April 26, 1994                                                   SOCIAL SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE


 

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Dr. Bud Hulan, M.H.A. (St. George's) substitutes for Oliver Langdon, M.H.A. (Fortune - Hermitage), and Lloyd Matthews, M.H.A. (St. John's North) substitutes for Caroline Young, M.H.A. (Terra Nova).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): Order, please!

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I will call this meeting to order now. Tonight we are doing the estimates of the Department of Environment and Lands. Before we start there are a couple of little things that we are going to be doing. I would ask that someone make a motion that we adopt the minutes of the previous meeting. I understand there is an error. The Clerk tells me that she will fix it and make sure that Mr. Hodder gets his due rewards or whatever to show that he was here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just desserts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: His just desserts, yes.

Anyhow, as you know the Committee operates with the minister being asked to make an opening statement and she has up to fifteen minutes. The critic for the Opposition - and who is going to do that tonight? Ms. Verge, is it? Yes. - has an equal amount of time to respond. Then we go to the ten minute stages and I will recognize the members if they want to speak. I will keep a note of them and recognize them in the order that they signify they want to speak.

Normally we try to get through those meetings in the three hour period. A little later on we will determine if we are going to be able to do this tonight and then we will make the decision. If we can clue up around 10:00 p.m., fine; if not we will clue up at 10:00 p.m. to meet again another day.

With that I would like at this time to welcome Minister Cowan and her staff. I would ask her to introduce her officials. I would say to the officials, if they are called upon to speak at any time during the night they should identify themselves before they speak. Because most of the people who are transcribing this, they recognize the voices of the people on this side, but they wouldn't recognize you people. I would ask you to identify yourself before you speak. Maybe all the members of the Committee are not known, so it is customary that the Committee introduces itself and then I will ask the minister to introduce herself and say a few words.

My name is David Gilbert, I'm the MHA for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, Humber East.

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

DR. HULAN: Bud Hulan, St. George's.

MR. HODDER: Harvey Hodder, Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Lloyd Matthews, St. John's North.

MR. WHELAN: Don Whelan, Harbour Main.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now the minister.

MS. COWAN: Okay. Patt Cowan, Minister of Environment and Lands, MHA for Conception Bay South. I have with me my Deputy Minister John Fleming, on my immediate right. Next to him is Barbara Wakeham who is a Deputy Minister of Lands. On my left is David Jeans, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment, and behind me, our financial person, is Frank Harris.

I'm not going to speak at length tonight, Chairperson, because I have in the past and I think most of the people on the Committee have heard me several times now talk about the role of my department, the various divisions that we have in the department, and so on. I'm sure that other things will come out in the questions that follow. Just to briefly say that I'm pleased with the activities that the department has undertaken during the past year, and extremely excited and pleased about some of the initiatives that we will be undertaking in the coming year as a result of this particular budget, in which I feel I was fairly fortunate to be able to hire some individuals who we've needed for some time in the Industrial Division and for Waste Management and in the Lands Division. Certainly I would be pleased to elaborate on any of their roles as time passes.

I think that probably the highlights of the past few months have been the launching of the ATV regulations; the derelict vehicle legislation is proving to be quite successful; and we have been quite rigorous I think in starting to prosecute - not starting, but continuing - to prosecute individuals who are committing crimes against the environment. I think we've gone up in the number of charges laid by about 400 per cent and in the areas where we have decided to fine and so on I think it is significant and I hope that it will cause people to be more aware of different regulations and so on that we have.

I think perhaps I will leave it at that, Chair, and if then Ms. Verge wants to use some of my time, you may -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge will use her own time.

MS. COWAN: Oh, she will. Well Chair, I don't mean to take the role of the Chair, pardon me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you are finished -

MS. COWAN: Yes, I think I am finished and I will probably have lots of time to speak later, should I need to fill anybody in on anything that I think is necessary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you and I would like to thank the minister for her opening remarks.

I intend to make relatively brief comments on a few topics that I consider important beginning with some broad aspects of environmental protection and will then pause for the minister's answers or re-action.

Last year I expressed concerns that the amount budgeted for spending by the Department of Environment and Lands for the 92-93 fiscal year which was $12.5 million, ended up with spending far below that, the amount actually spent was some $3 million less for the 92-93 fiscal year. I see the same happening in the 93-94 fiscal year - actually I think I confused the figures for the years but the point is, for two years in a row, government budgeted far more for spending by the Department of Environment and Lands than the department actually spent and in particular the amount originally earmarked for environmental management and control or environmental protection was not met, in fact actual spending fell far below the amount originally estimated.

Talking to people working in the field of environmental protection and private citizens, who as volunteers are advocates of stronger efforts to preserve the environment and to clean up contamination and pollution, all tell me that we seem to be losing ground, that the effort is not nearly great enough, so I would like the minister's re-action to spending by her department falling far, far below that originally forecast for two years in a row and I will give you the exact figures now. For 93-94, the last fiscal year, the original estimate for the department was $12.2 million and the amount actually spent, the revised figure, was $9.7 million. For the year before that, the original estimate was $12.5 million and the amount actually spent was $9.5 million, so for two years running there has been a drastic variance between what was budgeted and what was actually spent. I would like the minister to explain why that is, in light of all the unmet needs.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to do that now? Okay. Believe me, Ms. Verge, if I had that $3 million to spend, I would have been glad to spend it. It was money that was put aside for the contaminated sites agreement in which we are participating with the federal government and unfortunately, it has not been realized. Now it should be in this Budget year, the sites have been identified, work was done over the summer doing the preliminary work that's necessary so that this coming summer the contamination will be dealt with and disposed of appropriately.

