May 27, 1993                                              SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE


 

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Jack Byrne, M.H.A. (St. John's East Extern) substitutes for Mr. Glenn Tobin, M.H.A. (Burin - Placentia West).

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

MR. GILBERT: This is a Committee that has been constituted by the House, but in order to make it legal, the Clerk now has to ask that the Chairman be re-appointed and voted on by the Committee and then we will have an election for the Vice-Chair. I understand this is the procedure to follow. Madam Clerk, would you like to conduct that election.

On motion, Mr. Gilbert elected Chairman of the Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Thank you for that vote of support.

They tell me that according to the rules, the first duty of the Chairman, once he is elected, is to ask for the confirmation of the Vice-Chairman. So, I will now ask for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair.

On motion, Ms. Verge elected Vice-Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Another strong vote of confidence.

Now, as they tell me in these Committee meetings, they are the same as a regular Committee of the House and the Chairman is an impartial moderator, so I will not be voting unless -I am supposed to keep order and decorum, they tell me, so I won't participate in the debate and I won't vote except in the event of a tie. We have elected the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman.

At this time, before I welcome everybody here, I would like to say, the people who are recording this Committee, tell me that when you speak they want you to identify yourselves because, while the gentleman up there in the gallery taping this tonight knows who you all are, the secretaries typing this sometime down the line will not recognize your voices. So, when you speak, please say your names, which will allow them to identify correctly.

I will now introduce the Committee, after which I will welcome the minister and her officials, and she can introduce her officials. As I understand it, the minister has fifteen minutes to introduce her estimates, the person responding for the Opposition will have fifteen minutes and, after that, all other members have ten minutes to speak. The Committee meetings that I have attended in the time I have been here have worked in two ways, one being that the members, when questioning the minister, have the right to speak for ten minutes and then the minister, in turn, will speak for ten minutes or it can be give and take - they can go back and forth for ten minutes. The Clerk will be keeping a record of the time and I will tell you when your time is up. Whichever way you want to go you can indicate that. I assume that is the way to go.

I will introduce myself and we will go to Ms. Verge and let everybody introduce themselves. I am David Gilbert, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and Chairman of this Committee.

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, MHA, Humber East, Vice-Chair.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, member of the Committee, and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, Member for Port au Port.

MS. YOUNG: Kay Young, Member for the district of Terra Nova.

MR. J. BYRNE: Jack Byrne, Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, Member for St. John's East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Madam Minister, we are ready, if you would like to introduce your executive and make your opening remarks. I will say, before we start, that we intend to call the heads - we will go until about 8:30 p.m. and have a break and then, hopefully, we will start to call the heads at about 9:45 p.m. This meeting of the Social Services Estimates Committee will be over at 10:00 p.m. If there are more questions, you will have time, when the House is in session, to ask the minister during the other budgetary debates in the House. This is the procedure that we hope to follow.

MS. VERGE: If I might interject here - I don't anticipate going beyond three hours on this department, but the Social Services Estimates Committee always has the option to have more than one three-hour hearing per department, and in the past four years, for example, occasionally, we have had a second meeting to deal with one department. Before that, in the 1980s when I was on the other side of the table, it was quite frequent, actually, that the Estimates Committee met two or more times to deal with the estimates of one department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am aware of that, but what will happen in this Committee is that it will be put to a vote and then if the members decide they want to conclude after three hours, it will be done.

MS. VERGE: But we do have the option to continue beyond tonight?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the option, but the Committee will be cluing up its business after the three hours, as I understand it, and then it will be going into the House for the rest of the time.

MS. VERGE: Just to make myself clear, I am not anticipating requiring more than one three-hour meeting to deal with the current estimates of Environment and Lands, but the Committee has that right. There are lots of precedents for this Committee meeting for more than one three-hour sitting to deal with the estimates of one department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is the will of the Committee.

MS. VERGE: That is right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is the will of the Committee - it will be put to a vote of the Committee. I have no problem with that.

MR. HARRIS: There has to be a motion to put the Estimates, though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion will be put.

MR. HARRIS: No, the motion may be put if someone moves it. I don't know if the Chair is entitled to move that motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It will be made, I would assume.

MR. HARRIS: You are anticipating motions to that effect?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If someone wants to make the motion that the Committee sit longer than three hours, it will be made and voted on by the Committee. If the Committee votes it down, fine, it is voted down, or if it goes on, whichever, I have no problem with that.

MS. VERGE: It is not a matter of the Committee seeking to meet for hours on end, to have an all-night sitting or to be here in a meeting beyond 10:00 o'clock tonight, but the Committee has the option to extend the time tonight and clue up around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. or to come back one night next week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the Committee has a life of its own, and if you make a motion that you want to extend this beyond three hours and it is passed by the majority of the Committee, fine, it does, but if it is turned down, it doesn't.

MS. VERGE: But there is no magic in the three hours, is what I am trying to get across. The Liberals, the government members have a majority on this Committee and there could be abusive power, there could be a motion right away that we go home now, but if it happens that at 10:00 o'clock tonight we aren't finished examining the estimates of this department, consistent with past practice, the Committee may carry on for an extra half-hour or so tonight, or we may come back and have a second meeting on this department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is at the will of the Committee.

MS. VERGE: Good. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to accept the will of the Committee and we will certainly get a ruling from the Clerk if we make any mistakes. Madam Clerk will look after that.

Madam Minister.

MS. COWAN: Thank you very much, Chair.

I am glad to have this opportunity to present to the Committee the estimates of my department, in this case, the Department of Environment and Lands, for the 1993-1994 fiscal year. The past year was one of change in the department as the divisions of Wildlife and Parks were absorbed into the Department of Tourism and Culture. I am pleased with our activities that the department has been involved in throughout the past year and I am looking forward to the initiatives that are arising from this Budget for the upcoming year.

Before I address the specific information about the Department of Environment and Lands, I will introduce to you the individuals from the department who here with me this evening. On my right is John Fleming, the Deputy Minister; on his right is our new Assistant Deputy Minister, Barbara Wakeham, who, having come to us from Development, is certainly not new to government, but is new to our department, and is responsible for the Lands Division; Dave Jeans is our Environment ADM, and behind us here is Frank Harris, the Director of Administration.

I would like to give you a brief overview of the structure of the Department of Environment and Lands and its operations. As is

standard with other government departments, our departmental estimates initially provide for the operation of the minister's office, the executive and the administrative support functions. Beyond that, the estimates reflect the organization of the department in two sectors: Environment and Lands as I have just indicated in my introduction of our officials who are here this evening. I will now review the programs that take place in our department.

First of all, Environment: The Environment branch consists of five divisions, and I will mention each of those and talk a little bit about what they do. The Environmental Investigations Division is responsible for monitoring commercial, municipal and hazardous wastes and ensuring that they are disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. This division is also responsible for oil and chemical spill response, processing applications for fuel storage systems and for processing environmental approvals for small scale developments. One of the major items of funding in our 1993-1994 Budget, is for remediation of contaminated sites. Funding in the amount of $4,936,600 has been provided for the clean-up of contaminated sites at Makinsons, Come By Chance and Gander.

The majority of this funding is carried over from 1992-1993 for the clean-up of orphan sites. Those of you who may not be familiar with it, orphan sites are where we can't trace it back to who was originally the owner, and therefore, responsible. There is a clean-up of these orphan sites that began in 1992-1993 under a jointly-funded 50/50 Federal/Provincial National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program.

We have the Civil and Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division. It is responsible for the investigation and identification of environmental problems relating to the design, construction and operation of municipal infrastructure systems. The division also offers an Operator Training Program for operators of municipal water and sewer systems throughout the Province.

We have the Industrial Environmental Engineering Division. It ensures that all industries in our Province comply with the requirements of legislated environmental standards and, as well, undertakes the evaluation of air quality in sensitive areas. A network of seven precipitation stations is operated to monitor and assess the impacts of acid rain in the Province.

The Water Resources Division, is responsible for the implementation and evaluation of approved programs relating to the conservation, development, control, improvement and proper utilization of the water resources of our Province. The Water Investigations and Water Rights sections issue approvals for stream alterations and water use authorizations.

We have the Environment Assessment Division. It administers the Environmental Assessment Act and the Pesticides Control Act. The Environmental Assessment Act provides for the protection of the environment of Newfoundland and Labrador, by requiring a registration for possible assessment of all undertakings that may have a significant impact on the environment.

As part of our ongoing joint effort with the Federal Government to eliminate regulatory duplication, we have provided funding of $250,000 in support of the Federal/Provincial Environmental Assessment Reviews.

Now, turning to the Lands branch, it has three divisions. First of all, the Crown Lands division which is responsible for the administration and control of Crown Land. The division processes Crown Land applications and issues Crown titles. Regional offices are in St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook and Goose Bay, where applications are processed and where information is provided to the public.

The division is also responsible for maintaining the Crown Land Registry which is the repository for all Crown titles and documents that pertain to the granting, leasing, transfer of Crown land in the Province. The division's cadastral mapping section is responsible for plotting all Crown titles on large-scale mapping. The provincial air photo and map collection provides maps and air photos for government use and for viewing or purchasing by the public.

The Lands Management division is responsible for the orderly management of the Province's Crown land resource. Through the Interdepartmental Land Use Committee, this division reviews proposals that may have an impact on Crown land. Such proposals include draft legislation, municipal and regional plans, reserves, draft regulations, waste disposal sites, and silviculture plans. The Lands Management division prepares land use plans and undertakes certain small-scale developments, such as cottage lots, which will be made accessible to the public on a cost recovery basis.

The Surveys and Mapping division has responsibility for the provincial geodetic survey and topographic mapping programs. Work is continuing in the production of large-scale maps for use in resource planning and property mapping. The conversion of topographic maps to computer digital data sets has been an ongoing program. In 1993-1994 some 250 digital sets will be available for purchase to the general public, industry and other government agencies. The division also provides support services to other departments and agencies of the provincial government in standards, specifications, contract inspections and consultation in the areas of legal surveys, mapping, air photography and geographic information systems.

Chairperson, this year a priority for the department will be the implementation of actions included in the Strategic Economic Plan. Of major importance is the development of a sustainable development strategy for the Province. This is presently being undertaken by the Round Table on the Environment and Economy with support from this department. Discussions are under way with the Federal Government to establish co-operative arrangements to harmonize and streamline our environmental assessment process. This is necessary to avoid imposing unwarranted duplication, expenses and delays on potential investors.

We also want to initiate development of an overall waste management strategy for the Province. In spite of constrained resources we hope to give waste management issues higher priority. In some areas of the Province we have already initiated discussions towards a regional approach to the management of municipal solid wastes. Amendments to the Waste Material Disposal Act that make vehicle abandonment a specific offence will come into effect September 1. To ensure all our legislation is better complied with, we are hiring additional enforcement staff.

I hope, Chair, that this brief overview of the mandate, structure and function of the department has been informative and useful and will trigger now some questions for me to respond to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. Now, I think the Clerk - we should name the subheading we are under.

CLERK (Miss Murphy): 1.1.01.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.1.01: Most of the debate will carry under that subhead, which is Minister's Office. Now you are speaking for the -

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good, then.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would like to thank the minister for her introductory remarks. I have the benefit of Hansard for last year's sessions of this Committee. There were two meetings of the Committee last year dealing with the estimates of the Department of Environment and Lands. Last year, the government budgeted a total of $12.5 million for this department, yet only spent $9.5 million. For environmental protection, the government budgeted $6.4 million and spent only $4.4 million, which is a drastic reduction in the planned spending.

Now, perhaps some of the difference is explained by the transfer of some responsibilities from the Department of Environment and Lands to the new Department of Tourism and Culture. Nevertheless, in several categories for which the department has maintained responsibility, the spending was considerably less than originally forecast last year. The results have been extremely disappointing. The provincial government's efforts in protecting the environment have been woefully inadequate.

From speaking to several well-informed observers, I understand that the department is seriously understaffed. The department seems to be equipped simply to put a finger in the dyke occasionally, to quote one observer.

The general policy thrust of the Wells administration includes an openness to importing foreign garbage for final disposal in this Province. The commitment on the part of the administration to seriously changing our ways to lessen ongoing damage, as well as to clean up problems that have been created in the past, is short of what is required, and we seem to be losing ground.

Waste management has been identified by the present minister, as well as her predecessor, as the number one priority, yet the government still hasn't implemented for government offices a recycling program. It was just a few months ago that we got wastepaper baskets in the House of Assembly. There still isn't a comprehensive recycling program within Provincial Government offices to collect and sort newspapers, other paper, aluminium cans and cardboard - the items for which there are recycling facilities available through the private sector in this Province. Government leads by example, and in this case the example is a bad example. This minister and her predecessor have talked about intending to have a recycling program within government, itself, but we still don't see that happening.

