a wetlands there that is totally contaminated with oil. I cannot follow - regardless of whether it was in 1977 or 1947, I do not think that gives a company the right to - if they make a mistake or if they make an error, or if they pollute an area they should damn well have to clean it up.

MR. MERCER: In this particular case I believe I indicated the transgression was brought to our attention. They have been asked to clean up the site. They have been asked to bring forward a plan of remediation. I stand to be corrected, but I do not recall there being any reference to oil on that site being wasted from Pardy's.

MR. FRENCH: Well, I can assure you there is oil in that wetlands and if you speak to any of the inspectors - they visit that site once a week and they send reports, I assume, to you people. The Department of Environment - the inspector comes from Government Services and Lands and visits that site. If you go up there and sit there for a week you will see the Environment vehicle, a Government Services vehicle coming in, inspecting that road, and leaving again - some time through a week.

MR. MERCER: I would assume that if Government Services and Lands finds infractions of any permits out there we would be so notified. I will ask my officials if they have been so notified.

MR. FRENCH: It would not be a permit, it would be a wetland full of oil. Don't you guys investigate that then and make the person who made the mess clean it up?

MR. MERCER: That is what I think I just said. If Government Services and Lands did in fact find oil in a wetland site adjacent to any of these operations that we are referring to, I presume they would be reported back to the Department of Environment. I will ask my officials if they have received any such reports.

MR. DOMINIE: I am familiar with the area that was contaminated - if that is the right word -from some of the sewage in the area, because I think there is a tile field that malfunctioned. I am not aware of any wetlands -

MR. FRENCH: What malfunctioned?

MR. DOMINIE: The septic tank tile field where the decant water liquid was going. That did malfunction about two years ago and that is what the minister said.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. DOMINIE: Weeping tile field, septic tank. We have asked them to clean it up.

I certainly will check it out, where there are any wetlands contaminated with oil. Certainly, I am aware of the sewage issue.

MR. FRENCH: Just a further comment. Anybody who has been in that area certainly would have to see, unless you absolutely have none of the five senses at all left, you would have to realize that area is contaminated, between Rothsay, Pardy's Management, the old dump site, that is just to name the three major ones in that area.

That water stream, like I said, runs out between recreation facilities, and for someone to turn a blind eye to what is happening there is absolutely criminal.

I just want to leave you with that thought. I hope you will make the right decision, like the previous minister did, who I must commend, by the way, for making the right decision at the time. I hope this minister does the same.

MR. MERCER: Well, let me leave you with one final thought. No one is turning a blind eye to anything happening on Incinerator Road.

MR. FRENCH: We will see. Time will tell.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. French.

If you could repeat that piece about the former minister.

Is there anybody else? Mr. Byrne? Mr. Osborne? Okay.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have just a couple of more questions.

A quick question on waste management before I move off that topic. The Avalon Waste Management Strategy that was announced and, I guess, their goals on closing landfills, on decommissioning the teepee incinerators, putting in lined landfills and so on, how realistic at this point are those goals? Do you anticipate the Province should attain those goals?

MR. DEAN: In terms of the Province, I just want to clarify and distinguish between the Province's Waste Management Strategy, which does have very clear goals in there. I think, in the time frame that they are laid out there, Mr. Osborne, I would say, yes, they are realistic. The Avalon was a bit more specific.

The report from the Avalon committee was very specific in that it had a specific plan for the entire Avalon region and identified a specific site and identified, essentially, a kind of a governance model and the kind of standards that we are, in fact, developing. I think that is realistic for a population the size of which we have on the Avalon Peninsula at the present time. It is realistic to have one site, and it is realistic to have a governance model and a payment model that is equitable to all the citizens of the region. Having said that, I think that means that we are going to pay more for the higher standards and for the associated transportation costs; so the consumer, the householder, will likely end up paying more, either on a fee basis or through municipal taxes, for that higher standard of waste management.

When the Province did its consultations on its Waste Management Strategy, the public and municipal leaders throughout the Province said, we are willing to pay more, and that is one of the reasons the Province went forward with the strategy that it did, because we had very strong public support for taking this kind of action in terms of higher standards, regionalization and moving to lined landfills whereby the effluent is controlled and treated so that we do not end up with the situations that we were talking about earlier this evening.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On the Province's Waste Management Strategy, I guess, the elimination of the teepee style incinerators, we are only looking at a couple of years now before we should attain that goal. Is that still an attainable goal as far as the department is concerned?

MR. DEAN: Mr. Osborne, I would say, yes. I think we, as a Province, are committed to this through the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment as well. This was a commitment that was made by former ministers to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, that we would phase out the teepee incinerators. That was a commitment that was, in fact, made before the launching of the Waste Management Strategy itself. I think that a number of those have been shut down already and we will continue to see, on an annual basis, more of them closed until we get to 2008 or 2010 when they will, in fact, be all gone.