Believe me, if the $3 million had been there, budgeted for some other purpose, I am sure it would have been used up without any problem at all because I certainly agree with you that there are many areas in the Province where we do need that infusion of funds. That is the explanation for that.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The environmental assessment process. Last year at the estimates committee I expressed concerns of mine, shared by many in the Province, concern about environmental protection. That the assessment process is stacked in favour of proponents.

MS. COWAN: Proponents?

MS. VERGE: Proponents of development. I expressed concern that little or no funding is provided for private citizens or environmental protection groups intervening in the process. The onus is on anyone concerned about a proposal to pay for their own studies or their own intervention. Most private citizens and most environmental activists simply can't afford to participate at the same level as proponents. Many of us were alarmed therefore when we heard the Speech from the Throne at the end of February signalling an intention on the part of the Wells government to: "[transform] this Province into one of the most attractive locations in North America..." Not for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not for the people who live here but "...for business investment..."

Then we heard the declaration that the government intends to introduce reform in respect of the provincial environmental assessment process, not in the interest of improving environmental protection but to deal with unnecessarily burdensome aspects for economic development, especially in terms of the length of time necessary to make decisions on individual project proposals.

This is an indication that a bad environmental assessment process may become worse. I'm wondering how the minister feels about this and if she has any intention to see that any change of the environmental assessment process strengthens the chances for meaningful participation of environment activists and for the furtherance of what should be the fundamental objective of the department - of protecting the environment.

MS. COWAN: First of all, I would share the same concern that you had when I first was aware that this was something that had been recommended by the Strategic Economic Plan. However, I became quite satisfied when I was assured that we would open this process not only to business for their comments and their suggestions as to how we can improve it, but we would also call upon environmental groups to come in and put forward their concerns as well. The Premier has said on many occasions that while we want to make it easier for business to establish itself in the Province and to streamline regulations to make them less onerous, that regulations regarding health, safety and the environment will not be weakened. I'm quite satisfied.

Now we aren't finished, we are still working on it. I cannot at this time tell you what was in some of the suggestions but it is largely to get rid of some of the unnecessary red tape. We found when we talked to the majority of business people that they didn't have a lot of problems with the environmental assessment as it was, but just that some times it was a bit confusing and they needed a little more guidance as to going through and so on. The environmental network has worked with a number of groups in their particular area and has given us a report again which I guess isn't public at this stage. So you can be quite sure that the environmental group would bring forward the whole idea of paying people to come in and - what is it we call it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Intervenor funding.

MS. COWAN: Intervenor funding. Whether or not now we will go that way, that is certainly going to be looked at.

MS. VERGE: Would the minister explain what red tape businesses have expressed objections to her concerns about?

MS. COWAN: I don't think that probably at this particular time. I can't go into detail until it's gone through all the proper processes within government and the committees and what have you, but I think that some people found it a little hard to decipher and so on exactly what was expected of them, and maybe would have preferred if we would have someone there to guide them through the process rather than kind of say: This is what you have to do, now do it; and leave them sort of at loose ends. Would that be accurate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes.

I think that's about all I could say at this particular time. I can tell you that I certainly share your concern and will certainly, as Minister of Environment and Lands, do all I can to make sure that it's extremely protective of the environment, but I feel that I have the backing of all my colleagues in that particular area. So you will have to wait and see now when you can criticize, because I guess it will come to the House again.

MS. VERGE: When does the minister expect a bill to come to the House?

MS. COWAN: I don't know. Our department is not doing the actual preparation of it.

MS. VERGE: That's what I was afraid of. Who is preparing it?

MS. COWAN: It will go through the whole Cabinet procedure. Who is actually preparing it?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are involved with it.

MS. COWAN: We are involved with it, of course.

MS. VERGE: But who is taking the lead role?

MS. COWAN: The lead person is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Okay.

MS. VERGE: But which department, or which minister -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible) comment here.

MS. VERGE: Which minister, which department, has taken the lead in preparing this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: You mean the Minister of Environment and Lands doesn't know which minister or department has taken the lead in preparing legislation to reform the environmental assessment process?

MS. COWAN: It's coming through the Strategic Economic Plan, Intergovernmental Affairs and Planning and Priority, but we are party to all the work that is going on.

MS. VERGE: Well I would hope so. Is it the Premier who is taking the lead in this?

MS. COWAN: The Premier is the minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs.

MS. VERGE: But why is this an Intergovernmental Affairs matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Oh, yes, it's all environmental.

MS. VERGE: What does this have to do with Intergovernmental Affairs?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: It's the Cabinet Secretariat, excuse me, that is responsible for it.

MS. VERGE: No, it's the elected politicians, the Cabinet Ministers who are responsible. The Cabinet Secretariat are simply staff.

MS. COWAN: It would be the Premier, through the Strategic Economic Plan.

MS. VERGE: So basically the Department of Environment and Lands has been marginalized in the process of reforming the provincial environmental assessment folio?

MS. COWAN: No, no, I wouldn't say that at all. The assignment was given to a particular individual in the resource policy area, which is the area that environment sits in in the committee structure, and that individual was given the task of going over the assessment plan, interviewing various parties that were interested in it, and then brought it back - went through environment as well, and...

MS. VERGE: So one of the Premier's staff did the consultation; one of the Executive Council staff did the consultation?

MS. COWAN: Well, that's not uncommon. Ministers usually have somebody do their work for them. I mean, that's one of the advantages of being a minister.

MS. VERGE: I believe that it's not uncommon, but it's a symptom of what's radically wrong with this government.

MS. COWAN: Am I supposed to do it myself, personally?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Oh, I see.

MS. VERGE: Who was consulted?

MS. COWAN: I don't have a list of those people with me.

MS. VERGE: What environmental groups were consulted?