The year before last, the government made a high profile announcement in the Throne Speech of intentions to introduce laws, through legislation or regulations, to govern the use of ATVs in the Province, specifically to outlaw the use of ATVs in sensitive wetlands and bogs. That legislation has not been forthcoming. There hasn't even been any talk about it recently.

Last year, the minister told the Estimates Committee that there was considerable activity - I believe she used the phrase `whirlwind activity' - to bring in legislation to govern beverage containers, to provide for recycling and to require returnable beverage containers. Again, we have seen no results.

The environmental assessment process seems to be less than satisfactory. Proponents, themselves, are responsible for funding and carrying out required studies, and there is insufficient provision for independent or objective assessments. I am wondering if the government is even entertaining the possibility of providing funding to third parties, to independent organizations.

There have been instances when the government, itself, is proposing cottage lot developments, and it so happens that it is another branch of the same department that is responsible for protecting the environment, which is developing cottage lot developments. The government, itself, occasionally has proceeded with developments which impinge upon the environment and which warrant environmental assessment, yet there is no objective input into the assessment.

Under the heading of `Lands', I have been asking at estimates committee hearings for the past number of years, as well as asking officials in between committee meetings, what is happening with the agreed to transfer of railway land by the federal government to the Province. This was supposed to have taken place years ago now, and every time I have enquired I have been told that it is going to happen soon. It is always going to be soon, or next month, or in two months time. It still has not happened.

The railway land which is supposed to come to the Province is being frittered away. One group which is proposing maintaining the railway line for recreational usage has expressed concerns about damage that has been done to some parts of the railway line. What is the government doing about that? Is the government actively seeking a transfer of the land? Is the government monitoring what is happening to the land? Does the government have any ability to monitor or police the land? What plans does the government have for managing the land once title is transferred?

I have a number of concerns about particular problems stemming from industry. One is Long Harbour. What is the status of the cleanup? Is Albright and Wilson doing anything to clean up the mess at Long Harbour? Does the government truly have any ability to hold that company to its obligation to clean up? What is the status of the proposed incinerator development at Long Harbour? For the longest time the minister has been saying that she does not know anything about it officially because there has been no formal application for an assessment. Is there anything new? Has there been an application for an assessment? Is there any possibility that the government is going to change its policy and take the position that under no circumstances will we entertain a proposal for importation of foreign garbage for final disposal through incineration or other means in this Province?

What about Holyrood? There have been concerns expressed by residents of that area about pollution from the hydro site there. Is the government cracking down on that pollution? What about Come By Chance? There have been complaints from people residing in the Come By Chance area about noxious fumes from the refinery.

In Corner Brook, my home town, there have been concerns about emissions from the newsprint mill, air emissions, particulate fallout, as well as vapour. Is there any positive news about curbing the air pollution from that mill? What about fallout from various other sources in Corner Brook? The hospital, which burns wood chips for fuel, has been emitting sparks and soot, which has been bothersome to some neighbours. Does the department know the extent of the fallout from that source? What about the cement plant in Corner Brook? For many years neighbours have complained about cement dust settling on their property. There were some improvements made a few years ago which were believed to offer hope in curbing the dust emissions from that plant. Is the department keeping track of that pollution? These are a few of my concerns.

To recap, a general impression that the Wells' administration has done little more than pay lip service to environmental protection. Inadequate funding, too few staff to do the job, a policy of openness to importing foreign garbage for final disposition, an environmental assessment process which is stacked in favour of the proponent which doesn't provide adequately for impartial and objective assessment, and talk but no action on ATV regulation and on beverage container recycling or returnable bottles. These are a few of the questions that I would hope to get answers for now or later during our meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You had the opening remarks. That's your address. Minister, you can have up to ten minutes to answer some of those questions if you want to before I go on to another member.

MS. COWAN: No, I think we'll go ahead, Chairperson.

MS. VERGE: If I might interject.

MS. COWAN: She's entitled to ask a question, I guess.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I would like answers to some of those questions.

MS. COWAN: Is she, Chair? I'm not sure. She's asked a myriad of questions and I'm not quite sure whether I should answer them all or whether it would be better -

MR. CHAIRMAN: What you can answer in ten minutes, Minister, I would say that's the best thing to do. Then someone else will ask the question. Sometime over the course of the night I suppose they will be asked again.

MS. COWAN: Okay. Alright, fine then. Thank you. That'll be appropriate. Now I didn't jot down all the questions, so -

MS. VERGE: I'd be glad to repeat them.

MS. COWAN: I think my deputy has jotted them down so he can probably stick them in front of me as we go on in case I should miss one.

First of all I'll start with the comments that were made regarding the environmental assessment process itself. That was one of the latter questions. Under the Strategic Economic Plan for the Province it was asked and is going to take place. In fact, is well under way. During this fiscal year that there would be a look at the environmental assessment process to see if it indeed does need to be fine-tuned, updated, whatever you might like to call it, to bring it more in line with the needs of today's more stringent concerns about the environment, and also are we needlessly in any cases holding up development in the Province. There's a look at it from both sides and that is taking place at this time. We may find in fact that some of the points made by Ms. Verge will be found during that process to carry some weight, to have merit, and if so those will be introduced into the process.

It was considered when it was introduced some years ago by the former government, the Progressive Conservative government, to be a forerunner really in environmental assessment legislation but I don't think that we can rest on that, because as I referred to earlier expectations regarding the environment have changed and we have the continual outcry from people who want to develop in the Province that they are sometimes needlessly delayed in getting their proposals through the environmental assessment process.

As well there were some questions regarding the transfer of CN. That's not an unfamiliar question. On many occasions we are asked about this. It was a tremendous job, tremendous undertaking, to look after the transferring of 1,284, I think it is, kilometres, of rail bed to the Province. There had to be the removal first of course of all the tracks and that kind of thing. We had to ensure that there were no long-term environmental problems that would be transferred to us along with the property. That had to be checked out very carefully. The lands had to be surveyed, both for the properties to be retained by the federal government, because some will, and those that will be transferred. There are over 2,000 third party assignments that had to be documented and I think we have had over 1,000 requests for usage of the rail-bed. So those had to all be analyzed, studied and so on, before the Cabinet submission paper will be prepared in the end. The next actions are to come from the federal level and we are hoping that within the next two months there will be a final determination.

One of the points that I just want to make is that Ms. Verge commented several times that the department is not funded enough and that we do not have enough staff. I certainly feel that that is a legitimate criticism however the department was created in the 1980's when money started to be scarce. There was not a lot of money put into the department by her particular government at that time to get it off to a good start, to have a firm foundation and we have found ourselves now in a time of fiscal restraint trying to deal as well as we can with environmental problems with a staff that is growing. I must say that it is growing more than the staff in any other department because we do recognize that the environment is an important issue and I have been one - probably, maybe even the only minister who has been fortunate enough to be in a position where I have been able to hire new people.

It is interesting too, that Ms. Verge makes the comment that we are not taking our job seriously. For example, let me just tell you the prosecutions that have been made under the Waste Material Disposal Act over the last few years. From 1960 to 1992, that is thirty-two years, there were 192 prosecutions. From 1989, when our government took over, to 1992, there have been eighty-six, a difference of about 700 per cent. So we certainly have been much more vigilant than the last government in prosecuting. As well, we have issued ten clean up orders. I am not sure John how much of an improvement that is but that is a big step forward as well too. So, certainly we have not been lax.

We are coming down hard on places like Come by Chance and Hydro, the generating station in Holyrood, which is unusual. A committee was set in place shortly after I became minister - John is sitting on it. It is a high level committee which meets with Hydro and talks about the problems and comes up with ways in which they can be dealt with. It was through our work for example with Hydro that they have now hired, for the generating station, an environmental engineer and that individual is now working there. This should bring about much better control of environmental problems in that particular area. We will now have an expert on environment in that area where we did not before. A lot of things were left to chance, so we now have an individual there. Hydro has one who is responsible and we are certainly being more vigilant in our monitoring.

The Come by Chance area, in the month of April, was given thirty days to start cleaning up their act. I must say, that was a very decisive action on my part. In a Province such as ours, we are always being concerned about employment, it was certainly an issue with the last government who would hesitate to make any kind of pronouncements on anything that was thought to be an environmental threat or an occupational health and safety threat if it could lead to the closing down of a plant or whatever it happened to be but we indeed issued them an order that within thirty days they had to clean up their act. That is the type of thing that I intend to see happening frequently. Fortunately or unfortunately in this Province we do not have a lot of industry to monitor, so we are able to focus some of our scarce resources on the three or four sites that we do have that are a particular problem. We have consultants who are beginning - what is the date when they start John, have they started?

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be starting now.

MS. COWAN: Yes, consultants I think who were to begin the last week of May to actually have a good look at the whole Come By Chance operation, and to assess where there might be trouble spots, to apprise our department of the monitoring program there, any way we can work more effectively in our surveillance of their monitoring and that type of thing, so I am very pleased that we have been able to do that. Now, what else did we have here?

Yes, there was a question regarding the clean up at Long Harbour and several comments were made that our government promotes or encourages the importation of garbage from outside the Province - that is indeed not the case. We do not promote it, we do not go out actively seeking it nor do we intend to do that, except in particular cases where it might be an advantage to, say in Atlantic Canada which I have said repeatedly, where we might have to work together as a unit - is my time up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: - where we might have to work together as a unit because of our low population base; we do not often generate enough waste to just take care of it here in Newfoundland, so we might have to work together with the Atlantic Provinces. In fact we are now working together to see what we can do about tires, so we are not going to say that no, nothing will ever happen in this Province, we will never bring in any waste materials from any place else because it could be very limiting, however, before anything comes into this Province of that nature, it will be given a very rigorous environmental assessment, and also, public opinion will play a very large role.

Now the public has made a lot of outcry about the possibility of garbage coming in, this is just household garbage type stuff from the U.S. That has been heard by this government, and the Premier has said in the House that it certainly would not be welcome in this Province, and public opinion certainly played a very large role, so that goes to show you that we do listen to the public and through the environmental assessment process, we do listen to the public again, so that there is opportunity there once more for them to express concern about a particular project. I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman, and could make further comments later on if I am asked in any of those areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Minister.

I would point out to the members of the committee, if they want to be recognized, what they should do is indicate to me and I will keep a list of their names here and recognize them in that order. I do not have anyone now so do you -

MS. VERGE: If I might, Mr. Chairman, usually what we do is, rotate. We each have a turn or those members wanting to have a turn have -

MR. CHAIRMAN: But they have to be recognized you know, they have to indicate they want a turn. What you did, I am sure it was good but we are going to do it my way now.

MS. VERGE: I would hope that we would all have a say on how the committee operates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, as the Chairman, I will conduct that.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of questions and I would prefer, rather than make a general commentary, to ask specific questions. Some of the concerns raised by Ms. Verge I share in terms of the government's approach, but I have a number of specific questions and one just pops right out at me in looking at the estimates as a whole, and that's the amount of money spent on transportation and communications. Now many of the individual votes I have no difficulty with, but when I just was trying to add them all up here I see an enormous amount overall, perhaps close to $700,000 or $800,000 in various places. I don't see big amounts in areas that you might expect to see them in, in some of the operational areas such as in geodetic and legal surveys, land use planning, that sort of thing. Even in areas such as air photo, lab and topographical mapping you don't see big votes for transportation and communications.

Yet on page 88 of the estimates I see in Administrative Support, which is basically the financial, human resources and operational administration activities of the department, $249,000 voted for transportation and communications. I find that to be a bit surprising when you see in Environmental Investigations, for example, where you'd expect to see a fair bit, you do see $77,000 alright, in Municipal, Community and Civil Services, in the Civil Engineering division, you see $29,000, which all seems to be relatively reasonable considering the salary votes in those departments. But I see an enormous number in what's called Administrative Support.

I wonder if there's a simple explanation for that, because there do seem to be votes under each head. It doesn't seem to be collected there. It seems to be spread out amongst all of them. But I see a very large vote, a quarter of a million dollars, for transportation and communication in what's called Administrative Support services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister.

MS. COWAN: I don't know - I may have to ask you, Jack, to address some of those specifically again. Excuse me for calling `Jack'. Is that alright?

MR. HARRIS: The big one - I mean, just overall there's a large amount voted for transportation and communications. I would expect that your department would have people in the operational areas doing a fair bit of travelling around to investigate sites and to do the various activities. I see what appear to be reasonable types of votes for that purpose under the various heads. Each of them seems to have a transportation and communications vote there or subhead. What I'm concerned about is the very large appropriation of $249,000 under the General Administration Administrative Support, and that would be subhead 1.2.02., item number .03 on page 88.

MS. COWAN: One of the major differences in the transportation and communications from years past is that the departmental telephone used to be paid for by Public Works. The telephone now is paid for directly by our department, which makes more sense. You can then see exactly what type of expenditures you're making in the telephone area. We have $173,000 as the annual allotment for telephone calls. We operate, for example, an 800 line and just the size and so on of the Province means that we have to have quite a large telephone bill. Postage as well was one time covered by Public Works. That runs in the area of $62,000, almost $63,000. So that makes a fairly major difference.