MR. T. OSBORNE: In the interim, once those incinerators are closed or shutdown, what are the Province's plans as far as - will the waste just be landfilled until such a time as there are regional landfill sites that are properly lined with the proper lagoons and catch basins and whatever the case may be?

MR. DEAN: Yes, I think we will see some interim measures. The one I described earlier for the Northern Peninsula is probably the kind of thing we will see. What I described with Pasadena shutting down its incinerator, Minister, I understand -

MR. MERCER: That is an on and off decision. Council has made the decision and then they have unmade the decision. I think they have made it again, but what it will be next month I am not sure.

The whole issue of solid waste management, I am personally very encouraged by what I have seen since becoming Minister of Environment. I am very pleased to see people in groups - we met with the Mayor of St. Anthony and I just forget the young gentleman's name who was involved with the strategizing for solid waste management up there. Of their own accord, by and large, they have made some decisions to reduce their waste disposal sites from thirteen to three and to phase out the three teepee sites, which they have already up there.

However, when you talk about the provincial waste management strategy, I think we are moving in the right direction. While at the end of the day we do things exactly as they are right now in that document, I am not 100 per cent sure we are talking about, in that document, three major landfill sites on the island part of the Province. We have a lot of geography. Whether or not it is actually feasible to carry, for argument's sake, solid waste from St. Anthony down to, let's say, Corner Brook or Stephenville - is it really possible to bring it up from Rose Blanche to Corner Brook? Yes, it can be done but it is done at a cost. As the deputy has indicated, there has to be some consideration along the way of what is an acceptable cost and what is the cost that the communities can bear.

Will there be only three major landfill sites in the Province at the end of the day? I would like to think that there would be, because it makes life a little bit more easy to manage, but realistically will there be only three? I cannot make an ironclad commitment to that, even though the strategy itself does refer to three sites.

For argument sake, I do, in my own mind - and it may not be the right place to be sometimes, but from the northern part of Gros Morne to St. Anthony might be an area where it might be more practical to actually establish a landfill site of some form. Certainly one which would have a liner in it, obviously. But, would it be possible to bring it down from St. Anthony to Corner Brook or Flat Bay? It is a long way to come with a load of, quote - we would always call it as - garbage. It is a long way to go. If it was a load of fish or shrimp, that is a very valuable product and it has a value at the end of the day.

Those are just my own personal thoughts. They may or may not be shared by my officials or by the people who prepared the Waste Management Strategy.

MR. T. OSBORNE: With water resources management, what is the department doing at this stage? I know that there is a significant increase in salaries, for example. I know that there were people hired on, technicians and so on, the ongoing training that takes place throughout the Province. I was just wondering what the Province is doing to continue to try to improve water quality and the safety of water supplies throughout the Province.

MR. DOMINIE: I think that is one area in the department that we can be very, very proud of over the past couple of years, in what we have managed to achieve. We work very closely, obviously, with other departments - the Department of Health; Municipal Affairs; and Government Services - in getting water quality sampling done. We have improved our water quality information substantially over the past couple of years. We have hired two or three people, and they have just gone out and hit the streets and been doing a lot of chemical water quality work.

I think one of the significant achievements we have made is in our training exercise. We essentially have a training unit within water resources and there are trained people who actually run the systems. That is very key in the rural areas of the Province, to have someone out there trained so that they know how to identify problems and work on their systems on a daily basis.

This year we have a new (inaudible). I think we are the only ones in the country, perhaps even North America, who have a mobile training service. We found in the past that it is not always possible for small towns to send their employees in to a central location like Gander, Clarenville or wherever. Sometimes these towns only have one person, or sometimes not a full-time person. The councils themselves, or volunteers, run the systems.

We have equipped, and are equipping, three vans. You may have seen them in the parking lot. Cube vans, I think they are called. We have one stationed here in St. John's, one stationed in Grand Falls-Windsor, and one in Corner Brook. We intend to take the training to the people. We are equipping these vans with training aids, training materials. If someone calls and wants some training, we will actually drive the van down to that small community and work one on one with the operator. I think that is going to go a long way in improving water quality. Once the people out there are trained to know what to do, obviously that is very significant.

We had an annual event in Gander this year. It was our third major conference that we have had. We have had excellent speakers come in from all across Canada. I heard comments this year when I was out - and the minister was there as well - that you would not get this number of people at a conference of this size, of this nature, in Toronto or Ontario. We have 250-300 people attending. It shows the interest and what we have done in attracting people to our conference or training sessions. I think that is the piece that is going to help water quality to no small measure in this Province in the years to come.

MR. T. OSBORNE: One other question on water quality, and I guess that has to do with HAAs and the Province testing in municipalities where the THM counts are significantly high. There has been no public education on HAAs. There has been no release of HAA counts to the general public. Yet, for example, the United States consider HAAs to be far more dangerous than THMs.