MS. COWAN: Again, we asked the environmental network to do it. They represent all the environmental groups in the Province, and provide us, actually, with a good umbrella group to turn to. Government uses them fairly frequently now when we need input on environmental issues. So they choose, then, what groups they will speak to within their network, and develop for us a paper.

MS. VERGE: So it was the environmental network that the Premier's staff talked to, was it?

MS. COWAN: That is when of the groups. When we wanted the input from the environmental groups in the Province that was the way we chose to go about it. The business people, I do not know how they were chosen.

MS. VERGE: What about the general public? Will they get a chance to have input when the bill is drafted? Will there be public hearings on the draft legislation?

MS. COWAN: Again, that is a decision that will have to be made at the Cabinet level. It has not been made yet.

MS. VERGE: What happened to the round table on the environment? Have they ever contributed anything?

MS. COWAN: They are reviewing that as well. When it is ready they will be having a look at it and giving their input as well.

MS. VERGE: Have they done anything since they were set up three, four, or five years ago?

MS. COWAN: At the moment they are working on looking at a program for sustainable development within the Province.

MS. VERGE: Have they produced anything on paper? Has the round table on the environment produced any report or any recommendation?

MS. COWAN: Well, they report to the Premier once a year on what is going on. They have been working on the sustainable thing for two years now but it is not ready yet for publication. It is quite a major undertaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms Verge your time has expired.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Ms. Cowan, I believe you mentioned that on the environmental side one of the groups you approached for assistance in the review of the environmental assessment was the environment network, and they designate the people to be involved on their side. I gather from correspondence which I have received a copy of, that the environment network has designated a group called the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislation Caucus to be their, I think they call them the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislation Caucus under the auspices of the Newfoundland and Labrador environment network contracted by the Department of Environment and Lands to conduct the consultation amongst the environmental community.

One of the questions they had, and I raise it here because I do not think it has really been answered. Ms Verge asked you what concerns there were about the environmental process. Can you tell me who has identified the flaws in it other than the fellow who wants to dumped garbage in -

MS. COWAN: Do not assume it was a chap.

MR. HARRIS: It was a chap, this particular guy. He has a man's name anyway. I have never met the man.

MS. COWAN: Who are you talking about?

MR. HARRIS: The fellow who wants to turn the Shefferville mine into a waste disposal facility. He is a chap as I understand it. I do not know the man and have never met him but he talks like a man and has a man's name. Other than him who is complaining about the fact that he had to spend money to comply with the process, what specific complaints are there about the fact that we have an environmental process, or about the process itself, and what exactly have you been told by individuals, or companies, as to what is wrong with it?

MS. COWAN: At this particular stage, Mr. Harris, I do not think it is appropriate for me to say because we are still working on it, and I do not want to start making it public for it to be knocked around when it is not all set down, clarified, and put into some sort of form that we can debate in the House of Assembly, or take to the public. The choice will be made but it will eventually come to the House of Assembly.

MR. HARRIS: Well, that focuses on my next point which is also the complaint of the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislation Caucus who in a letter to you dated March 30 said that to date the review of the legislation and process has been undertaken with a great deal of secrecy and that the concerns of government and industry have not been released to the public. They are very concerned, as am I, of the fact that you, in particular, as minister, and your department are keeping secret what considerations you have, and also they state that the results of what the consultation among environmental groups are also being considered confidential, what is going on in your department that has to be kept so secret about a public consultation process, about a matter of concern of the environment and a concern of everybody in the Newfoundland and Labrador? This ought to be a public process and I would like to hear what explanation you have as minister, as to why a legislative process which has been a matter of public discussion, that consultation about it, and if there are problems with it that haven't been identified publicly, why is it being kept secret?

MS. COWAN: There is no secret at all. We have told the public that we are doing it; it's not inappropriate and not a new step in any way to do a considerable amount of homework before you make something public, and you know, we don't want to be developing it in a public forum at this particular stage. We are consulting with the appropriate groups, if and when the need comes to take it to the public then that will happen, but there is certainly no effort to be secret, the effort is to do a good job, to have our homework done, to look at the thing carefully and then proceed with public review or whatever the decision of Cabinet is to do.

MR. HARRIS: Well, how do you answer the concern expressed here? The environmental community is concerned that the environmental assessment process is seen as a hindrance to development and the driving force of this review is to simplify (streamline) the process at the expense of environmental protection. Now you started off this process Madam Minister, the Speech from the Throne brags about how the process is consultative with the environmental groups, they are all being involved, and yet the people who are involved are saying, No. 1) there is something wrong with the process because you are making it all secret and confidential, and you haven't even stated what the objections to the particular process are, and you are refusing to have a public process and even allow the concerns and the consultation of the environmental groups to be considered by the public. What is it that the department has to hide here?

MS. COWAN: If I were a member of a lobby group I would probably be doing the same thing, you know, lobbying government to let me see what they were doing and we have talked with the environmental network, we paid them to do the study, they acted as consultants for us and in good time they will be in a position where they will be able to make public comment, we will be able to make public comment. If some of the members of the environmental network are not pleased with how the environmental network is handling it, then that's their prerogative to raise it with the environmental network, not with me. Now, I may have misunderstood what you were saying but -

MR. HARRIS: Well if this is to be a public consultation process then why can't the concerns, if there are any, other than to get rid of the environmental assessment process, if that's the aim of the business community then we have a problem, but if they have concerns about particular aspects of it, why not have it discussed in a public debate about it, but this group says here: we feel the remaining stages of this process not be conducted behind closed doors but that all sectors of the public must have an opportunity for input before any changes to the act or process governing environmental assessment have been proposed or legislated by Cabinet.

Now that seems to me to be a fairly clear statement of a desire for a bit of transparency which governments like to talk about when they want to sound like they are being progressive, but in this particular case, your department and your government do not seem to be interested in letting the public know what you are up to.