MR. HARRIS: Are you saying that all of that money for the whole department's telephone budget is in that Administrative number and that the transportation and communications -

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: - in the other fields, they don't include telephones. For example, Pollution Clean-Up, transportation and communications, that $3,100 doesn't include any telephone, does it?

MS. COWAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: The answer is no. Okay, thanks, I accept that. That was just something that struck me looking through the budgets here.

Can I ask the minister whether or not - and I have a concern about what's happening in this field in particular - the responsibility for wilderness and preservation of protected areas, wilderness areas and that type of thing, has been maintained in her department, or has that been switched to Tourism and Culture? Part of the reason I ask that is because I think it is properly in Environment and Lands but I also note that the Minister of Tourism and Culture has been making statements about this protected areas agreement and some projections and I personally feel it is more appropriate for your department. I wonder whether or not you still have responsibility for protecting the environment and these particular protected areas. What is the situation right now?

MS. COWAN: Well, the situation is as you have outlined it. The Minister of Tourism and Culture is now responsible for these particular types of protected areas, ecological and that kind of thing, so that is why he has been making comment on them in the public media.

MR. HARRIS: So you have no responsibility whatsoever for protecting areas from development, and no concern about the number of hydro sites, for example, that seem to be growing by leaps and bounds, and as to how that is going to impact on the availability of wilderness or natural areas in the Province?

MS. COWAN: Oh, yes.

MR. HARRIS: How does it interact, then? Could you explain that?

MS. COWAN: We still have, don't forget, Mr. Harris, the environmental assessment process where anything that happens within the Province has to be registered and then looked at for potential environmental impact, so that if there were a proposal, which there has been, of course, recently, for (inaudible) that comes still through the environmental assessment process.

MR. HARRIS: Who is responsible for land use planning?

MS. COWAN: Our department is still responsible for that.

MR. HARRIS: And `protected areas' has nothing to do with that?

MS. COWAN: Well, the protected areas are already marked out, mapped, and zoned, and that type of thing so we know where they are. I don't know quite what you are trying to get at. Are you asking, if somebody applied to build a cabin or something in a protected area, would we have - if you could give me an example.

MR. HARRIS: What I am taking about is the overall planning and priorities that government might have. Government have adopted, so it seems, at least on paper or through press release, the proposal of the Canadian Wildlife - not Canadian Wildlife, it is the Canadian association that concerns itself with protected areas, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation supports it; it is the notion of setting aside 12 per cent of the land use to be preserved as wilderness areas. I wonder who, exactly, is responsible for that? If your department is responsible for land use planning and the overall plan, how can the Department of Tourism and Culture have any impact on that? How can we be satisfied as to how all of these proposals for mini-hydro sites are impacting on this plan, and how can we get an overall look at this?

MS. COWAN: There is an interdepartmental committee that does interact and take a look at all these types of things so that one thing cannot leap ahead without the full knowledge, and so on, of another department.

Barbara, you might like to comment on that, the ILUC or something.

MS. WAKEHAM: The Interdepartmental Land Use Committee, which is made up of all the resource departments, basically reviews all proposals coming out of other departments, including federal departments. There is, at this point in time - don't hold me to this statistic - somewhere around 8 to 10 per cent of the Crown land masses already reserved either as ecological reserves or as wilderness reserves, right now, in the Province. Those designated areas are all mapped out in terms of a land use atlas which provides for permissible and non-permissible uses. As the minister indicated, if a hydro project is brought forward, that project not only goes through the environmental assessment process but also goes through the ILUC process so that our referrals, right now, are about nineteen departments and that includes the municipalities as well as the federal and provincial agencies. And any concerns with respect to that proposal would be registered not only through the environmental, but also through the Land Use Committee. Land use management planning is still the responsibility of the Lands branch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Time is up, and I now recognize Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, before I start, just for a point of clarification - I have a few general concerns and I have a lot of details highlighted in the Estimates. You say we have ten minutes in the beginning and the minister can respond in ten minutes. Do we keep going back and forth like that for the whole night? Do we get ten minute slots?

MR. HARRIS: I understand, Mr. Chairman, it is ten minutes for questions and answers so if you wanted to use all your time to ask a question you can, but after the ten minutes it goes around again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you can talk for your ten minutes and then I recognize someone else. The minister doesn't have to respond to you. You can take your ten minutes to outline your concerns, and then, if someone else wants to speak, I will recognize him before the minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: Madam Minister, I have a number of concerns - the general concerns first.

A number of the towns in my district, close to St. John's, as you are probably well aware of by now, have had some problems with respect to the dumping of garbage when Robin Hood Bay was closed, when the strike was on, and Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove actually had to bar off Red Cliff Road. A lot of people travel up that road to Red Cliff for the scenery and watching the whales, whatever the case may be, but it had to be closed. In the same way, the Town of Torbay had problems with people dumping garbage and that type of thing. I am wondering - I don't see anything here specifically - is there going to be any funding available through Environment to help the towns clean up the mess that has been made on the byroads?

I noticed in the Estimates that there is an environmental assessment agreement - $250,000 funding. I am wondering, Will that money be matched by private industry, or is that a certain percentage of what would be coming forward for environmental assessments type of thing?

This is all new to me, so I hope the questions I have asked are -

MS. COWAN: I am just jotting them down here. I am nodding to say that I have your question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another that I have is a general concern. It would cost a fair dollar down the road, I would imagine, but Robin Hood Bay, itself - there have often been discussions and talks and rumours, whatever the case may be, with respect to the life span. Is it two years, five years, ten years? Is there any talk about relocating Robin Hood Bay and the cost involved? I would like to know something about that.

Another major concern of mine, and I brought this up in my maiden speech in the House the other day, was with respect to septic waste disposal. Of course, you know, and we have had discussions with respect to the Foxtrap waste transfer site. The legislation that was brought in by Environment and Lands, I believe it was the year before last, requiring that all septic waste would be disposed of at Foxtrap, has caused undue hardship on a lot of the homeowners in and around St. John's, actually. Down in Logy Bay, Torbay, Pouch Cove, whatever the case may be, the cost has increased from $60 up to as much as $600 to $700 a load. I noticed that you mentioned in your response to Ms. Verge that waste disposal prosecutions have increased dramatically, and I am wondering if that is a direct result of some of the people dumping septic waste in the countryside when they can't afford to bring it to Foxtrap?

Aside from the environmental aspect, now with respect to lands, I worked with Lands for seven years, so I am quite familiar with the department. Summer cottage developments - has there been any consideration given to putting out a lot of this work to private industry - for example, the design of cottage subdivisions? You might have ten lots, you might have fifty, you might have 100 or 200, whatever the case may be. From what I know, the department usually designs the subdivisions and then puts it out to contract, to tender type of thing, but there is a lot of work that can be done by private industry that doesn't need to be done by government. It is almost in competition with private industry.

The surveying and mapping contracts: I have noticed over the past number of years - I can get into some details here - that the funding for that type of work has been dramatically decreased, and a lot of the work, itself, is being done by department officials, in-house - geodetic surveys, GPS work, (inaudible) control work. I don't expect you to know the technicalities of what I am referring to, but it has been done and is being done in-house. As a matter of fact, I am hearing now rumours from good sources that Lands branch, itself, is considering or may be considering purchasing GPS systems - that is global positioning systems, which is something that can directly be done by private industry. From what I remember hearing the Premier saying in the past, I mean, government should not be competing with private industry. So that is a point I would like for you to address if you could.

Another is the Crown Lands Registry, itself, and the Registry of Deeds. When I was president of the association a few years ago, and your government was in power at the time, we made a presentation to the government of the day requesting that maybe there should be some thought and consideration given to combining the Registry of Deeds and the Crown Lands Registry. Because we are dealing with lands, and even looking forward to getting a titles registry rather than just a deeds, you know - guaranteed title. Have any thought or consideration been given to that, any studies been done within your department in recent years?

Another - the railway reversion: I was looking at the details here and there is over $2 million in the estimates for that, but I don't see any details. Maybe I am reading it wrong or something. It shows $2 million and some-odd down at the bottom of the column and there are no details of where it is going and on what it is going to be spent.

Another - back on the environment again - all-terrain vehicles: Of course, we know the havoc they are causing on the countryside. Are you planning any legislation which would be involved in controlling the use and areas of use for these machines? If you are or have been doing any studies, what would the costs involved be - or is there anything allotted for that in the estimates? I didn't see anything.

Another, on the environment: The regional management of waste. You mentioned that earlier. I know that the Northeast Avalon towns have been having a study done in conjunction with the Department of Environment and Lands concerning waste disposal on the Northeast Avalon, not just with respect to Robin Hood Bay, but new sites, locations, whatever the case may be. At this point in time, I haven't heard of any public input, or consultation with the public. Because when the final report comes down and there are recommendations made to actual locations and sites, the public could get pretty upset, especially with the costs involved. Will those recommendations be made public, and when will they be made public?

That's it for now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Byrne. Now Minister, do you want to answer some of that?

MS. COWAN: Yes. I have, what, his remaining ten minutes? I wasn't -

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can speak for ten minutes now if you wish.

MS. COWAN: Okay, I wasn't sure if I just had his leftovers or what I had here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, his time is his -

MS. COWAN: I think I have your questions down here in order. I must say, it is refreshing to have some questions on the `lands' side. I didn't realize you had worked in that area. That is interesting and we will get to some of your questions there. I will try to address them in the order in which you presented them here this evening.

The garbage on the by-roads and so on that you mentioned as a result of the municipal strike in St. John's, This is, if I am reading you correctly, a problem for the municipality. Now, it becomes a problem for our government when it falls outside of a particular municipality. We had a number of reports during the strike of garbage being dumped out. For example, there was some dumped out my way in Conception Bay South along the old railroad tracks. Those complaints then were tracked down, wherever it was possible, by our department, and the perpetrators of it approached about clearing it away. But the actual garbage that might be within a municipality has to be addressed by the municipality.

Did I get your question properly there?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. I was hoping there would be some funding available to help the municipalities to do that. Because, I mean, there is quite a mess. For example, Red Cliff Road: two years ago, as mayor, I went up Red Cliff Road with the Junior Forest Wardens and cleaned up that road on both sides, and we had the town take away the garbage. Now it is as bad as or worse than ever.

MS. COWAN: Well, again, this is one of the problems, I think, that education is going to have to address in the Province and it certainly takes a longer process. But at this time, no monies have been set aside to help municipalities clean up after that.

Robin Hood Bay - we are doing, as you must be aware, a study of the whole Northeast Avalon area with respect to garbage disposal - looking into the sites, not only Robin Hood Bay, but other areas, the longevity of their particular waste disposal sites and the possibility of just where we will go in this area, as we are doing in the Burin Peninsula area, as we are doing in several other areas around the Province in trying to set up some regional approach to dealing with waste management.

One of the things, I think, that is particularly important that we do as a government, is impress upon municipalities the importance of getting involved in schemes that encourage people, the citizens of the town, into thinking more conscientiously about their waste and what they do with it, how they - for example, in purchasing, to purchase things with less packaging, to try to reuse items as much as possible, recycle where it is possible, to compost, that type of thing, and if municipalities start doing that kind of thing, it is going to mean that their waste disposal sites have many, many more years of use than they do at the present. We have to make the people in our society realize the fact that the responsibility for lessening the amount of wastes that go into garbage dumps and so on, do rest with them, and I think that the municipalities play a very significant part in bringing that about. There are municipalities now that are encouraging recycling programs, reused composting and that type of thing.

As far as the septic waste disposal goes, I get rather amused, actually, whenever I hear about this because of the supposed hardship that has been placed on people because they have to pay more now to get their septic tanks pumped out. If you have a properly installed septic tank you will only need to have it - well, I tell you, I had one at one house where I lived, twenty years now I have been gone from the place, I sold it and the septic tank still has never been touched. It was installed properly in the first place, so it didn't need to be pumped out. I realize that sometimes you are in geographical areas, and so on, where the topography of the land and the composition of the earth makes that difficult, but any well-functioning septic tank should not have to be pumped out more often than seven or eight years. You pay more than you used to pay to have it done but you are still not paying as much as you would pay for water or for sewer within a town. So, in actual fact, these people who have septic tanks that have to be periodically pumped out are still way better off than people who are, indeed, paying for sewage disposal through a sewer system within a town.

MR. J. BYRNE: May I interject?

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I certainly question your figures with respect to the time span between when tanks should be emptied or flushed out or whatever the case may be. With respect, my figures tell me that every two to three years they should be done. I have a septic tank and have been using it for the past eighteen years. I have been having mine done every two to three years. And it is working properly and was installed properly. So, I don't think you are quite accurate on that.