Why is it that we haven't yet made those numbers available to the general public instead of just to municipalities, and why is it that the Province has not done any education or any promotion, I guess, of precautions and things that the general public can do to take precautions against HAAs?

MR. DOMINIE: HAA, haloacetic acid, is really an emerging issue across the country. We are probably one of the few provinces doing any testing at all, and we have a developed a pilot project where we are dealing with testing in areas where there are high THMs, and that has been our signal, I guess, as to where we would go in.

What the difficulty is, I guess, there is no standard for HAAs anywhere in the country, so the federal-provincial group that is working on water quality standards is working on HAAs right now. When they will come up with a number, a guideline, I do not know. I guess you have to question what the merit is in putting numbers out there when we have no reference point to compare it to. I guess that is the challenge we face.

MR. T. OSBORNE: We do with the States, though, who have done significant research on HAAs. At this point, I guess, we could use the United States as a reference.

MR. DOMINIE: I am not quite sure what numbers are available in the States.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Keeping in mind, I guess, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, wouldn't it be better to look at the States and what they are doing, the numbers they are using and use that as a reference until there are Canadian numbers available?

MR. DOMINIE: I am sure the committee is looking at all these issues and what would be an appropriate reference point for us to compare it to. I am sure there might be standards in other European countries as well. When you pick a standard, your guideline or reference point, you have to be pretty confident that is the one you want to use and it suits your particular circumstance in your area.

That is one question, and I am sure the minister has asked as well: What should we be doing with the information we have? It is not a lot of information. I think we have been into fourteen or fifteen communities. But we are starting to pick up information, like I say, and that is one of the areas where we have made a lot of progress, generally, on chemical water quality and THMs, and now HAAs has become an emerging issues. That is one we will certainly have to deal with and how we mull it with the public and things like that.

MR. MERCER: Tom, I am glad you raised the issue of haloacetic acids because I have asked the same question. We do the analysis, we have the numbers, why aren't they on the system? The answer I get of course is the one that you just got, that we do not have any reference points.

In Gander, at the meeting, there were representatives from municipalities from across the Province. I am glad you reminded me, because I just threw it out to them. I said: You know we are doing these analysis, give me some direction. Do you want them on the Web site or do you not want them on the Web site? Personally, it is not a big issue for us to do it. We have the information, we can provide it. I have not received a response back from anyone from that meeting. It might be a good thought for me to go back, not necessarily to them, but to municipalities and get some direction because we have no reason not to put them on the Web. They are there, they are available. It will take all of a few seconds to key them in. Well, per unit. For reading it will take a few seconds, but it is not a big issue. If there are no standards to judge them by - is a big number bad or is a small number good? I do not know. I really do not know. Based upon what - my advise is that there are no standards that we can use at this point in time.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Again, I would have to ask why we are not using the standards that the EPA are using?

MR. MERCER: Well, I guess the point that Ken has made, they may or may not be the right standards for this area. I cannot answer your question 100 per cent. It sometimes is not a good thing to use standards which do not apply to your own area because they may not, in fact, be the right standards to use.

MR. T. OSBORNE: If I were to request the haloacetic acid counts that have been collected for the Province, would they be available?

MR. MERCER: I would take direction from my officials, but personally, I do not see any reason why you would want to use them unless you wanted to take them out and compare them to some other standards established somewhere else in the world and start saying: Well, what a horrendous mess we have out here. I am sure you would be very considerate in the use and diligent and so forth.

Would we have any objections to giving them to the hon. member? I do not think so. Anything that we have in the department was collected with public money, therefore anything that we have in the department should be available to the citizens. I assume you are still a citizen, sir.

CHAIR: The Chairman is not going to comment on that.

We are going to give the minister a break from the critic. We are going to go to Mr. Byrne.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have just one other question.

CHAIR: One other question, okay.

Mr. Byrne, you will defer to your critic?

Okay, thank you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: On Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board, there is $450,000 allocated this year. I guess the Voisey's Bay Environmental Management Board is to be set up over a five-year period. Taking from the Estimates, we put that money out upfront and we will collect the revenue from the federal government at the end of the year. Is that correct?

MR. DOMINIE: Periodically throughout the year we will submit progress claims from the federal government, but essentially we will. It is up to $450,000. It does not mean we are going to spend all that money but that is what we estimate right now will be the cost of running that board. We will submit progress claims probably on a - Gerry, it is a quarterly basis that we have agreed with the federal government, or monthly basis, whatever? So we will not wait until the end of the year. As we spend money we will claim it back from the federal government.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Our $225,000 estimated cost as the Province for this year, is that amount - I mean, over the next five years, can we anticipate that going up, going down, or remaining about the same?