MS. COWAN: First of all, there is no desire to get rid of the Environmental Assessment Act and to make that statement is totally erroneous and again designed to curry favour with environmental groups or to get them worried and scared or whatever, and I think it is a most inappropriate comment. There is no attempt to get rid of the environmental assessment process; my goodness, we are living in 1994 when everyone knows that every decision that's made -

MR. HARRIS: Well, what's wrong with it?

MS. COWAN: Just a moment, I am speaking -

MR. HARRIS: Now Clyde.

MS. COWAN: - the Chair did not recognize you.

MR. HARRIS: All the ministers seem to be adopting the Premier's attitude towards people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just confine your comments to the statement -

MS. COWAN: It's very difficult, Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me control the meeting, and then I will -

MS. COWAN: It's very difficult, Chair, when you hear something said that isn't true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I thought the minister should confine herself to the statement and let me conduct the meeting.

MS. COWAN: Okay. So am I on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MS. COWAN: I forgot what the next question was. Okay, I think I responded to them both, actually. Thanks, Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, you still have a minute or so.

MR. HARRIS: Do I have any more time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a minute.

MR. HARRIS: A minute? Okay.

Minister, I didn't say that they wanted to get rid of the Environmental Assessment Act, but that the process seems to be treated by some, in a general way, as a hindrance to development, and they might want to get rid of the environmental assessment process, not the act, as long as it can be made less troublesome to them, but in all unspecified ways, and that's the concern, I think, that's being expressed by the environmental community and the public, that they're not let in on these things. After the fact, a fait accompli is presented to the public, and the discussion or consultation or public debate that goes on doesn't go on until after a decision is made, and by then the government is committed to a position and, of course, the nature of politics being as it is, the government then defends it against all comers. You may want to comment about this again.

I am running out of time and I might as well use up the rest of my minute to say that it seems to me that if the government was interested in having a public consultation process before a decision was made, they would do it publicly, have the input, then make the decision, instead of having a private consultation, do what they are going to do behind closed doors, state the final result, and then put up with, I guess, the criticism that might come afterwards. That seems to me the wrong way to go if the government really wants to involve the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Minister?

MS. COWAN: No, I think he has made his point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: I have to come back to the same question, which is the environmental assessment process and the announcement in the Speech from the Throne at the end of February that the government, in the interest of opening up the Province to investors, is going to reform the environmental assessment process.

The Speech from the Throne makes two particular statements; one, that the provincial environmental assessment process as currently administered has, in some circumstances, become unnecessarily burdensome to economic development in the Province, especially in terms of the length of time necessary to make decisions on individual project proposals. That's the first statement and I will come back to that now in a minute.

The second is that consultations with all major stakeholders on the environmental assessment process have recently been concluded, and appropriate reforms to streamline the overall process will be proposed in the new bill.

MS. COWAN: Repeat that? I am sorry, Mr. Chair, I didn't hear that.

MS. VERGE: The second point -

MS. COWAN: I heard the first.

MS. VERGE: The second point in the Throne Speech is that consultations have been completed.

Now, on the matter of consultations, the minister is indicating that somebody in the Premier's office is still consulting, both environment groups and business people, although the Member for St. John's East is quoting the environment group named by the minister as having written her, expressing concerns about the secretive nature of the consultation process.

Is the consultation process still going on, as the minister earlier said, or was it over before the end of February, as stated in the Throne Speech?

MS. COWAN: First of all, in the first comment from the Speech from the Throne, the time frames are something that are being looked at, and that's the time frames as they impact on government. The proponent always has as much time as he or she or it needs to prepare information. The department itself, then, has under sometimes forty days, or whatever the period specified in the act, to get back to these individuals to say whether we'll move on to the next step or whether to free them up to begin their enterprise or whatever.

One of the main things there is, are we giving government itself too much time to fiddle around looking at all this stuff? It's not just the Department of Environment and Lands. We looked at the role of every department because often there are half-a-dozen departments involved in environmental assessment. We want to make sure that none of them are dawdling in their job, so that is an extremely important thing and puts the onus right back in the hands of government.

Re the consultation, it was finished with both of those, with the business group and with the environmental network, around the end of February, I believe, or early March. Someone is now doing internal work. We're working closely with them, from environment, intimately involved with the thing, so that there will be some sort of a document, then, to circulate through the committee process.

MS. VERGE: Okay. On the matter of consultation again, the minister mentioned two groups, the environmental network and the business group. I'm not familiar with the environmental network. Who are they?

MS. COWAN: I'm sorry?

MS. VERGE: Who are the environmental network?

MS. COWAN: The environmental network is a group that was established in the Province three or four years ago, I guess, and they represent a whole group of environmental activists and groups throughout the Province. For example, SNAGG is a member of it, the Humber group that's interested in forestry issues. Do you have a list of it there, Mr. Harris, of who is involved?

MR. HARRIS: The list of the members are not there, but the ones that I am aware of are the ones that you're mentioning, the group from Corner Brook, and -

MS. COWAN: Have you got a list or anything here? I don't suppose we have, no.

MS. VERGE: Actually, this is coming back to me now. I remember having heard about them before. I think they've had a couple of provincial conferences.

MS. COWAN: Yes, they're having another one, actually, very soon.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Now the minister -

MS. COWAN: Twenty-three groups he tells me here now, my deputy.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thanks. The minister mentioned -

MS. COWAN: Oh, and the consultations; altogether?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. COWAN: You mean not just the environmental.

AN HON. MEMBER: The environmental network had twenty-three.

MS. COWAN: Okay, the environmental network had twenty-three consultations. Now I would be glad to provide you with that list, if you would like. There is no problem with it, it's just that we don't have it with us.