With respect to the comparison you made to a person with a septic system paying the cost compared to living in a town and paying for water and sewer, the way things are going these days, especially with the municipalities in around St. John's - for example, down in Pouch Cove, having a mil rate of 9.5 mils, and then you have to add on that kind of money, probably $600 every two to three years, I mean, they are paying the equivalent that you might be paying in the City of St. John's for a lot less services.

MS. COWAN: Okay, I was very nice to him, you know, Mr. Chairperson, because I guess he didn't have to be allowed to jump in like that.

I certainly still maintain my original position on the septic tank business, that if it is a properly installed septic tank, it doesn't have to be pumped out that often. Indeed, the other point that I would make, as well - I have not had, and our staff people within the department have not had many complaints from those who have to have their septic tanks pumped out. I think we have had two, which originated from my district, Conception Bay South. Those are all the complaints that we have had.

Our explanation at that time was similar to the one I made to you, but we also pointed out to them the importance of having septic waste brought to a system where it was going to be properly dealt with and that, yes, there are cases where perhaps you do have to pay a little bit more. Unfortunately, in our society, because of the way things have developed with the environment, there are going to be costs associated often when we attempt to clean up.

My feeling about it is - and these people who called have agreed entirely, that they would much rather see that being done than having raw sewage dumped into the ocean. That is an extreme concern for this Province, where we rely heavily on the ocean for a livelihood.

Now, I am going to let - do I still have time here? Two minutes - I am going to let Barbara have a couple of minutes. You can choose one of the questions there, Barbara, and give him an answer on land use.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask her to identify herself when she speaks again, for upstairs.

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MS. WAKEHAM: Barbara Wakeham, Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands. Well, we have lots. Let me see how many I can get through. First of all, Mr. Byrne, you have six-and-a-half more years than I have with lands. With respect to the cottage lots and the contracting out to industry, there was $185,000 last year, $200,000 this year, for cottage lot development, design, layout and construction. There are insufficient monies available to do the actual design and layout and the actual construction in that amount of money. If there were more money available, certainly, I think some consideration would be given to contracting out the planning portion of that work.

Surveys and mapping - you are absolutely correct. The government have slashed the amount of money that is available in terms of doing it. There has been no decision with respect to GPSs being purchased and utilized in the department. We have put forward a major $20 million project to government and to the Federal Government for geographical information systems. We are still pushing to do that, and if that goes through, 90 per cent of the work will be contracted out.

With respect to the Crown Lands Registry and the integration of that with the Crown Titles, I think that has probably been studied at least three or four times since I have been in government in the last twenty years. There was a major study done about ten years ago that actually looked at the integration of the two systems. If you worked in Lands, you are fully aware of the magnitude of the problems that exist between the two systems.

With respect to the Crown Titles, itself, we have computerized the system and we have done a heck of a job in terms of cleaning up some of the mess that we had there. But you are absolutely correct, there should be some kind of an amalgamation or integration with the system. Considering the price tag for this, I think it is going to be quite a while before we look at that, given the other priorities of government at the moment.

One last thing: ATV regulations. We have a draft set of regulations which have already been to the Justice system right now, have come back, and we should fairly soon have a paper before government to implement those regulations. I don't know if that takes care of the two minutes.

MS. COWAN: Yes, that's fine, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pretty well.

MS. COWAN: I think so, and that probably takes care of the other questions, as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're starting to build up a list now. I have Ms. Verge, followed by Ms. Young and Mr. Smith.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to use my second ten-minute allotment by asking questions one at a time and pausing for the minister's reply before proceeding to the next question.

On ATV regulation, as I said in my introductory comments, the government is way behind its own schedule, since there was a major announcement in the Throne Speech two years ago of plans to prohibit the use of ATVs in wetlands but when I asked about this at last year's estimates committee the minister talked about the immensity of the land mass and the difficulty of identifying all the bogs and wetlands. I acknowledged that difficulty but suggested the government approach ATV regulation in phases, the minister agreed and there was even some news coverage of the fact that we both agreed that a small start was better than nothing, in fact, we have had nothing.

There is not even any prospect of the required legislation or regulations, and I would like the minister to explain exactly where the government is, is the government going to have regulations in place for this Summer? Most of the damage is done during the months when there is no snow on the ground, are we going to allow yet another season to go by without any mere attempt at outlawing ATV usage in wetlands, since I understand wetlands damage may take 100 years to recover and the longer we allow usage in these bogs to continue, obviously the more serious, perhaps permanent damage to the environment is happening, so exactly where are we, why the delay and when can we expect to see some improvement?

MS. COWAN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will continue.

The approach that I talked about at the last estimates meeting when we talked about this same issue, had to be changed because of the very problem that I identified at that time, that we just did not have the ability to identify bogs and wetlands and so on, and find out where they all were throughout the Province and that type of thing, so the approach that we have taken is to move away from that type of thing and instead, our program, once the regulations are in place, which I will get to in a minute, will focus on public awareness of what a bog or wetland is, so that in fact then the public will be responsible for knowing if or when they are on a wetland, so there will be an educational process taking place.

I cannot add anything really to what Miss Wakeham said; she has been working with the ATV regulations. We have had a draft set go through Justice, it is now back in our department for some final fine-tuning by the officials before it goes through the committee and Cabinet process, and I am anticipating that over the Summer, we will indeed start implementing the particular regulations. We have had to try to draw up regulations that balance out appropriate and responsible use of ATVs and at the same time, make sure that irresponsible behaviour on ATVs is not taking place, so that has been an issue as well, but I am indeed sorry that it has not happened more quickly but it has indeed been a slow process partly because we had changed our approach midway through it, to make it what we felt more workable and more sensible, really.

MS. VERGE: I do not understand what the minister is saying. The original announcement as I heard it, was to introduce laws prohibiting the use of ATVs in certain wetlands which were to be identified and somehow marked. Now the minister is talking about educating Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about what is a bog, I would suggest that most people in the Province already know what a bog is. People may not be as aware as they should about the damage that they do to bogs when they drive their ATV's over wetland's. So, I would agree that an education program may be beneficial but the minister is still talking about regulations being drafted by the Department of Justice. Is there enabling legislation already in force for regulations or is it necessary as a first step that legislation be passed by the House of Assembly to enable the enactment of regulations?

MS. COWAN: The regulations are not dependent on anything that would have to take place in the House. They come under - what act is it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: There is an all-terrain vehicles act and they can come under that. It won't be held up by the necessity of going through a process within the House. These regulations will come through an Order in Council.

MS. VERGE: What are the regulations going to say?

MS. COWAN: They're going to focus on where to go rather than where not to go when you're using your ATV.

MS. VERGE: Will the regulations provide for certain areas being off limits for ATVs and for offences and penalties for people who operate ATVs in the prohibited areas?

MS. COWAN: I can't give you specifics obviously because it has yet to go to Cabinet. All I can say at this stage is that we're focusing on preserving the bogs and the wetlands and that the regulations are going to focus on where people go rather than where they cannot go.

MS. VERGE: When will the education program start?

MS. COWAN: I didn't say anything about an education program beginning. We are in the process of putting together a brochure on bogs and wetlands. The process will develop from that.

MS. VERGE: It's very (inaudible). Now I'll ask about the beverage container legislation. Last year the minister talked about whirlwind activity including having a dedicated staff person preparing legislation. When can we expect to see the legislation?

MS. COWAN: Again, that is not legislation. We've already had the legislation come before the House, the enabling legislation. The packaging act came before the House and passed in an earlier session. Now it's just simply a matter of putting regulations in place. Those regulations again are ready and waiting Committee and Cabinet consideration.

MS. VERGE: What will the regulations address?

MS. COWAN: They're going to address the use of containers that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Like well, is it going to address things like: will we have depots or recycling, that kind of thing? Is that what you're looking at?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: In my preliminary statements that I have made, without going into detail again, as this is a matter that still may have some adjustment at the Committee and Cabinet level, the whole thing can't be open for public discussion right at the moment, or discussion in this particular forum. But we would be dealing with the industry in working toward the recycling or re-use of beverage containers. I think that's about all actually at this stage that I can add.

We'll be looking with industry down the road as to depot systems and that kind of thing, and room for that kind of negotiation, discussion, and so on will be built into regulations as well. Obviously there have to be collection systems and that type of thing. We have felt, and again this was something that I said earlier on, that the onus is largely on the industry to straighten out its act. The onus will be on them for a large part in the collection and recycling or re-use or whatever of the beverage containers. Our part will be simply enacting regulations to make that possible and to make it mandatory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister.

It's now almost 8:30 p.m. Maybe now would be a good time to have a break. When we come back I'll recognize Ms. Young, if the Committee so desires. I believe there's coffee prepared, isn't there, Elizabeth, in the Government Members' Caucus Room? So we'll be back in ten minutes.

 

Recess

 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the other two members will be here - here they come so we can start off. Ms. Young.

MS. YOUNG: I would like to take this opportunity to say how pleased I am to be serving on this committee and I have a couple of questions for the minister. I will put the questions forward, there will be three and there should be time for the answers.

Under pollution cleanup, these figures are low, does this mean that the guilty parties are paying a shot for cleanup? Where does the $22,500 revenue come from? The other question has been brought to my attention by a number of people, that there is a considerable amount of dumping of waste from RV's and this happens in gravel pits and along road shoulders. I guess this is due to the fact that there are no dumping stations or very few, has there been any attempt to deal with this problem?

I am sure we are all aware of the German visitor to our Province who was totally disgusted with the mess of garbage and vehicle wrecks and so on. I am concerned about the vehicle abandonment which you referred to in your opening remarks and I would like to hear more about that. As well, I am wondering what will happen to second and third time offenders? As well, how will we deal with the problem of vehicle wrecks on private property? There are a few people who seem to persist in dragging home old wrecks and having them around their property.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

To your first question regarding the item in the estimates, we often have to go out and do some cleanup ourselves and then we collect it from the offending party, the individual who put the pollution there in the first place. This is based on the monies we have been able to recover over the last several years and we assume somewhere in the area of $22,500. So, that is where the revenue would come from, people paying for a cleanup that we have had to do. Okay?

MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

MS. COWAN: The second question was to do with -

MS. YOUNG: Well, I am thinking of the waste from the RV's, sewage -

MS. COWAN: Okay, in that case, that is an offence to be dumping sewage or throwing any kind of garbage around. When we hear of these cases, when they are reported to us or they are stumbled upon by some of our investigators, then appropriate measures are taken to order people to clean it up and if necessary fines can be levied.

Vehicle wrecks, I am going to let Dave make a few comments on that - do not forget to identify yourself, Dave.

MR. JEANS: Thank you, Minister, Mr. Chair.

With respect to vehicle wrecks, we can undertake a prosecution against anybody, whether it be private land or public lands, the act provides for prosecution for cleanup, not only of vehicle wrecks but other waste as well. Unsightly premises, in cases we have taken action against private individuals if they have not followed an order for cleanup.

MS. YOUNG: Does this generally come about, taking action, is it usually due to the request of neighbours or I guess the environmentalists in our communities?

MR. JEANS: Yes, Ms. Young, sometimes it is as a result of neighbours criticism, or somebody reporting to us or maybe just our officers in the field are aware of an operation that has been a persistent offender, an unsightly premises, perhaps it is a salvage dealer or somebody that has car wrecks which they are cannibalizing for parts and we have taken action in a number of cases. Also of course our stop line which is: You, stop thrashing our Province. People will phone in and can advise us of an environmental offence which could be a dumping incident or car wrecks on properties that are an eyesore and we follow up on those and take the appropriate actions. Usually the first response is to order the offender to clean up or remove, and give them time enough to do that and if they do not take action, then we can initiate prosecution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, first of all at the outset, let me say that as a newcomer to this process I am enjoying the opportunity to learn a little more about the workings of your department and I look forward to future meetings of this sort in terms of providing me with information as to the overall operations and I am hoping thereby to be better enabled to carry out my responsibilities as a member of the honourably House of Assembly.

With environmental concerns generally, I think there are very few people in this Province who would not claim to be interested and generally supportive of care of the environment, however, every time an issue does arise, and we have people coming forward proclaiming to be environmentalists, I think a lot of us get a little bit concerned and upset that somehow anyone in this Province or any group could take the attitude, this holier than thou attitude, that somehow people who are interested in promoting and encouraging development somehow have no concern for the environment, and I recognize the challenge to you, Madam Minister and to your department in terms of maintaining a balance because certainly, as the duly elected government of the Province you do have several mandates, one of which certainly is to promote development and create jobs, but certainly as well the care for the environment, which I think we all recognize now and are beginning to more and more accept that it is something that is given to us in trust, it is not something that any of us own and it is something that we have a responsibility to care for and to leave therefore for future generations.