MR. DOMINIE: That was a notional budget. I am on the board, so we sat down and sort of developed what we feel would be the cost of running that board, and that is what we came up with as an estimated cost. That can go up or down, depending on how many meetings. I would certainly hope that it would not go up. We have indicated, basically, to the Aboriginal groups, that it is a maximum of $450,000. That is what we would think is a fair contribution to that board. I guess time will tell.

The board really got established - well, the agreement was signed last July so we never had a full year of operating last year. This would be the first full year of operating the board and we will see, I guess, how the costs go. We estimated how many meetings we would have with the board, and per diem for board members, and things like that, and we arrived at a figure of $450,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So it would be reasonable, I guess, to assume that it would be about the same over the next five years?

MR. DOMINIE: Budgets will be submitted on an annual basis. That is one of the requirements in the agreement we have with the Aboriginal groups, what you would prepare every year for approval of the parties. So, I guess it depends on what year two or year three yields. In the early going, it is just a fair amount of work for that board to do, now that construction is underway in Voisey's Bay. Whether that peters out in year two or year three or year four, I guess we will wait and see. That is our best shot right now, $450,000. I do not see it going much more than that. It could be rounded out, or slightly less, depending on how it goes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Are there going to be any contributions toward that fund from Inco, or Voisey's Bay Nickel Corporation?

MR. DOMINIE: Not envisaged at the moment.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Osborne, Sir, for the questioning.

Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

I just have a few questions. I am not going to go through the Estimates, but I will be jumping around a bit because I have made a few notes.

This is an issue that has been brought up by the critic, and I think the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, and it is concerning Placentia Bay and the emergency response to an oil spill. Can you give us some kind of an overall view of what is happening there with respect to an emergency response to an oil spill, because it seems to be becoming a bigger issue all the time with the amount of vessels in that bay.

MR. MERCER: I will speak to that in general terms, and ask Ken or Paul to speak to it as well. That is an issue - particularly in Placentia Bay - in which the former minister, the Chair of the Committee here this evening, has taken a great deal of interest. Even though we recognize offshore spillages to be a federal responsibility, we sometimes know that the feds do not always pay great heed to spillage offshore, as recently was the case with the Tecam Sea when we found spillage offshore. Charges were laid but when we went to court, "We withdraw charges, My Lord", and that was the end of that.

There has always been an issue with particularly Placentia Bay, because it is a major port. We have the transshipment terminal out there for the offshore. We have the oil refinery. From our information as well, the Coast Guard has rated Placentia Bay as perhaps one of the areas in Eastern Canada most likely to have some form of spill offshore.

It is all very well to say that the federal government is responsible and that they should do this and they should do that, but you know as well as I know, Jack, regardless of what happens out in the water, as soon as that stuff hits the shore it is not their problem any more; it is our problem.

MR. J. BYRNE: With the coastline that we have.

MR. MERCER: Yes, and I think it is fair to say that my predecessor - and, judging by the size of the file on that issue, there has been a tremendous amount of correspondence between the Department of Environment and the federal minister. To say that we have made any sort of progress would be an overstatement of that, because we have not. As a matter of fact, on May 7, the Fisheries and Oceans Standing Committee are meeting here in St. John's. I will be making a presentation and I will be reiterating again and again, and over again, that we are not getting the type of service that we need from the Coast Guard service.

I was told the other day -

MR. J. BYRNE: So, what happens if there is an oil spill tomorrow or tonight?

MR. MERCER: Well, there is a certain amount of emergency response equipment on site around the Province. The officials can perhaps speak to that.

Jack, one of the statistics which I just heard recently, which really throws me for a loop, is, 25 per cent of all of the Coast Guard personnel equipment is concentrated on the Great Lakes. Twenty-five per cent of all of the Canadian Coast Guard material, ships, and men, are there to protect the Great Lakes. I think, in the Newfoundland area, we get less than 15 per cent of the total Coast Guard service. Here you are, in the middle of the North Atlantic - well, not quite the middle of the North Atlantic but well out into the North Atlantic - in a very hostile sea environment, and we get less protection from the Canadian Coast Guard service than the Great Lakes. It makes you wonder where people's priorities are.

Maybe my officials would like to speak about the emergency response which is in place in the various locations.

MR. DOMINIE: I think there are two issues we deal with. One is the issue like the Tecam Sea, which is happening, in my opinion, daily off our coast. They come ashore and there are estimates of many, many seabirds killed on an annual basis. The other issue, of course, is a catastrophic event like happened in Prestige, Spain, this year.

Right now we understand the capacity in the eastern part of the Province more particularly so, is a spill of about 20,000 tons. That would include about - there is a company called ECRC, East Coast Response Corporation. The shippers themselves are responsible, and they contract with this company, ECRC, to provide response, and they have certain obligations to provide certain amounts of equipment. The Coast Guard itself has some equipment as well, almost equivalent to what ECRC has, actually, a fair amount of heavy gear, but is it enough? It is difficult to say. We talk about a 20,000 ton capacity. I am not quite sure of the numbers that were in Prestige, but they would be much more than that.