MS. VERGE: List of groups or list of meetings?

MS. COWAN: List of groups.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MS. COWAN: Because I don't know what the environmental network did once we hired them to make the report.

MS. VERGE: The minister mentioned consultation with `the' business group. Would the minister explain who was in the business group?

MS. COWAN: I don't know how that was carried out; do you, deputy?

MR. FLEMING: The consultations with business groups were carried out jointly by our department and the Economic Recovery Commission, and it involved talking to a variety of people who have been involved with the environmental process from the business side, including proponents, consultants, and people like that. It was done over a period of time and all sort of in one fell swoop, if you will.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Were the proponents of the importation of foreign garbage and incineration or storage at Long Harbour, Baie Verte or Schefferville among the proponents consulted?

MR. FLEMING: I couldn't give you the list. I very much doubt that any of those were because I don't think that any of those projects were actually registered at that time.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

The minister mentioned that one of the issues identified for possible reform is the time limits on government, various departments of government, in their participation in the environmental assessment process. Which businesses or proponents complained about that?

MR. FLEMING: I couldn't tell you specifically because I don't know offhand, but the complaints about time frames have been one of the ongoing concerns, I guess, of proponents, so this is one of the issues that is being looked at in the overall review. The time frames, as the minister said, apply more on the government side than on the proponent side, and it is not uncommon for us on our side to actually slip those deadlines, and to go over the deadlines, so that is one of the concerns that is being looked at.

MS. VERGE: What effort is being made, I ask the minister, to ensure that any reform entails adequate time for members of the public and environment groups to participate in a meaningful way in the environmental assessment process?

MS. COWAN: You mean, will there be any change in the time we have for public...

MS. VERGE: Yes. One concern I would have about shortening time frames is that citizens and volunteer groups will be shortchanged. They obviously face the challenges of both time and money, and for the most part are mounting the effort. They are on a purely voluntary basis.

MS. COWAN: First of all, when you open up a process like this you open up everything. We could find that it comes up short environmentally, that it should be stronger environmentally. We could find out we need more time, but one of the things I would like to say about this whole process, and has been very reassuring to me as the Minister of Environment and Lands, and I am sure to you the government, I believe, who brought in the Environmental Assessment Act, that in actual fact it is a pretty good act and it is working fairly well, and the majority of people are very comfortable with it.

In 1994 we do need to have a look at it and perhaps see if there are things happening. I have heard time and time again, and I am sure the others have, that environment is holding up development in this Province, but in many cases it is showing that environment is not holding up development in the Province, which has been very reassuring to me. The assessment of the thing, I think, is going to be positive and that is the thing we should focus on.

The Act is ten years old, is it not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. COWAN: So it was certainly time that we had a look at it again.

MS. VERGE: I want to ask about three specific widely feared projects, namely the implication, storage or incineration of foreign garbage or hazardous waste material at Shefferville, Baie Verte, and Long Harbour.

MS. COWAN: First of all I will start at Long Harbour which is the easiest thing to do. There has been nothing happen on that. There has been months now since I heard even any rumblings about it so certainly for the time being it would appear not to be a project that is forthcoming, but again the proponents could change their minds, I suppose, any time.

As to the two projects in Labrador, I will just get my notes here to see exactly where we are in different stages of the environmental assessment. The Winikoff proposal is the one to bring in just general waste. They were not clear enough really on just what waste they were going to bring in so that is one of the things that we are asking for more information on, but the terms of reference for the environmental impact statement, and we did ask for the full in-depth study on the Winikoff proposal, that is the Shefferville one.

They were issued on March 1, 1994 and to this point in time we have not heard back from the proponent at all, so we do not know where we really stand. We can anticipate various things but until we hear back from them there is not much we can do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. VERGE: What about Baie Verte?

MS. COWAN: Do you want the other one in Labrador, too?

MS. VERGE: Okay.

MS. COWAN: That is the Hollinger one. There are similar projects, Hollinger North, the environmental impact statement was ordered on Janaury 22. The guidelines have been issued by me on October 28. We have some provisional terms of reference that were given to us by the Hollinger group and we are not satisfied with those so they have to continue working on them, so it is a ways from having either a yes or no.

MS. VERGE: And Baie Verte?

MS. COWAN: That is closer to having a decision made. We are waiting at this stage for the proponent to bring back a revision of the environmental project report. There were a number of things we were not satisfied with. For example, the monitoring of the asbestos waste that would come into the Province. We wanted more detail on that, so I guess the ball is in the court of all of those groups at the moment to bring back things to us or to decide against even going any further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. We have had a lot of discussion on the environmental assessment so I will move on to something else.

Many, many years ago, the government of the day, 1924 to be exact, gave control over the land where the St. John's regional water supply is now, the Bay Bulls System gave control of the land to the predecessor of Newfoundland Light and Power, and there has been a continuous dispute since 1977 between the authorities for the regional water supply and the Province and Newfoundland Light and Power, as to who exactly makes decisions relative to the water system. What I am specifically referring to is that in instances where the Newfoundland Light and Power wants to get more water for their power generation in Petty Harbour, they claim that they have the exclusive right to determine when the gates will be opened, and on several occasions there have been instances where the water supply in Bay Bull Big Pond has gone down to levels which were unacceptable to the municipal authorities, and in terms of water management, I ask you the question: what is the status of the protocol, and has there been any attempt in the last several years to resolve what the Province says is its legal right and what Newfoundland Light and Power says is their legal right?

MS. COWAN: Yes. It is certainly not off the agenda but I am going to let the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment and Lands, Dave Jeans respond to that.