However, striking the balance and maintaining the balance, I mean therein lies the challenge and therein lies the crux of the problem. One of the things that comes to mind when we are talking about it, I think about - and certainly Ms. Verge could relate to that - the mill in Corner Brook. Certainly, coming from the West Coast of the Province, I am well aware, and in following the news reports on the efforts of the mill to come in line with environmental regulations and in the last few years requesting extensions to deadlines that have been set in having their standards up to scratch, and I guess you know, as the government, would we jeopardize the hundreds of jobs that the mill provides by saying or making the decision that the deadline is June 30th and if you do not comply by then we will shut you down? I use that as an illustration of the kind of problem with which we are faced.

I consider myself as somewhat of an environmentalist since I am an outdoors person. Anybody who enjoys the great outdoors in this Province and travels in the outdoors, is certainly struck by the beauty of the environment but I am sorry to say that you also have to be struck by the amount of garbage that is strewn throughout. There are very few places in this Province that you can travel that you will not find garbage .

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Yes, I agree with you. There are outdoorsmen who do contribute to it, not only outdoorsmen but certainly they do contribute to it. If you are a fisherman and you have to travel pretty far into the interior you will find some signs of people who had travelled there before you, however, what it points out to me, and I think I am always struck by it whenever I, not necessarily travel the woods of this Province, but just drive the highways, you can see the sides of the roads littered with Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes or pop cans, beer bottles or whatever.

One of the things we really seem to need is, as a people, the need to become educated in the need to look after our environment. As a person who has spent some twenty-seven years in the field of education, I am somewhat familiar with what is happening in terms of the thrust within the school system and the curriculum that has been developed trying to instil in our young people a respect for the environment, but unfortunately that is only part of the answer because young people, we can try to instil certain values in them in the school, but if they go home and then travel with their parents, whether it is in the outdoors or by vehicle, and they see their parents adhering to a different standard, then in all probability that is where they will take their example and we will continue to see this thing for many years to come.

One of the things that struck me when I was listening to the discussion here this evening is in terms of the overall thrust in education generally. As we were talking, as the discussion was developing and unfolding here this evening, I was thinking in terms of the environment and environmental concerns as it relates to tourism and the tourism industry in this Province.

I do know that in the Province of PEI, as we are all aware, that relies fairly heavily on the tourism industry, it is a major industry in their province, that they do devote a considerable amount of interest - my understanding is, and I have gotten this from talking to some people who live in that Province - every year, in advance of the tourism industry, there is a fair amount of attention and interest given to a general cleanup of the Province. Everyone gets involved. I mean we are getting ready; we are going to roll out the red carpet, and we are bringing tourists in this Province and before we do it we all get together and we clean up, just as we see now on a kind of ad hoc and hit-or-miss basis in various communities throughout the Province where municipalities will decide, well this Saturday is cleanup day, or this week is cleanup week, and we try to get our house in order.

I really think that two things here, the education program generally, and whether or not - through your department I am sure there is some consideration and some discussion over time with regard to this, and I do not know how it can be implemented, whether it is through a general media program throughout the Province just encouraging it, or whether it is something that has to be co-ordinated with the Department of Tourism, or even municipalities. How it would be done I am not sure, but I think it is something that is certainly worth looking at.

The car wrecks, I am really, really pleased to see that legislation is finally being brought in to deal with this. This is something that I think we have needed for some time. It is obviously a problem in most areas of this Province. The one thing that I do wonder, I know in my own district there is one site where a number of wrecks were assembled, brought together, for disposal some years ago, and the wrecks were never moved. I understand there are about 200 or 250 wrecks that are there now assembled on this one lot, and the plan was - this was some years ago when we were really caught up in this collect-a-wreck thing - that they would be properly disposed of. It never happened. I had a request from some of my constituents prior to coming in for the sitting of the House, and this was one of the matters they raised - that it can no longer be recycled in the sense that the metal now has no value, so that is not an option. At least this is what was told to me. I do not know, and this is something on which you can correct me, because it has been sitting there now for so long, nobody is interested in coming in and crushing it and recycling the metal. So I guess the thing is, what do we do in this kind of situation where you have these cars assembled? Obviously, I think the legislation that was referenced here this evening will not deal with that, so that is something that I think has to be done.

Also, I think, on the recycling generally I am certainly pleased to hear the minister say this evening that plans are in the development stage, that we will be seeing ourselves doing more of this, and I recognize that she indicated, and I respect - at liberty to disclose a lot of the details of what is being considered, but it does strike me with regard to pop bottles in particular, and the refundables. If you travel outside of this Province - I do not know; this is just in terms of a person visiting other provinces of the country, and travelling down to the United States - I do not see a lot of areas where you cannot bring back pop bottles for refunds. It still seems to be fairly popular in most areas, and I am not really sure why we got away from it when we did in this Province, and having gotten away from it, why we've chosen not to go back to that again in light of what we've learned about the damage this is doing to the environment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Cowan.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Smith, I jotted down some of the points you were making throughout your ten minutes. I guess what you were talking about really in the first instance, when you were talking about the balance between environment and bringing more development into the Province, I suppose in a sense that you're really talking about sustainable development. That is something that we as a province are committed to, and Canada indeed is committed to sustainable development.

I don't even know whether you can call it a balancing act. Sometimes the word is used but that suggests that you might on some occasions shut your eyes to some environmental thing in order to let a business go ahead. I think through the environmental assessment process what we try to do - and again, as I mentioned earlier, we are re-examining this to see if it is being done properly - is that what we do is we look at a proposal that comes before us and try to evaluate if it will have any impact on the environment, and if it does then how we can best mitigate the impact on the environment and make it an acceptable project to have within the Province.

So the environmental assessment process figures very strongly in this idea of: let's make sure that development does not take place at the cost of a resource. We have only to look at our fisheries. I think it's an example we should all use continually to show what happens when a resource is not dealt with -

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I'd just like to make a point of order here. The Member for Port au Port spoke for his ten minutes and we now are hearing the minister. It's very nice, and I understand that he's a new member and perhaps he didn't understand the rule that was made. That the ten minutes that was used up in asking questions, we're now getting another ten minutes perhaps from the minister. We have a limited amount of time and this sort of mutual backslapping and platitudes is not really - it's using up the time that could be used otherwise.

I don't seriously object as long as we're going to have lots of time and go on till 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and have two or three sessions. But the Chair has indicated an interest in compacting things. I would rather see - if a member has ten minutes to use the ten minutes in interchange back and forth, it seems to be that this member and the response is going to be taking up now twenty minutes unless some other ruling is made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Yes, I was going to point out when the minister was finished that she was speaking by leave. Because the arrangement that we had was that if the member used his ten minutes then the minister would not have time to address, and we would go by the order that we have here for speaking.

It is a valid point of order. In that case I would ask the minister to clue up and I'll ask Mr. Langdon to speak.

MS. COWAN: We can move along to Mr. Langdon. I felt that there were some questions implicit in the comments -

MR. CHAIRMAN: But his time is up.

MS. COWAN: - and - pardon?

MR. HARRIS: If there are some specific answers you want to give to specific questions I'd be happy to continue granting leave, but I'm not hearing any specific answers to specific questions. There were one or two specifics that Mr. Smith raised but I'm not hearing answers to those.

MS. COWAN: Perhaps there are none so deaf as those who do not hear.

MR. HARRIS: The car wrecks, for example, the 250 car wrecks that he mentions.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Chairman, you can rule on it and we can move along to Oliver if you wish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that you were speaking by leave. In view of the fact that Mr. Harris raised the question I think I will now move on to Mr. Langdon and you'll get a chance to answer Mr. Smith's questions later on.

Mr. Langdon.

MR. LANGDON: I'm not thinking so much about platitudes or patting people on the back, like you say he is a new member, and in that sense the comments were made. But I want to congratulate the minister first of all in the way that she dealt with the Committee in answering questions, and her officials as well.

I want to just carry the car legislation a little bit farther. With the new car wreck legislation that is about to be brought in, will there be adequate staff to enforce the new requirements because I think that is very important, we pass legislation and then leave it at that, but is there going to be adequate staff to make sure that these wrecks are collected?... I think that would be very important. Would there be adequate staff to look after that?

MS. COWAN: Well we are certainly expecting that there will be. I mentioned earlier in the evening that we have increased our environmental prosecutions from about six to fifty per year which is an increase of more than 700 per cent. We have added two new investigators and that will double our enforcement capacity in the Clarenville and Grand Falls areas, and we are hoping that that will be adequate to address the workload that will come into place as a result of the new legislation when it takes effect on the first of September. Of course, we will have to monitor that very closely over the next year to see if in fact those two additional people and those we have, do what we want.

MR. LANGDON: Okay. Another question pertaining to the Round Table on the Environment that has been in existence now for a couple of years; they were appointed by the government and I am wondering if you could probably comment on it's activities and any progress that they have made.

MS. COWAN: The Round Table was first appointed in the previous minister's time in 1990, and we have extended the membership of that committee until June of 1993 because of the work that they are now undertaking. We have three working groups that have been set up. There is one looking at the whole area of waste management, energy and land use, and a second one is looking at education and public awareness and how decisions are made within government, and there is a third group which is looking at resource management, wilderness, wildlife, ecological reserves, protected areas, that type of thing and those groups are made up of people who sit on the Round Table. Also we have brought in other individuals from around the Province who have particular expertise and interest in these areas to work with the Round Table members in our groups like the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation and the Manufacturers Association, municipalities, those type of groups and those working groups are going to be submitting some final reports which - well they should be ready and I guess they will be submitted by the end of this month or early in June, and those will be the first steps in developing a sustainable development strategy, which I mentioned in my opening remarks, being developed through the direction of the Strategic Economic Plan and has been given to the Round Table to do.

The Round Table has commissioned - which I think is very interesting - a feasibility study through Memorial University, to look at a State of the Environment Report for the Province, and that report has been submitted to the Round Table and we are exploring it now, and ways of dealing with what they have brought to our attention, and I think probably that is sort of in a nutshell what we are doing at the moment, but we also liaise with the National Round Table group as well, because as you know, we try to keep within global and national objectives too.

Is there anything further that you require?

MR. LANGDON: Just one more question.

The Round Table committee and so on and getting back to what Gerald said earlier, I think if we are going to have a real impact on the environment, obviously, the younger the people we can impress upon the value of the environment and the sacredness, for want of a better word, then I think the school and the curriculum have to show that and enhance it more than it does now, and my question to you, just for my own personal clarification: is the Round Table dealing with say, the NTA and people in curriculum in developing that as well?

MS. COWAN: I will have to check and see. I do not know, but certainly there is an education section and I would assume it would be taking into account education and the education system. I do not know who the representation is, whether it is from the NTA directly or just how it is being garnered.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I wonder, Madam Minister, I will take up some of my time to find the answer to this one. I was interested in Mr. Smith's specific question about the pile, or area, where there are 200 car wrecks in his constituency. Has the department any method of dealing with that, or any solution to that problem?

MS. COWAN: We have recently had two auto wreck recycling projects registered under the environmental assessment act, which is going to make it much easier for us to deal with wrecked vehicles here on the Island. Has that gone through the environmental assessment process?

MR. JEANS: The process is they are registered under the process now. It is not anticipated that there will be a problem with either of those, but I do not think they been run through - completed - at this point in time.

MS. COWAN: Okay, so we do have two people who are interested in setting up auto wreck recycling centres, and those will be very useful.

What we plan to do is to have, in the case of the Port au Port member, individuals can contact the department and report these kinds of things, and arrangements can then be made for having wrecked vehicles removed to these particular sites.

MR. HARRIS: In connection with that, because this is something I have raised before, and I have asked you and your officials in this committee before, and I really think there needs to be an answer to it: Why is it all stick and no carrot? Supposing this is all very wonderful and these two people, or two individuals or organizations, set up their recycling centres and they put one of them in Carbonear and another one in Clarenville, and Mr. Smith's district still has 200 wrecks out in Port au Port, if these people deem it not feasible to ship wrecks from Port au Port for their facility, then they are going to stay out in Port au Port.

I suggested to the minister, both in the House and I think here, that instead of just fining people for having car wrecks that are not being properly recycled, or gotten rid of, or not put in circulation, why do we not have some system that offers an incentive to people to not only not throw the wrecks in the woods, but to in fact bring them to recycling places or official sites, such as a deposit system of some kind?

MS. COWAN: Okay. The deposit system is something that we have thought about. It is still something that we are exploring; however we feel that the situation in the Province is such that it required a heavy hand in this particular case - legislation to bring the problem under control - but that does not mean that we have just stopped thinking about the problem. We will still try to find possibly some sort of innovative way, as they have done in some of the european countries, to encourage people not to leave a wreck somewhere, rather than scare them about leaving a wreck somewhere. So the deposit system is something that we will be looking at. Whether or not we will bring it in, I do not know, but at this point in time we have felt that the best way to go is with this legislation.

MR. HARRIS: You say you are going to be looking at it. Is there a specific time frame?