There are certain recommendations going forward now, I think, as a result of Mr. Aylward's visit to Spain earlier the year, on what type of processes should be put in place, what type of equipment, safe havens, and things like that. A whole bunch of things can be done. I think the key, to be quite honest with you, is prevention and what types of tankers we have on the seas and what types of gear. So that is a very important piece as well, to work with the federal government - and that would be Transport Canada, I assume - to make sure that vessels which ply our waters eventually get upgraded to double hull and things like that. That is very important to make sure that piece gets dealt with, as well as the provincial side. Hopefully we will never to have to deal with an incident.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully, but something like that, prevention with respect to double hulls and what have you, is not going to happen overnight. This is going to take a long time. We could be looking at a spill - hopefully, that will not happen but we could be looking at a spill any time.

With respect to Nova Recycling. They just recently had a pretty bad fire in Corner Brook. Up in Airport Heights Nova Recycling exists now and there have been a lot of complaints through the residents committee. Indeed, the City of St. John's have been out there almost daily doing inspections over the past year, two years. I am wondering - and there has been a lot of new development around the area. I am sure everybody is familiar with it. There is always a mess up there. We had problems with the tires lately, and what have you. Is there anything in the provincial regulations which says that if they do not follow provincial regulations or they are in violation of them so often that it can cause these people to relocate or something because there are a lot of complaints about that business in that area?

MR. MERCER: Well, the site on Rhodora Drive - I believe it is - has certainly attracted a lot of media attention recently. If you want to try to put the best face on it, if you want to try to do that, we have just come through a long winter of six months and I am sure a lot of material tends to accumulate and gets revealed -

MR. J. BYRNE: I have to interrupt you here because I have been attending regular monthly meetings for the past six years at Airport Heights and this issue comes up monthly. It is not just the past six months with a (inaudible).

MR. MERCER: From what I can understand right now, the situation out there is worse than it normally is because as the snow melts whatever is underneath gets - anyway, it comes more to the core.

The other situation of course which you have up there - again, I can only view the area from what I see - is that there has been a substantial amount of residential construction which occurred around the area. Now, does that accuse Nova Recycling from running a messy operation? No, it do not, but obviously it makes people more aware because there are more eyes there to see what is going on. There are regulations regarding all sorts of things, for argument's sake, the tires - we heard a lot of stories about the tires that were placed at the Rhodora site in the last little while.

Yes, there are regulations which stipulates that you can store up to a certain number of tires on site without any approval from our department. I cannot recall the exact number but it is a substantial number. Again, how many tires are at Canadian Tire or how many tires are at King's Bridge Esso this time of year? There are tires around town everywhere. The point of the matter is that if there is that kind of material on the site it should be stored in a way which is less visible to the public and taken out of there as quickly as possible because it is not meant ever to be a storage site for tires. Don't ever kid yourself of that. It is not meant to be a site for tire storage. Maybe Mr. Flight needs to be encouraged from time to time to ship some of that material out more quickly, particularly the tires.

MR. J. BYRNE: It has been a serious situation for the past number of years, as I said, with respect to the plastics, the papers and what have you. It has been an ongoing issue for some time. I am just wondering, what is going to be the end result? Eventually, if they keep going the way they are going, they are going to have to relocate.

MR. MERCER: Just to me - and again, not speaking as Minister of Environment, but it just seems to me that if the residential development that has occurred in the area continues and you have that kind of an operation there, it is only a matter of time - either the gentleman and the operation cleans up their operation, builds a bigger building to keep it inside, or they find another location. It is just, to me, that is what I have seen happen in that kind of an operation many times before.

I will ask the deputy or the assistant deputy about infractions that we have been responsible for because again, I would assume that most of this is happening - well, it is within the City of St. John's and City Hall is probably dealing with that more so on a daily basis than we are.

MR. DOMINIE: We have to have some general legislation, talking about littering and things like that, but the City of St. John's has actually, to my understanding, littering bylaws which they are probably in a better position than we are to tackle that immediate problem.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I think the city has finally decided to take them to court.

MR. DOMINIE: Yes. I read that in the paper, I believe the other day, yesterday, or certainly recently anyway.

MR. J. BYRNE: Artesian wells: last summer around the Avalon, around the perimeter of St. John's, say down my way and up in the Kilbride area, I heard of a lot of complaints with respect to a lot of the wells being - I do not know if polluted is the right word, but there were certainly problems with the wells. I am thinking, and I have been told by some people who install these wells, that when you put the casing down it could be one length of twenty feet - to hit the bedrock it might be three lengths. I have three lengths in my artesian well. What is happening is the companies that are installing these are not required to put at the bottom of the casing, and it goes into the bedrock, a seal that is put down and then somehow or other it expands out against the bedrock and then will not allow any top water to come down the side and go down into the flute. Are there any regulations in place that will require these seals to be put at the bottom of these casings in artesian wells, as they do in other provinces, in Ontario and places like that?