MR. JEANS: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Hodder, that issue has still not been resolved, and it has been some time since I have been involved in discussions that involve municipal affairs and Newfoundland Power. It has been government's position that the rights for water supply area take precedence and as I recall some of the details, the rights that Newfoundland Power had in actual time, had actually expired and were not renewed, so to make a long story short, that is still not resolved. Government feels that it's case takes precedence over the power company's case for water.

MR. HODDER: At the time that we were discussing this, you and I had discussed this several years ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Okay. The information that we received at that time was that the authority for the water management rested with your department, therefore that is why we would ask the question here because when you talk to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, they will say to you that any decision or resolution should emanate from the management side of it, which in other words essentially says that this is an issue where your department should carry a leadership role. It is an issue that affects the whole entire Northeast Avalon and there is some fear on behalf of the City of St. John's and the City of Mount Pearl that somewhere down the road, this matter may have to be resolved in an atmosphere of confrontation and if we could avoid that, and of course, we know that by the turn of the century, if development continues to proceed in the western part of the City of St. John's and in Mount Pearl, the Southlands, in that area, that there would be more and more water demanded.

By that time it is anticipated that the resources that are available to the St. John's regional water supply at Bay Bulls Big Pond will only be able to fill the municipal requirements, and while there are auxiliary watersheds in Thomas Pond and other areas, it requires extensive monies to access these, and there was some desire on behalf of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the cities that this matter be resolved in the mid-nineties before it becomes a crisis, or becomes a significant impediment to development in the latter part of this decade.

MR. JEANS: Yes, Mr. Hodder, it's been at least six months, or over a year, since I have been involved in that issue, but my recollection is that it was the department's position, and reinforced by government, that the Province, through the Department of Environment and Lands and its water management division, does have the preeminent rights for the water in that watershed, and that the use for drinking water takes precedence over power development. I believe that the company has been written, stating that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes they have.

MR. JEANS: And there has been, to my knowledge, no formal denial or imputation of that position.

MR. HODDER: The reason there has been no formal denial of that is that (a) they disagree, and (b) they have control of the gates. So therefore when they want to get more water, it's their gates, they're all computerized, they can open and close the gates from their operations in on Columbus Drive. They don't even have to go up to the site to access or to cause the flow to get higher or lower, so control is in their hands now and they would not agree that the Province has first use. They would say that so that the Province would not push them, but when push comes to shove, which it will by the turn of the century, I am saying to the minister, and saying to you as the advisor to the minister, that this is an issue that needs attention because it won't go away, and we know that Newfoundland Light and Power - or I know, from my days when I was chairman of the authority there - that there is going to be need to probably bring in legislation, that there will be a claim for compensation, which could run into probably millions of dollars, so therefore it is an issue that the Province needs to resolve in a definitive manner, and that's with due recognition to the Premier's opinion, to the legal advisors in the Department of Justice and, of course, with recognition as well to the opinions of Newfoundland Light and Power.

MS. COWAN: I will make a note of that, Mr. Hodder, and we will revisit the issue because it has been, as Dave said, probably a good year since that letter was written, so we certainly should review the legal status of not having had a response to that letter and see where we stand on the issue, so thank you for bringing that to my attention again. I know that's one of your pet peeves - I was remembering it as you spoke - and I will certainly look into it.

MR. HODDER: Okay, I have a couple of other questions in the minute or so that I have left, two minutes, and I will keep it in the same area, and that is the cleanup of St. John's harbour. It's been recognized - in fact there's an editorial in today's paper - and we all recognize in the region that this is a substantive problem. It hasn't improved in the last few years. I am wondering if your department has initiated any studies, what they are doing to try to address the issue, and whether this issue is indeed part of any provincial\federal dialogue as to funding.

MS. COWAN: First of all, it is certainly a major concern of the department and a major concern of the city as well. We have someone from our department who sits on the committee that rose from the green plan that is looking at the whole thing and costing it and making various decisions. Not to actually clean it up, but how we could go about cleaning it up. It has not moved too far from that particular area at this time. I had meetings with the City of St. John's not too long ago, and I guess with the mayor of the City of Mount Pearl as well, I can't remember. There were a number of individuals there and we did discuss the project and the urgent need for it, and the fact that the steps that have been made to date, while being positive, in a way exaggerated the problem.

Because once the Liberal government in Ottawa changed and became a Tory government the money was stopped. It was stopped at a time just when we had brought over - I say "we" generally, I would have nothing to do with it at that stage - but all the Quidi Vidi sewage and so on was being brought to the Harbour rather than shooting off from out in that area. We have a lot more in the Harbour now than we had a number of years ago.

It is something that is very worrisome to me. I would like to see it addressed. I was hoping that perhaps it would be something that would come forward under the infrastructure program. I don't know at this stage if it has. I can't as minister tell the City of St. John's or the City of Mount Pearl, whatever, what they have to do under the infrastructure program. It is certainly something that as minister I would be pleased to see, if we could make some more positive steps in the right direction. Perhaps not clean the whole thing up but - what is the cost of it estimated at, how much?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty-eight million dollars, calculated (inaudible).

MS. COWAN: So it is obviously going to have -

MR. HODDER: That was in 1977 dollars, was it?

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HODDER: The $150 million, that was in dollar values of some years ago.

MS. COWAN: Yes. We have $158 million down here in my briefing notes at this particular stage. Possibly if we were going to just get it upgraded again, so that we had a secondary treatment plant, that would add on probably another $50 million to it, which would be the ideal, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Hodder's time is up and I now recognize Mr. Whelan.