MS. COWAN: No there is not. We are just looking at it, and looking at some other ways as well that we might be able to do the carrot on the stick type of thing.

MR. HARRIS: The reason I asked for a specific time frame is because on at least two previous occasions in this committee, and other occasions in the House, I - and I believe the Member for Humber East has also raised this - have asked questions about a recycling project for not just the House of Assembly but the government buildings, such as the Confederation Building. We have not seen it yet. Here we are, sitting on the environment committee, and we are using non-recyclable, one time use, styrofoam cups, in the House of Assembly for an environment meeting.

All we have accomplished so far is now we have wastepaper baskets where before we used to throw things on the floor. The paper that is put in these baskets is not recycled. It is removed by the garbage removal people every couple of days, just as they did before. Instead of taking it off the floor, now they take it out of the bins and throw it in the garbage.

We have asked on a number of occasions. We were told six months, two years ago - we were told in a little while six months ago, and I am asking the question again: Does your department have any time table for any of these things, or are we just being given platitudes when we come here and ask questions?

MS. COWAN: Alright, Mr. Chair, I will address the member.

Last Fall, Cabinet approved a proposal that came in from the Department of Environment and Lands and the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and authorized the two departments to set up and promote a wastepaper recycling program for the government buildings. So over the Winter both my department and the Department of Works, Services and Transportation have introduced recycling programs, and this program is gradually being expanded to include all the departments in the Confederation Building.

Now I believe that I answered, in a question in the House at one point previously, that we had decided to make it a function of management to establish within each department their own method of wastepaper recycling, but we felt that Works, Services and Transportation, and the Department of Environment and Lands should really be the example setters in this type of move so that if another department wanted to emulate or improve upon the program that we are doing, they could do so.

I think we have now - the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, our department, Tourism and Development, the Queen's Printer, are a few that come to my mind right off the bat, who are involved in a recycling program. There is an interdepartmental committee that has been set in place as well that is overseeing these programs and helping out where necessary. We have blue boxes and so on in the buildings, in the particular departments where it has begun. It is a wastepaper recycling program that we have so far, and that is our initial goal, to get that through Confederation Building and through our outlying offices around the Province. Then it will be expanded to include cardboard and newspapers and that type of thing.

Now in my own department, the Department of Environment and Lands, we have gone a step further. We have a Green Committee which we have established in the department, and that is a committee that is promoting more environmentally appropriate practices regarding energy conservation and waste reduction. We are doing projects within the department now related to composting, and we get questionnaires continually from the Green Committee as to if we are using recyclable materials; are we using both sides of paper? The whole area of environmental consciousness is being raised by this Green Committee, and we feel that committee is something that we hope other departments will emulate.

So we have gone a considerable ways since the last time that I spoke to you even in the House, which is just a few months ago, about this particular issue.

MR. HARRIS: Well I have to say, maybe it is like the car wrecks. Maybe it is time that a heavy hand is needed because we still have this. We still have wastepaper baskets and no recycling in the House.

MS. COWAN: It is a very heavy hand when Cabinet directs to departments to begin the process of making sure that the Confederation Building does have a waste recycling program, and then move on to other types of recycling and waste reduction - not just recycling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: To continue Mr. Harris' line of questioning, I simply comment that there has been a failure of leadership. It is ridiculous that we have been at this committee year after year after year after year talking about the need for a provincial government-wide recycling program, and we still do not have containers for the few materials for which Nova Recycling is providing recycling. We still do not have containers throughout government offices for newsprint, other paper, cardboard, aluminium cans or bottles.

The minister said a little while ago that the Round Table on the Economy commissioned from Memorial University a study on the state of the environment, will the minister give us a copy of that report?

MS. COWAN: That copy is not something that is in my possession. It belongs to the Round Table on Environment and Economy who advise the Premier, so I would not be able to comment on its availability to the public. It was done largely for inside information to advise the Round Table on directions it should take in giving advice to the Premier.

Yes, John wants to comment. Mr. Fleming.

MR. FLEMING: Yes, I might comment on the nature of the report that is being done for the Round Table. It is not a report itself on the state of the environment of the Province but rather a feasibility study into doing a state of the environment report for the Province. State of the environment reports are done by several jurisdictions, most notably by the federal government, and what they do is they lay out certain parameters, certain measures that one can measure consistently and persistently in order to be able to track changes in the environment over time, so what Memorial University is looking into for the Round Table is what measures would be appropriate for this Province and what way they might be implemented.

MS. VERGE: So we have another study calling for a study the same way as we have the Strategic Economic Plan calling for an assessment of environmental assessments. Has the Round Table on the Environment completed the assessment of the assessment process, and if so, is that assessment available to the public?

MS. COWAN: It is not the Round Table actually that is doing the investigation into the environmental assessment process to see if it indeed is meeting current needs in the Province for both developers and the environment, it is being conducted outside of the Round Table altogether.

MS. VERGE: Who is doing it?

MS. COWAN: Well, it is a three level thing, our department is involved - John would you explain?

MR. FLEMING: Yes, it is being done internally largely, at the moment at least, and it involves our department, the Economic Recovery Commission and to some extent some other departments as well who are involved in the process, and the immediate focus is to look at the relationship between business development and the environmental assessment process. It may evolve into something broader than that.

MS. VERGE: Are all these studies and assessments done on recyclable paper?

MS. COWAN: I would not know that. Our department has made a move toward using both sides of the paper and using recyclable paper, so I would certainly hope that they are being done on recyclable paper, but I would not want to guarantee it, we could still be using up some old supplies.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Mr. Harris advocated using the carrot as well as the stick to try to bring about positive changes in behaviour. I would like to ask whether any consideration has been given to rewarding people in the Province, municipalities, community organizations, businesses and others, who show initiative in adopting positive practices, for example: in cleaning up messes or in preventing ongoing or future damage.

In the district I represent, the municipality of Steady Brook has been a leader. Several years ago, the Town Council of Steady Brook specifically sponsored for the whole community a recycling program providing appropriate containers and sorting and arranging for pick up and delivery to Nova Recycling in Corner Brook.

Steady Brook last year started a community compost heap, and the town council has also carried out beautification in the town, including tree planting and shrub and flower planting. Steady Brook has set a positive example, and I think it is appropriate that that municipality be rewarded, perhaps through public praise or other recognition if not through financial incentives and rewards through the municipal grants structure. Is that type of approach being carried out now, or is it contemplated?

MS. COWAN: The first approach that you mentioned in just giving an award to someone, a community, a group of individuals or whatever, has been established. The Women's Institute, along with our department, has a yearly program in which they ask people to nominate, so you could nominate Steady Brook, and then it would go before a committee that would see if, in comparison to other communities in the Province, this had been a step that should be acknowledged publicly.

The environmental awards ceremony takes place sometime over the next ten days. I am just not sure what the dates are, and I think there are seven or eight categories.

AN HON. MEMBER: June 8th.

MS. COWAN: June 8th. it takes place. There are seven or eight categories for recognition of outstanding efforts that are related to the environment.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Well I am glad to hear about that program. I had not known about it before, so I would suggest more publicity. Thank you.

What is the explanation for the drastic difference between what the government forecast for spending by environment and lands last year - a total of $12.5 million - and what was actually spent - only $9.5 million?

I notice this year the budget is back to close to where it started last year. Why was there - I have not done the percentages exactly, but it must have been about a one-third drop?

MS. COWAN: There were some federal/provincial monies that we were anticipating to come in that did not. I will let David Jeans elaborate on that for you, Ms. Verge.

MR. JEANS: I thank the minister. Mr. Chair, we participate in a federal/provincial program that is called The National Contaminated Sites for Mediation Program, and there is in excess of $4.5 million, I think it is, for the Newfoundland part of that program. That was anticipated being spent last year, or a couple of million of that was anticipated being spent last year, but unfortunately getting agreement with the federal government on the criteria for some of the sites took longer than anticipated, so although it was budgeted for we were not able to complete the necessary paperwork and background. We are more optimistic that that will proceed this year.

MS. VERGE: How much did that account for in the variation last year?

MR. JEANS: That is about half of $4.5 million, so $2.25 million.

MS. VERGE: Another question with respect to forests, I have heard several concerns expressed by loggers, and others who spend time in the woods, that the harvesters which the paper companies are using more and more are tearing up the environment. Has the Department of Environment and Lands done an assessment of the impact on our forests, on our environment, of harvesters, and if so, what are the findings and conclusions?

MS. COWAN: First of all, any study such as that would come under the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. What would happen there is that the Department of Forestry and Agriculture would have to - I am just trying to think. Okay. What we have developed are these five-year forest harvesting plans, and they have been developed by the Department of Environment and Lands in conjunction with the Department of Forestry and Agriculture - the Department of Forestry and Agriculture doing the main part of the work there, and then coming to us for suggested improvement or whatever.

In looking at the evaluation, or the environmental assessment of a particular woods operation, the harvesting methodology would have to be assessed as well. So that, at this stage, would be resting with the Department of Forestry and Agriculture.

MS. VERGE: The minister has talked about the two departments - her department and the Department of Forestry and Agriculture - both having a role. What are the findings of the Department of Environment and Lands in its probe of current harvesting methods, and in particular the growing use of harvesters?

MS. COWAN: We have not identified that as a particular area that we have been able to put resources into studying at this time. When we have had to prioritize our objectives and so on for each year there have been other things that we felt had to be looked at first, but I think certainly you make a good point that it is an area that there is increased public concern about, particularly out of your area, and that it is something - whether it will be a goal of our department, it may not be. It may become a goal of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture. I believe a number of individuals and groups and so on have been making presentations to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture about harvesting practices in the Province. You see articles on it constantly. It is more of a public concern and will likely become a part of government's agenda over the next decade.

MS. VERGE: The minister talked a little while ago about the harmful effects of raw sewage being emptied into the ocean. Would the minister care to comment on the extent of, and the consequences of, raw sewage being emptied into inland fresh waters - for example the raw sewage that is emptied by the Town of Deer Lake into Deer Lake?

MS. COWAN: We probably do not know as much as we should know about just what happens to sewage - and when I say `we' I do not mean my department; I am talking about the collective knowledge of people in the world on the environment - what happens to sewage when it goes in any water source - when it goes into a fresh water lake or when it goes into oceans, but testing that would be done in the area of Deer Lake would indicate whether or not it was having a harmful effect on the waters. As far as I know to this date there is not any record to show that it is having a harmful effect. Mr. Jeans, did you...?

MR. JEANS: Mr. Chairman, just to comment a little bit, certainly the Province, in terms of its municipal infrastructure program, has areas that require sewage treatment and so forth. Obviously, fresh water is a primary area to have treatment systems put in.

We have monitored, in conjunction with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Deer Lake water quality, and my understanding is that the water quality is acceptable. There is a good dilution zone. I am not aware of the specifics in the immediate area outfall but we are not aware of any threat to the water quality in either the municipal park area or - in cabins, populations around the town - the community, itself.

MS. COWAN: The whole area of waste management, solid and liquid waste, in this case liquid waste, is something that is part of our provincial waste strategy that we will be developing over the next few years and that is an area which will be looked at. It is very expensive and very costly to start treating all sewage as it should be treated. We may have to look for ways to form partnerships and so on, with the federal government in order to meet the challenge of how we are going to deal with a lot of sewage outfalls.

MS. VERGE: Am I understanding Mr. Jeans correctly in interpreting his remarks to amount to an approval of the Deer Lake-Humber River water quality with the Deer Lake sewage being emptied raw?

MR. JEANS: No, what I am saying is that there is no indication of a serious water quality problem in Deer Lake per se, at the present time.

MS. VERGE: You mean a problem with the town supply of drinking water? I am talking about the lake which empties into the Humber River.

MR. JEANS: No, I recognize that. I mean with the lake itself, that is correct.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you. What testing has been done?

MR. JEANS: I cannot give you specifics but I know that there have been tests done through our branch, through our water resources branch and also through Municipal Affairs over the last number of years because it has been an area where there has been some concern with respect to putting treatment in but there has not been municipal funds provided to do that at this point.

MS. VERGE: The Town of Pasadena, at its own initiative, not with any provincial government leadership, put in place a lagoon for treating sewage before it is emptied into Deer Lake. The Province did provide a loan guarantee to finance the lagoon. What is the assessment of the Department of Environment and Lands about Pasadena's approach to treating sewage?

MS. COWAN: You mean using a lagoon? I would have to refer that to Mr. Jeans.

MR. JEANS: The Pasadena lagoon is, I believe, the third one in the Province. There is one at Victoria, Conception Bay and one at Gander as well. The Pasadena one is the most recent one and I understand that it is working quite well. We monitor it in conjunction with Municipal Affairs and I am not advised that there has been any problems. I think the affluent meets the standards expected from the design.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Acid rain, what are the latest findings on the extent of acid rain falling on Newfoundland and Labrador?