MR. MERCER: I hope you know the answer to that one, Ken.

MR. DOMINIE: I have the well drilling regulations in my briefcase. I honestly do not know. We do have well drilling regulations. I can check and see if there is any provision in there for - I am quite familiar with how the well should be drilled and sealed. Well, from gravel into the rock and caps put on top. I will check into that -

MR. J. BYRNE: Because if that regulation is not in place, then maybe it is something the department should look at because there were a lot of complaints. I do not know if you heard of it but there were a lot of complaints last year on the artesian wells.

With respect to the environment, the U.S. Navel Base in Argentia, in this document, the Economy 2003, they are talking about spending $81 million from 1996-2004 on the base out there. What is the status of that? Also, with respect to other bases, former naval bases or military bases within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; one being in my district, Red Cliff, is there any work being done, I suppose, federally and in the Province, to have these old sites cleaned up? I am, of course, particularly concerned about the one at Red Cliff, and I have my reasons for that. The Red Cliff in Logy Bay, I am talking about.

MR. MERCER: I am going to ask Ken to respond to that. The only piece that I have some knowledge of, is that some of the old radar sites that we had across the Province, the old Pinetree sites, a deal was cut between the provincial government of the day and the federal government for some -

MR. J. BYRNE: Red Cliff is included in those, I believe.

MR. MERCER: If that was the case, if they were, there was a deal cut in the mid-1980s with the federal government to do cleanup and the feds said, here is $5 million. We eventually got $5.5 million out of them and they said, do what you can with $5.5 million and that is it.

If Red Cliff was a part of that - Ken is saying it is not, so he may be able to speak to that.

MR. J. BYRNE: It may not be part of the agreement but it was a part of that. If you go into the Net you can see on - what do you call it?

MR. MERCER: The Pinetree site.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Pinetree site. Red Cliff comes up in that group.

MR. MERCER: The site that I am referring to, Jack, refers to the sites that were on the Labrador coast over in - not Seglek. What was the name of the place you said?

WITNESS: Seglek was one.

MR. MERCER: Seglek was one, but there was a place over on the border, the Quebec border.

WITNESS: The Border Beacon.

MR. MERCER: Border Beacon, the Northwest River site, St. Anthony. There were a whole bunch of sites across the Province which the feds at the time said: Here is $5 million, go and do what you can.

To be quite frank and honest with you, that money has run out long ago and any cleanup on those particular sites is now being done with provincial dollars.

Ken is saying that the Red Cliff site, perhaps, was not part of that original agreement.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why would that be?

MR. DOMINIE: That particular agreement which negotiated a deal was primarily sites in Labrador at the time, and one on the Island part of the Province. That was St. Anthony. There was a package deal reached, as the minister said, with the federal government. It was $5.5 million. We took that money and we cleaned up those particular sites. As the minister said, we didn't get all the way with them, there are still some issues we have to deal with. The federal money has run out and the Province is, I think, absolved of any further responsibility for those sites.

Particularly in Red Cliff, we haven't done much from the Department of Environment's perspective. We tried to get a handle last year on the landownership up there, because there is a myriad of landownership, some provincial, some federal and some that has been passed over to people like the Newfoundland telephone company. There is a variety of landownership up there and it is very difficult to say to one person, one group or one government that they should take responsibility for that site. Essentially, I am not aware of any action being taken up on that site.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, are you planning on trying to take some action on this or approaching the feds? I mean, if it was left out initially in the original deal, are we not following up on this and trying to get some money to do these sites?

MR. MERCER: I am not sure that it was left out in the original deal, because the agreement I referred to was referring to the pine tree sites, primarily in Labrador. The base cleanups at Argentia, Harmon and here in St. John's, I don't know what agreements those were. There must have been separate agreements for those? Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: With Harmon, for instance, the federal government still has a fair amount of responsibility over there, doing some work. There was a portion of Harmon in Stephenville that was given to the Province way back when they shutdown, and the Province did some work over there. Argentia was completely federal money and still is federal property, to the best of my knowledge. With Goose Bay, for instance, the work up there, that is all federal money.

On some of these lands that have been transferred back to the Province, as you mentioned, the base down here, the Housing Corporation is doing some work. There are still some federal lands and some provincial lands down in Fort Pepperell. The Housing Corporation is doing a lot of work primarily around home heating tanks and things like that. The federal government, I understand, is doing some work now on some of the properties they have left down there.