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Minister, I first of all want to congratulate you on the steps that you've taken since you've become minister to help clean up the environment, especially with regard to car wrecks and general garbage I suppose you would refer to as litter. The car wrecks of late have been very noticeable by their absence. With regard to the litter there has been a campaign - I believe it has already started - with regard to pop bottles and this type of thing. I believe one of the local canning industries in the Province, one of the soft drink industries, has taken an active part with regard to cleaning up the environment. Could you sort of elaborate and tell us where it stands right now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: What we have here is that actually the program will be kicked off on the May 24th weekend. That will see the first of our advertisements - I shouldn't say "our," because it is not government advertising, but the Canadian Soft Drink Association has been authorized by government to undertake a program which has worked well elsewhere in the Province to clean up the type of litter that we have in our ditches. Largely litter that is created by - the biggest offender I guess is the fast-food industry. So that type of litter, the litter that is associated with all packaging, and which includes beverage containers as well.

The program has an educational thrust. We hope that it will make everyone in the Province aware of the need to clean up the environment, that they have a part in it, that it has to become part of their value system, that other people won't clean it up for them. That we have to all as individuals start to think before we toss a tissue or a bottle of pop or whatever out the window. That will be under way on May 24th.

It is coupled with a program that is being put in place by a group called the Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative, and that is a group of people consisting of grocery associations, independent grocers - oh, there is a whole raft of them. Retail association, all kinds of people. The Canadian Soft Drink Association belongs to it. They are going to be working again to develop a business plan that government will have to agree to and they will be actually putting money into the Province to build on existing programs within municipalities that have to do with waste management issues. Largely in this area at this time in the recycling area. They will also help us, these groups, to find markets for the materials. It is all very well to collect plastic but if you don't have anybody to sell it to you are in a bad predicament.

We are not asking the municipalities to put any money into this. We are asking them perhaps they could provide some in kind services. Maybe a depot within their municipality, where goods, waste materials, could be taken and stored until the appropriate individuals can come to truck it away.

That is the initiative I think that will be exciting and will go some distance towards dealing with waste management in the Province and keeping the amount of garbage that is going into our dumps reduced. We have in fact a two point program. On that is going to deal with the litter on the highways and by-ways and so on of the Province accompanied by another program which is going to look at what goes into our waste disposal sites and try to reduce that.

MR. WHELAN: Recently speaking with one of your officials and getting away from this type of ecological question, and to a sort of a different type, and it has something to do with the ATV regulations as it affects bog lands. I noticed here that there are certain hydrological monies set aside for studies into the environment. I was wondering if there has been any hydrological surveys done with regards to bog lands and how the use of ATVs will affect water drainage from the bog lands and water levels with regard to watershed areas and areas that would be affected, or that would affect any town water supplies. I was wondering if there were any studies with regard to the affect that the ATVs have on filtration with regard to bogs. Do you have any of those studies?

MS. COWAN: Dave can respond to that in a minute on what the monies for the Water division are going toward. I think the largest amount of information that we have about the damage to bogs and wetlands come from what the people who use them have told us. It is the same as the people who fish in Newfoundland knew what was going to happen to the fishery, and if we had listened to them in the beginning, to the individual who went out every day to fish, that we probably would be in better shape if we hadn't waited for the scientists to give out the information. A lot of it has come just through our own observations of people out in the Water division, for example, noting that how if you run an ATV over a soft spot time after time you will create a new stream. Most of my pictures that I have of ATV damage you will see the water running along in it. You create new waterways which brings silt into the brooks which can transport animal faeces and so on into the brook without the filtration process that would be in a normal stream.

We have those kinds of observations, I guess, more than scientific fact. I will let Dave talk to you just a little bit about it. We have an agreement with the federal government to study water, and that may be where you are seeing some of your monies there listed in the budget. That is largely to do with the studies of flooding and so on, but I will let Dave elaborate on that.

MR. JEANS: Thank you, minister.

As the minister mentioned, we have a joint program with the federal government which is a water management agreement, just recently signed or just over a year ago and that's a $3.25 million cost-shared 50/50 agreement. A good portion of that is devoted to a continuation of a program we had a number of years ago dealing with flood risk mapping. We found that there were a number of communities that we hadn't mapped, studied and evaluated with respect to flooding risks beyond the seventeen or eighteen, I think it was, that we did with the original program. The remainder of the funding is for studies in various water related areas. Some of it will be a couple of side studies related to the ACAP program that the minister mentioned with respect to the St. John's harbour in looking at circulation models, currents and so on with respect to sewage disposal.

As far as bogs are concerned the literature is pretty extensive in terms of the kind of damage that ATVs and other kinds of vehicles do to bogs and marshes. So we haven't devoted specific studies to those areas. We have the information, it's available and also, as the minister indicated, you can visually see the kind of destruction that these machines do. We have had a number of studies on bogs that are related to harvesting of peat because we want to see what this does to the ground water levels in terms of siltation to down stream water supplies because as you know, bogs and fens are really the holding areas for waters for rivers and lakes. So I trust that perhaps comments on your question.

MS. COWAN: It's interesting to note - if I just may, Mr. Chair, to throw in here - that we in this Province are one of the worst provinces in Canada for flooding. It always seems to come to people as a surprise but I guess because we've lived with it so long we don't think of it, but we actually do have significant flooding problems as compared to other provinces in the nation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister.

Before I go on I would point out to the officials and anyone else, that we who are here everyday realize that the mikes here are very sensitive. You don't have to touch them, once the light comes on they're perfect. Actually touching them could cause some problems for our friends up there that transcribe because the gentleman who's recording will give me a hard time. So I want to make sure that everybody is aware of that.

I'll now recognize Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. I'd like to talk a little bit about the beverage container industry. I know that the minister has made a recent announcement after dragging the soft drink industry kicking and screaming into some room to make an announcement because she was being criticised for there being little action.

MS. COWAN: Being criticized for what, Mr. Chair?

MR. HARRIS: You are being criticized or your department is being criticized, I suppose you implicitly were being criticized because there was very little action on plans to contain the beverage containers.