MS. COWAN: Okay, do you mean the acid rain that is coming from outside -

MS. VERGE: Well, both originating and from outside. For example, from Cape Breton Island or other parts of mainland Canada as well as originating -

MS. COWAN: Not so much as what we are producing ourselves - in that as well, okay -

MS. VERGE: - but I am interested in acid rain from all or any sources.

MS. COWAN: Okay. Dave you can speak to that.

MR. JEANS: Well, our acid rain is 99.9 per cent imported anyway. We do not have the industry here or the levels of emissions that generate the degree of emissions that cause local acid rain. We have some five sites around the Province, acid rain monitoring sites and there has been improvement over the last number of years as sulphur dioxide levels, largely from Central Canada and from the Eastern Seaboard, have declined. So we are not finding any damage to our rivers and lakes as has occurred for instance, in Nova Scotia. So, I would say there has been a general decline in acidity from acid rain.

MS. VERGE: Good.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to get into some of the details of the estimates now, the nitty-gritty I suppose. On page 87, under the Minister's Office, Salaries, this year it is increased by approximately $2,000 from the Budget for 1992-93. I was under the impression that there were going to be cuts in all MHAs' and ministers' salaries, supposed to be 4 per cent I believe, so that should reduce that by $6,000 instead of increasing it by $2,000. Can you explain that?

MR. FLEMING: Last year there was a vacancy factor built in to the figure that is shown there, that is not built in to this figure, so it is an apparent increase but it is a real decrease, if we can put it that way.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good answer, how are you supposed to argue that?

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), the Minister of Finance that.

MS. COWAN: Let me assure you that the reduction has taken place in the minister's salary, I can assure you of that.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am sorry, it does not show up here. Okay, the next one, on the same page under Executive Support, salaries again, last year it was $370,000, now it is $379,600, a 2.5 per cent increase. I thought salaries in the government were frozen. The same reason, it is an actual decrease it is not an increase, right?

Okay, on the next page, Administrative Support, under Section 10, Grants and Subsidies; it has been decreased from $53,000 in the Budget for 92-93 to $38,800, a 27 per cent cut. Can someone give me some explanation as who will be affected by those cuts?

MS. COWAN: Which -

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 88, General Administrative, section 1.2.02, subsection 10, Grants and Subsidies.

MS. COWAN: One of the reductions I think would be in the reduction in the meetings of the Canadian Council on Ministers of the Environment, so that is fewer meetings. Is that enough?

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the next one, Policy Development and Planning, salaries again, up from $115,700 to $156,500, that is a 26 per cent increase. Are there new employees or, what is the story on that?

AN HON. MEMBER: What page?

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 88, Policy Development and Planning, Salaries.

MS. COWAN: Okay, your asking about the increase there under 01, Salaries, was it?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: An increase there is due to the transfer of permanent position from 2.1.01, so -

MR. J. BYRNE: A transfer of position?

MS. COWAN: It is a transfer of position that was never filled to environmental investigations.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the next page, page 89, Administration, you have an 8 per cent increase in salaries there from $783,500 to $823,800, and did you not say you transferred somebody from one section to another just a minute ago, out of that section?

MS. COWAN: I think you are at the wrong page.

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 89.

MS. COWAN: The increase in .01 is due to the elimination of a vacancy factor, and also the provision of an annualized funding for new positions.

MR. J. BYRNE: So we eliminated a position -

MS. COWAN: No. We had a vacancy and we eliminated the vacancy.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, well why would the salaries go up?

MS. COWAN: Because we are going to hire somebody now; there won't be a vacancy any more.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is (inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes. Would you mention that please, John?

MR. FLEMING: Yes. It is primarily due to the fact that we had some new positions in that last year that were only funded for part of the year, and now they're funded for the full year. That would be some of the investigators that the minister referred to earlier.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know if this is too nitty-gritty, but I mean, is this the place for this type of thing?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Sure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pollution Clean-up, on the same page, 89. You have an amount to be voted on the bottom of the page there. It's a decrease of 23 per cent. I've heard a fair bit about the spending with respect to the clean-up of the pollution and the environment, and whatever the case may be, yet we're spending 23 per cent less this year. What's the explanation for that?

MS. COWAN: There are several reasons that there's a reduction in that. One is there's been an elimination of RST in general operating reduction in transfer to purchase services. Professional Services were eliminated in the Budget process. That's it. Those are the two reasons for the decrease.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm asking these questions. I basically have to accept the answers, just to some of the things that jumped off the page at me. On page 90, the section on Environmental Pollution Clean-up. Subsection .06, Purchased Services. You have $4,926,000. Any details on what that's going to be spent on?

MS. COWAN: Dave.

MR. JEANS: That includes the contaminated sites program that I referred to earlier that was held over from last year.

MR. J. BYRNE: In total Environmental Investigations, in the 1992-1993 budget you had $3,011,000. You've spent $1,224,300. In 1993-1994 we have $3,451,700. That's a 13 per cent increase from the 1992-1993 budget but a 35 per cent increase from what was actually spent in 1992-1993. Why budget so much if you only spent a third of it last year?

MS. COWAN: Dave.

MR. JEANS: Again, that total there reflects the money that is intended to be spent this year in the contaminated sites program.

MR. J. BYRNE: It was intended to be spent last year but wasn't spent?

MR. JEANS: But wasn't spent because of difficulties in concluding the agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, okay. Page 91, under Civil and Sanitary Environmental Engineering. Salaries again. They went from... let me see here now. Budgeted $142,900, spent $105,200, and we now have $132,500 budgeted. That's a 20 per cent increase from what was actually spent last year. Are there any new employees or anything involved here?

MR. JEANS: Yes, that's a new employee who was approved for this year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Another one on page 92. Administration, number .09. Allowances and Assistance. It's budgeted for 1992-1993 at $30,000, spent $15,000. We have $30,000 budgeted again this year. Why would that be? I'm thinking along the lines now of the deficit and all the money on cutbacks and everything like that.

MS. COWAN: Go ahead, Dave.

MR. JEANS: I believe that's the one for the bursary program. Yes, for bursary program for graduate engineering students to take a Master's and get their Master's in water resources. An agreement that they then work for the department for a period of time. We only had one employee even though we budgeted for two.

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 95, under Environmental Assessment, 2.5.02, salaries again. We had budgeted $277,000 in 1992-1993, spent $307,600. We spent more than what was budgeted. Yet for 1993-1994 we budgeted $248,500, which is less than what was budgeted for last year. We spent more (inaudible) in the budget for last year. Are we looking at layoffs this year in that department or section? It's kind of contradictory to me.

MR. FLEMING: That is caused by the fact that we took on extra employees in environmental assessment to look after the volume of registrations that we were getting. It also reflects the fact that we took on some staff to do research related to the review of environmental assessment that the minister referred to earlier.

MR. J. BYRNE: That was temporary staff for 1992-93, was it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can ask that question and then your time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I am sorry. Was that temporary staff you are referring to now?

MR. FLEMING: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: So they are let go and back to - okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Young.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you. I am just wondering how many orphan sites there are in this Province at this given time?

MR. JEANS: We have, I believe it is five on the list at the present time.

MS. YOUNG: When do you expect to have these sites cleaned up?

MR. JEANS: Well the program is scheduled to end now in 1995. It was meant to be a five year program. In the first year, no provinces virtually got going on it. So, there is still hope that it will be extended beyond perhaps another year but as it presently stands it is 1995.

MS. YOUNG: Under Surface Water, the figure of $417,000 -

MS. COWAN: Could you tell me the page?

MS. YOUNG: Oh, I am sorry. I was just making notes for myself. I will have to go back -

MS. COWAN: Ninety-two is it?

MS. YOUNG: Ninety-two, yes. Under Surface Water, the figure of $417,200 for Professional Services, I am just wondering what services are required that are not available within the department? What special services?

MR. JEANS: I believe that is in relation to some of the federal shared programs that we have, a Hydrometric Program. Hydrometric which is a water monitoring agreement with the federal government and I believe that is reflected in that particular vote.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you. One more question, how closely does your department work with wildlife? For example, I am thinking of endangered species, such as the pine marten. When the species becomes extinct, of course there is an upset in the balance of nature. Just last evening I went out to my district and there was the opening of the Wildlife Interpretation Centre and I began to think - well you know, having been involved with the Round Table, so forth and so on, I wonder what role could your department play in such a centre? How much cooperation is there between departments? I am thinking specifically of wildlife and environment to ensure that the public awareness is raised as to what happens when we lose some of our wildlife, when it is gone forever. Do you work closely with wildlife?

MS. COWAN: I am just trying to think how to phrase the answer. It is their responsibility - every department has a responsibility for sustainable development and has a responsibility for a commitment to the environment. There is liaison between the departments, just how it takes place between wildlife and our department, I am not sure. I think that out of the Round Tables work there is going to come probably advice to government to consider the interplay of all species, plant life, animal life or whatever it is. At this point in time I would say that we do not focus probably enough on the interplay of various species. What happens for example if all of the codfish are gone, how does that affect other parts of the sea. Now that would be a federal responsibility in that case but that comes to mind, so that is something that I believe will be focused on by the Round Table and be made more a focal point for government, but John might want to comment about the actual liaison between our department and not just perhaps wildlife, but other departments as well, where there is an impact on the environment.

MR. FLEMING: We work quite closely with a number of other departments and perhaps especially wildlife, and I think where we come together most frequently and most intensively is through the environmental assessment process, and the pine marten problem that you mentioned is a good example in that respect. There has been an environmental assessment ongoing for several years in the Little Grand Lake area, and the environmental assessment itself has now evolved into the model forest project with which we are involved with wildlife, with forestry, with federal agencies and are all aimed at sustaining the pine marten, as well as forest harvesting kinds of activities.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, I would point out to the committee that it is now ten o'clock. I have one more member who indicated he wants to speak and as we said at the start we are going to try and clue this up tonight.

Now if we can get an agreement that there will be one speaker or two speakers or three speakers, then we can start calling the heads and we can go on; if not, you know the three hours are up and we have no agreement that we will clue up tonight. I think that someone should move the adjournment of the committee, and then move to sit again at some date later on, but if we can come to an agreement that we will clue up within a reasonable time, and I get a list of the people who want to speak now, then we can go on and then we will know when we can start calling the heads, so I have Mr. Harris as the next speaker, is there anyone else who wants to speak?

Mr. Byrne and then that will complete it? Alright.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: I was just thinking of moving adjournment myself, Mr. Chairman, unless, if everybody is satisfied to go on. I am, but if it is only myself and Jack who want to speak, I am happy to go on, but normally do not like to go beyond the set hours, but if we can clue up in twenty minutes, I guess we may as well.

I wanted to follow up on one of the questions that the Member for St. John's East Extern asked about the environmental pollution clean up, the so-called orphan sites, and we see that during the 1992-93 fiscal year, there was, I was going to say no money spent but very little of the money budgeted was spent or $2 million less than was budgeted was spent, and is that money lost or are we talking about a situation where these clean-up activities were delayed? May I have an answer to that question?

MS. COWAN: It is simply a matter in this case, that it was delayed. Money has been allotted for over a certain number of years and it will be spent to clean up the orphan sites.

MR. HARRIS: So if we had spent that money in 92-93, would there be more available under this program as Mr. Jeans pointed out?

MS. COWAN: That meets our requirement, does it?

MR. JEANS: No, Mr. Harris. The money is allotted and although we did not spend it last year, we hope to spend it this year. We will get no more out of the pot at the present time.

MR. HARRIS: I want to ask a question on the pollution monitoring and particularly as we have seen examples in Come By Chance and in the Holyrood generating station, of pollution monitoring exceeding standards and particularly in the Come By Chance situation those reports, not necessarily getting to the government in timely fashion, and I brought up the question in the House this Spring as to whether or not the government would consider, instead of having these companies, or some of these companies, do their own monitoring, have the government do the monitoring and have these companies pay the government the cost of doing that. I want to know whether the government is considering changing the approach to that. I see, for example, there is a new Come By Chance area proposal having to do with cogeneration of oil, and using oil to produce electricity, etc., and one of the parts of their proposals, again, is that they carry out their own monitoring of air pollution and air quality levels.

Is the government considering, as part of environmental requirements for new projects and for existing projects, a monitoring system run by the department and paid for by the organizations producing the problems?

MS. COWAN: We expect them to do their own monitoring, Mr. Harris, keeping within the regulations that are set by government. That is our role, to set the regulations. Our role is also to -I do not say monitor their monitoring - but to continually get reports from them, do our own spot checks from time to time to see if we feel it is accurate.

One of the things that we have done to help us in this process is to hire these consultants who are going to Come By Chance to see if they can help us in expediting this process, not only in the company's methods of monitoring, but also in our methods of assessing the monitoring to see if it is indeed being done properly and effectively, and giving us the information that we should have, and keeping within the regulatory limits.