MR. J. BYRNE: How do we go about getting the feds to get involved in this, or whoever, Americans, feds? I don't care who it is. I mean, the site should be cleaned up because I have some fears down there of -

MR. DOMINIE: I think the first thing we need to do is determine who owns the land up there. That would be the first person you might sort of suggest to go -

MR. J. BYRNE: It was transferred to Transport Canada back in the 1960s. I did a lot of work up in that area before, in my former life type of thing. A lot of the land ownership, I have done a lot of research on it, have it, and it is available. The federal government then transferred some to the Province. There is a combination of responsibilities, I suppose, but it is something that I think should be looked at and is going to have to be looked at eventually.

WITNESS: Are you saying that land was transferred from the federal government to the Province?

MR. J. BYRNE: From the Americans to Transport Canada - I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the Province may have ended up with some of it. I am thinking back fifteen or twenty years when I was doing some work there, but I would have to check it out. It is something that has to be looked at.

MR. DOMINIE: We have been doing some research into land ownership up there and it is a real patchwork quilt. There are a variety of things up there. The RCMP has a spot up there, Newfoundland Telephone Company, and the Province may have some, but we do have a preliminary document of land ownership. I can dig it out and see exactly where that is, (inaudible) person working on it. That is one of the new people we have back this year in our budget, so hopefully we can.... We lost that person (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The older grants to some of the Bolands, two or three different families of Bolands, where they divided the grants and took the land for the base and what have you, the old survey lines are up there, the old survey pins were found, and all that type of stuff. Anyway, enough on that. If you could follow up on it, it would be great.

The Hope Brook gold site, $17 million to be spent, I think, in 2002-2004, for mine site decommissioning and environmental restoration. Who is responsible for that $17 million?

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We are doing it, the Province? Why is that? What went wrong there? The boys come in, Hope Brook gold comes in, makes the bucks, takes off and leaves us with $17 million, that we know of, right here, in 2002-2004.

MR. MERCER: Maybe the deputy, I think, from his former life, might have some information on that as well.

MR. DEAN: The situation in Hope Brook comes out as a result of the bankruptcy of the company itself. Royal Oak mines went into bankruptcy before they had a chance to do the rehabilitation. There was a rehabilitation plan put forward which was accepted in principle by government. The company went bankrupt before that was able to be implemented at all. Through that bankruptcy, the Province ended up with the liability and the assets, everything that was left down there. The government, through the Department of Mines and Energy, said, we will clean this up to modern day environmental standards, and money was budgeted last year and the current fiscal year to do that.

At the same time, the Department of Mines and Energy passed new legislation in the Mining Act, and it was three years ago, as I recall now, it passed through the House, whereby mining companies have to provide financial assurance for reclamation upfront, so that money is there and we don't have a repeat of this situation at Hope Brook. I think the initiate estimates at Hope Brook were somewhere in the range of $10 to $12 million. It has come in at considerably higher than that, because of some unforeseen circumstances on site.

MR. J. BYRNE: You made the point there and I was going to say, someone had to fall down on the job that they didn't require some kind of environmental bond upfront for this very purpose, if at the end of it something did happen.

This $17 million, it says here, to be spent in 2002-2004, is that the total amount or is that just for those years?

MR. DOMINIE: Which page are you on?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am on page 27 of the Economy.

MR. DOMINIE: I am sorry, I don't have that document with me. I think the estimates are certainly going to be in excess of $15 million, maybe closer to $20 million, before it is all over. I really haven't got a high degree of confidence in that number at the present time.

MR. J. BYRNE: Has this been started to be cleaned up?

MR. DOMINIE: Oh, yes. A considerable amount of money was spent over the past twelve months at Hope Brook.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, for 2002-2004, that $17 million is for that. There was nothing done before this. So, it is expected to be done for $17 million is what you are saying.

MR. DOMINIE: I am just looking at the estimates in the Department of Mines and Energy in the Estimates book to see what is there. I am referring to the estimates in the Department of Mines and Energy which I have no authority to speak for. I can comment on them on page 142. The budget last year for Hope Brook was in the range of $10 million, give or take. There was actually $12 million spent and there is an additional, in round numbers, $6 million to be spent in the current fiscal year.

MR. J. BYRNE: So, it is $18 million.

One other thing is - I know you are going to say it is a Municipal Affairs responsibility to a certain extent, but it is an environmental issue - here in this book, the sewage treatment plant going into St. John's for $90 million, but I am thinking about the smaller towns and communities around the Province where the sewage is running directly into the harbours without going through a treatment plant first. I know it is going to take an enormous amount of money, but is there any talk within the Department of Environment to address that concern across the Province?

MR. MERCER: It certainly has not been a topic of hot discussion since I have been there - maybe Ken could speak to that - but certainly throughout the Province it has been almost tradition in the last number of years that you run your lines out into the nearest harbour outlet. We have become a little bit more sophisticated in the last few years. Instead of having a pipe out from every house, we have had pipes leading out to one big pipe - fewer pipes going, but they are still going out in the ocean. Unfortunately, not many communities in the Province have gotten into the notion of -

MR. J. BYRNE: They cannot afford it. That is the problem.

MR. MERCER: A lot of them cannot, but I am thinking about the area that I am representing right now. In the Humber Valley, for argument sake, Deer Lake has just put in two very large sewage lagoons. There is no more effluent or no more raw sewage going into Deer Lake from that community. The community of Pasadena has had sewage treatment for - I have been there for twenty years. There was a mechanical plant when I got there. They have now upgraded to sewage lagoons, so they have been involved with that for some long time. They are fairly larger towns, there is no doubt about that, but I think, as Newfoundlanders, we have to start making priorities of how we do things, whether we want to continue to spill our wastage into the oceans and our solid waste into the woods, or are we going to take some pride in what we have and try to keep things in, as we call, a pristine environment. You know as well as I do, there are certain parts of this Province where the word pristine does not necessarily apply with any degree of confidence. Terry laughs because I know the area exactly he is talking about; he spoke about it earlier.

Ken?

MR. DOMINIE: Thank you, Minister.

That certainly is a big issue and I have been dealing with that one personally almost my entire career with the Department of Environment. Wayne Churchill and I did an estimate - Wayne, with Municipal Affairs - of something like $3 billion.

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. DOMINIE: Three billion dollars if we want to service the entire Province. Obviously that is a very difficult task.

What we have done this past four or five years is search for new technologies that particularly would be suitable for rural, small areas, and we have applied some of these. We have worked on some systems which have had some success, and some have been unsuccessful. Indeed, tomorrow morning I am having a breakfast meeting with the Newfoundland Environmental Industries Association, at 8:30, to talk about the industry's view on this and how we might be able to - what technologies they could suggest, or approaches they might suggest, or how we might begin servicing some of our smaller areas.

Like the minister said, we have a handful of municipalities in this Province above 5,000 people, and I think they are eventually getting taken care of. It is when we get into the other group. We did some estimates just recently of how much it would cost to service those towns, and I think that is somewhere like $300 million or $400 million just to service ones above 5,000 people. Then we have a lot of others below that.

Municipal Affairs has been stretching their consultants' imaginations and saying, when you come in with a proposal, we want to make sure you have considered basically all reasonable alternatives. They have been asking their engineers, their consultants that they hire on, to come in with alternate proposals for the past four or five years.

We have been trying. It is a very challenging job. I do not think there is any pixie dust, any magic, in any of this. It is just finding something that is suitable, that can work for us. That is another thing we found in these small municipalities, something that is not too mechanical, because we run into the same problems. We do not have the operations expertise, so it is the initial capital cost and then what type of operation it is once we get it going. Lagoons have worked well. They are relatively passive systems. We have been working, and we have been trying to improve the situation, but it is a long road. Like I said, tomorrow morning I will have another go around with it.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am finish with my questioning. I would like to thank the minister and his staff for being here tonight and answering the questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.

There is one question, I think, from Sandra Kelly.

Ms Kelly.

MS KELLY: Thank you very much.

I just have one question around all the interest, I guess, that there is in the West Nile virus that has been causing a problem on the mainland. Because we are an island we expect that this part of the Province would be somewhat isolated, but Labrador, because it is connected to the mainland, would they have any expectation of having to deal with that?

This morning, I think, we were hearing on CBC that some large cities and municipalities are using insecticides to try and prevent some of the larva forming and so on. Would we ever consider such a thing in this Province?

MR. DEAN: Perhaps I will attempt to give a general answer.

I think we are seeing a number of instances of new diseases. There are some in the country who would attribute some of these to climate change and to global warming so that insects, larva or whatever are able to move further north than they normally had done previously. For instance, there is another disease called Lime disease, which is spread by ticks. Up until two years ago we had never had an incident of Lime disease in this Province. We now have incidents of Lime disease in the Province. We have yet to see West Nile virus or any real threat of West Nile virus. There have been instances of dead birds in Nova Scotia, for instance, which have been diagnosed as having carried the West Nile virus; birds fly. Perhaps we can expect this kind of thing to happen here and perhaps other similar things as our general climate gets warmer. I know it does not feel like that after the winter we have gone through, but we are seeing these kinds of trends throughout North America. I think we can expect to see those kinds of things start to appear here as well. But given that we have yet to have a documented first instance of West Nile virus, I think it would be a little bit premature to be taking specific action at this time.

MS KELLY: It makes sense.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 2.3.02 carried.

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

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

CHAIR: Thank you very much to the committee members for a diligent evening here of questions, considering the House of Assembly was for five-and-a half hours or whatever it was today. So I very much appreciate all of the members being here.

To the minister, his committee, and his staff, a very honourable presence here this evening. We appreciate it. To the Clerk and also to the Page, thank you very much for your time.

On motion, Committee adjourned.