MR. HARRIS: What you are saying in your answer, and I do not have to do very much to read between the lines, what you are saying, I guess, is what I am saying - that they cannot be trusted to do a proper job or - I am not suggesting they are dishonest, but obviously the department feels they must check up on the monitoring process.

In view of that experience that you have had, why does the government not actually change the process and say: Okay, the monitoring must be done. You must pay for it. We will do it, and it will save money because we will not have to monitor the monitoring now. We will just do the monitoring and you will pay for it because it needs to be done.

MS. COWAN: I think our aim, Mr. Harris, is to bring the company within the regulatory requirements, and our focus is on that. Once they are brought within the - like you do not have to be doing constant, constant, constant monitoring. If that becomes a problem then one has to look into the seriousness of a company and whether it should be closed or not. So I do not think it is a necessity for government to be doing the monitoring. I think it can be done very effectively by the companies, with effective reporting methods to government, and with our checking periodically to see that the methods that are being used by the company are meeting the regulatory requirements in the Province.

MR. HARRIS: Minister, in your dealing with, once again what seems to me to be a large number of sites, these small hydroelectric project sites, not only with them, I guess, but with the whole environmental assessment process, there is an awfully large onus on the public who may have an interest in participating in the environmental process, to come forward, to have the knowledge, to have the expertise, to be able to play a role in these assessments. There seems to be almost no ability to meaningfully participate in those unless you do have lots of money.

I am sure, for example, if the Long Harbour project is ever put into a proposal to the government that in order to counter that, or respond to it, would require a lot of money. I know that the people who are interested in the small hydro sites from an environmental or wilderness point of view do not have the money to monitor and track down all of these different proposals that are on the go. Does your department consider providing money for people who want to participate in the environmental assessment process?

MS. COWAN: What we have been doing to date is making ourselves available in areas where there are people who indicate that they wish to have some input into the process. For example, in the Torrent River appraisal there are groups in, I believe, is it Corner Brook? Yes, Corner Brook. That have expressed an interest in having input into that. So we are arranging for the appropriate people to be in Corner Brook to talk about the Torrent River project with those individuals and to have an interchange with them.

MR. HARRIS: These are just governmental officials. Let's say, for example, I was interested in the Pipers Hole project and I really didn't think that I had the ability to participate meaningfully. If there was a group of people who wanted to put forth an intervention would the government consider providing funding for an intervention?

MS. COWAN: Provide funding for them to do a study, you mean, or to provide...? I don't know what you mean.

MR. HARRIS: To have their own evaluation or perhaps their own research done or representation or whatever at a hearing.

MS. COWAN: Certainly not at this particular time.

MR. HARRIS: Happens all over the place. It happens in Ontario as a matter of course. It's not an NDP proposal. It's been happening for years.

MS. COWAN: Yes, well, our -

MR. HARRIS: The environmental process. It happens in Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta.

MS. COWAN: Fine. We are looking at our environmental assessment process, as I've mentioned before. Whether or not a recommendation for that type of thing might be forthcoming we'll have to see. Certainly there's a greater and greater desire for the public to have input. We're going to have to make ways and means of letting people express themselves. So we'll see what comes out of the environmental assessment, the review of that. I'll certainly take your comments into consideration.

MR. HARRIS: Who's doing that assessment of the assessment process?

MS. COWAN: The review of the assessment process? Would you rather it wasn't done?

MR. HARRIS: I don't know. Who's doing it, is the question. Is there someone doing it? If there are some people doing it, just who they are.

MS. COWAN: No, you seem to be rather facetious about this assessment of the assessment. It seems to me that we should be being applauded for the fact that we are trying to keep our environmental assessment process as current and up to date as possible, and not be ridiculed for the fact that we are looking at it. I'm sure Mr. Harris if we were not looking at it you would be the first person out of your seat and demanding that we do look at it. I mean, you're expressing right now a concern that you want us to look at it. Obviously then you have concerns about it. I would suggest that your facetious comments are inappropriate.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps you could answer the question then as to who's doing the review.

MS. COWAN: We've already answered the question once. I'll ask my Deputy Minister to repeat himself, please.

MR. FLEMING: The review is being done internally by our department and the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. HARRIS: Is there a committee?

MR. FLEMING: Not a committee as such. It's being done generally under the structure set up to implement the Strategic Economic Plan. So there is an implementation committee for the Strategic Economic Plan and the people in our two departments who are looking at that are reporting to that committee.

MR. HARRIS: So there's an implementation committee for the Strategic Economic Plan within your department. That's the committee that's doing this review of the process.

MR. FLEMING: As I say, there are some people within our department and people within the Economic Recovery Commission who are looking at it. There are other departments brought into it as necessary as well.

MR. HARRIS: My time is up, is it? Well, okay.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) doing this by agreement. If Mr. Harris just wants another minute or two to finish that point we could give leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. I wanted to find out if there's a committee, a specific named committee, that's the implementation committee for the Strategic Economic Plan within your department. One of their tasks is to review the process.

MR. FLEMING: One of the actions under the Strategic Economic Plan was to undertake a review of the environmental assessment process. That is being done jointly by our department and the Economic Recovery Commission.

MR. HARRIS: There's a specific committee set up to do that task.

MR. FLEMING: I wouldn't call it a committee. There are individuals in our department and in the Economic Recovery Commission who are doing it, working together.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I have one more question and I will ask leave of the committee to do it, it is slightly different from that but it does relate to the small hydro projects. The small hydro projects and five megawatts seems to be the number that I see from time to time used to talk about these projects, the small hydro projects that are using up sites to produce electricity. I have in front of me a figure or a table, actually it comes out of something that was presented to your department by an environmental consultant on another project but in it is contained the mean wind speeds at the St. John's airport for a twenty-five year period, showing that the average wind speed all year around is fairly consistent actually from one month to the next, it is between 25 and 30 kilometres per hour, the average wind speed, that is the wind in all directions. It strikes me that this is an area of a generation of electricity for example that could be productive of electricity without the polluting effects of an oil or gas generation which we are doing and also without the lost and cost to our environment of these small hydro sites for what may be very little return in terms of electricity.

I saw the other day that Hydro Quebec for example, is now asking for proposals for a five megawatt, the exact same number that we seem to be using here, a five megawatt wind generating station in the Magdalen Islands. I am wondering whether your department feels it plays any role in promoting this kind of environmentally sensitive alternative type of generation of electricity, as opposed to the once and forever I suppose, of hydro damming up of resources or the continued additions to the Holyrood generating station that we have? Is this something that your department is concerned about? Is there any mechanism within your department to promote these kind of alternative methods of producing electricity?

MS. COWAN: It is not something that the department has had to concern itself with because the Department of Mines and Energy are already doing it. They have an area, division I guess or personnel that look at alternate energy sources and are exploring that area. So, that has been ongoing in the Department of Mines and Energy for awhile now.

MR. J. BYRNE: Back to the nitty-gritty. Page 96, Environmental Impact Management, salaries again; in 1992-93, $113,600, spent $57,600, budgeted $140,000 for 1993-94 which is 2.5 times almost, what was actually spent. New employees, people being hired on or -what is the story on that?

MS. COWAN: Okay, the increase there is due to a transfer of the position of a surveillance officer from the environmental assessment but it would seem to me to be more than that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, it would.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Fleming.

MR. FLEMING: The reason that the revised figure is down so much, actually is because we had a vacancy, actually a death, and a position became vacant, and the reason that it is up this year compared with the original Budget figures, is because it is a transferred position that the minister referred to.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. Mr. Harris did address some of my concerns, but a couple more, page 98 on the bottom, Cottage and Land Development, the ADM should address this. $200,000 budgeted for 93-94, does that include road construction in those cottages or is that all encompassing for the whole project?

MS. COWAN: Ms. Wakeham will you take that up?

MS. WAKEHAM: The $200,000 is all inclusive in terms of design, lay out and construction.

MR. J. BYRNE: And construction?

MS. VERGE: Will the minister or her officials make available to us a list of the areas which are going to have cottage lot developments this year?

MR. J. BYRNE: Proposed.

MS. WAKEHAM: We have only one that is completely planned right now. We are in the process of three or four other areas at the moment. We will make it available once we have a schedule, okay, because of the way the process works in terms of the actual design, then approval for the ILUC committee, then it goes back for refinement before it actually goes into implementation, so -

MS. VERGE: Without knowing the exact schedule, would you tell us the areas you are now working on for the government?

MS. WAKEHAM: Okay. There are four regional offices and each of the four regional offices do their own identification in terms of landfill. I can give you the ones that we completed last year, the 92 process and the reason I am saying this is because the design and the approval would have gone through but not necessarily the availability of the lots themselves, because the overall construction would not have been completed, but if you want a list of the ones that we -

MS. VERGE: Last year, twelve months ago, the minister and staff gave the committee the areas proposed for cottage lot development, last year, so I have that in the record of last year's meeting. I am looking for the areas that are proposed for development this year.

MS. WAKEHAM: What I am explaining is that, the cottage lot development is not a finite activity that fits within a one-year time frame. You can do the design in one year but it may not necessarily get to the approval and the completion phase, okay? So you may have an overlap of two years in terms of the design. Some of the lots that were designed in '92 that became available were started in '91, some of the ones that were completed and approved in 92 are available in 93. I can give you those ones, I cannot give you the lots for 93.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. I think what Ms. Verge might be looking for is the proposed developments. It may be at the very beginning stages.

MS. VERGE: Yes. We have the names of the areas that were in process last year and I understand some of them are still being worked on. What I am looking for is the new areas.

MS. WAKEHAM: The new areas are still in the identification phase.

MR. J. BYRNE: Once they have been identified as to location, then you would be putting a proposal forward to go ahead with that. At that point in time, the proposed developments for -

MS. WAKEHAM: They will be made available -

MR. J. BYRNE: - this year or next year.

MS. WAKEHAM: - but I do not have - the one that is available right now that has been completed and ready for' 93, which was not identified in '92 is the Goulds Pond, which is close to Ocean Pond. That one is available, that one has just gone through the process. There will most likely be four to five sites identified. Some of those sites would be infilling sites on existing cottage developments but they will be new additional sites and extensions to existing ones.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Byrne.

MS. WAKEHAM: I am sorry I cannot give you the names.

MS. VERGE: I am still not really satisfied with that because last year, your predecessor, Bob Winsor, took us region by region and listed the areas that were under development whether in the planning, design or construction phases and I am simply looking for the same information for this year.

MS. WAKEHAM: I am prepared to make available to the committee the ones that are being planned, but I do not have that information here right now, but we will make it available.

MS. VERGE: Okay, for example last year - this is Hansard - Mr. Robert Winsor started off with the eastern region. He said: In the eastern region we are looking at Goulds Pond, Beaver Pond, Hell Hill Pond - I had to get him to spell that - and on and on. He took us region by region.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wakeham said she would get the information, so there is not much point in prolonging the discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: On page 100, Topographic Mapping, 3.3.03, salaries, in 1992-'93 we had $62,900 revised to $64,000. The budget this year was $101,300, which is a 37 per cent increase, I believe, from what was actually spent last year. Is this for new employees who would be hired on, be actually doing work in-house that could be competing with private industry?

MS. WAKEHAM: 3.3.03 in salaries, the increase is due to the transfer of an Engineer III position from geodetic and legal surveys. This position had previously been abolished. The salary deduction was taken from geodetic and legal surveys in error originally back in the first one, okay? So there was an error; it was adjusted, and it was replaced back, so that is why you are seeing the differences.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well the only difference I really see is from what was spent and budgeted last year to the 37 per cent increase this year. There is not a large amount, then a smaller amount, then a larger amount again. It is just one big jump.

MS. WAKEHAM: No, no. What -

MR. J. BYRNE: Topographic Mapping, salaries.

MS. WAKEHAM: Yes, 3.3.03.

MR. J. BYRNE: Section 1, salaries.

MS. WAKEHAM: Section 1, salaries, okay, and the increase in 1993-'94 estimates is due to the transfer of an Engineer III position from geodetic and legal surveys to topographic mapping.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Byrne.

I will now ask the Clerk to start calling the heads. Would you start? You want to call the works, okay?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I ask for the motion to adjourn, I would like to thank the minister and her staff for coming here tonight and providing the answers. Maybe all of us are not satisfied with the answers, but you have provided the answers.

I would now like to thank the members of the committee for providing the questions, and the ones that you feel you have not received the answers for, you will have time in the House during the Budget Debate and during Question Period to question the minister further. Thank you for coming.

Before I call for the motion to adjourn, I would point out that our next meeting is Monday, May 31, at 7:00 p.m. in the Colonial Building, and we will be meeting the Minister of Education and his committee. For the new members - you will get a little study in history - we will be in the Colonial Building, so it will be nice for everybody.

I now call for a motion to adjourn.

On motion, committee adjourned.