First of all, is the minister aware that official federal and provincial statistics from Environment Canada and from our own departments reports, back in 1991, that it's estimated that approximately 13 per cent of the waste in Canada is made up of non-reusable beverage containers? In fact, the ministers own department or extrapolations from a report produced by the ministers own department, estimates that in Newfoundland 15 per cent of all solid waste going into Newfoundland land fill sites are beverage containers, these include; tetra packs, aluminium cans, plastic, one way glass containers, over 10,000 tons of beverage containers each year added to Newfoundland landfill sites, and that's 10,000 metric tons.

Is the minister aware of that being the extent of the problem? Now, we're not talking about Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes, or fast food or anything else, but just one-way, non-reusable, non-returnable beverage containers alone, that that's 15 per cent of our whole landfill, that that's the extent of the use of non-refillable containers in Newfoundland.

MS. COWAN: The figures vary according to who does the study, I suppose, and the different methodology and so on but, yes, generally I would say that's the -

MR. HARRIS: The 15 per cent comes from a study done by -

MS. COWAN: That we did.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, done by Rick Conway, Report on Beverage Container Recycling in Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Environment and Lands, November, 1991.

MS. COWAN: There have been other studies since then that have showed different things, but you are in the ball park.

MR. HARRIS: Well, we're talking substantial garbage here. We're not just talking a few extra bottles. Now I assume that's what makes it to the landfill. I don't know what else ends up in the woods.

When the minister was considering the alternatives that were available, did she and her department look at what the other provinces have done? Eight of the ten provinces have programs, very extensive programs. The report I have here, which is an early 1993 report, says that most provinces, except for Manitoba, Newfoundland and the two territories, have legislation covering deposit refunds on beverage containers.

MS. COWAN: Ontario doesn't.

MR. HARRIS: Well, according to this, they use a different system because they have taxes on - in their environmental protection act they require the soft drink industry to produce 30 per cent of its products in refillable containers, so I guess refillable, recyclable, reusable, it's legislated, there seems to be legislation there, but I am wondering why the minister had to go to Texas to find a program that would suit the soft drink container industry. Why wouldn't she do what other provinces have done, such as Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or New Brunswick, which has a comprehensive program which I think the minister was praising a couple of years ago.

In that Province only containers that are refillable and recyclable are permitted to be sold, and they have a deposit refund system requiring consumers to pay a deposit at the time of the purchase, and if it's a refillable container the consumers receive the full refund on their deposit, and if it's not refillable but rather recyclable they receive a 50 per cent refund, and the other half of the deposit goes in equal parts to the beverage industry to help offset the recycling costs, and the other part goes to the Province's environment trust fund to support waste reduction initiatives and education.

That program, for example, seems to be fairly comprehensive. There are other provinces which have ones which also have a lot to make them attractive. The overall theme seems to be that if you have this kind of system you get a return rate which is very, very high, 80 per cent and 90 per cent - I have seen 95 per cent mentioned in some cases - where you have the systems of returns.

It also creates employment because people get involved in setting up businesses to collect these bottles and return the bottles or containers because they are given a certain value that the people find uses for them because it's money in the system that goes with that. Of course, that doesn't count the savings to the taxpayers, which is estimated at $7 per year per taxpayer, which goes just to support the landfill costs alone, not counting the energy costs or whatever, of these non-reusable containers, so I wonder, what was it that helped the minister discover this program in Texas?. Is that -

MS. COWAN: First of all, I belong to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and the current approach being taken across Canada, just forget the Texas thing for a minute, is to move in the direction that we are moving. The provinces that have refund deposit systems are not pleased with the way they are working; sure, they are cleaning up some of their problems with pop bottles and beverage containers but they are not addressing all other types of litter, and it is very obvious when you visit these provinces and very obvious from the litter studies that, litter is a major problem in every province of Canada, and in fact in many provinces a greater problem than it is in this particular Province if you are just counting pieces of litter.

In fact, these provinces where the refund deposit system or other types of legislated actions have taken place have not been seen to be effective. This of course was recognized by the Canadian Council of Ministers who felt, and which I think is something that the NDP will be most pleased, is that we have to start cracking down on big business and on the people who are actually producing this and not put the entire burden on the consumer, and so the initiative was taken with the Canadian Packaging Stewardship Initiative to reduce the amount of packaging that goes into waste sites by 50 per cent by the year 2000, and also at that time, the assurance was given that we would not legislate until the year 2000. There are certain benchmarks that have to be met as we move towards the year 2000, those are being met and to date have been surpassed in many areas so this is the way we are going.

Now I might say that it has been very easy for businesses that are involved with packaging to make these initial steps and meet the initial goals because it is easy to take the toothpaste out of the box and get rid of the box, but then you are going to have to, in the next ten years or so, find out how to reduce the size of the toothpaste tube or something to that effect or the weight of the toothpaste tube and so on, so we are entering into the difficult phase now, but to date the packaging industry has found if they can meet the requirement of reducing their packaging garbage by 50 per cent, that they would prefer that than having themselves regulated, and it certainly seemed appropriate to leave the initiative to them.

Now in our case, in this Province, we will not wait to legislate to the year 2000 if we don't find this working out with the program that we can now put in place. Now as far as choosing Texas, Texas is a program that - what was it? Don't mess with Texas. We are the first province in Canada by the way, to use the Canadian Soft Drink Association model, and they did some research to find out some of the programs that have been effective elsewhere and this one was found to be very successful and Texas apparently - I haven't visited there - is not unlike Newfoundland in its rural component, it has a lot of rural people and spread out around the state and this program in Texas did, in the first couple of years of the program, clean up 70 per cent of the garbage in the by-ways and highways and so on. I could go on and on about what aspects it does but I won't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Well, I listened to you very patiently.

MR. HARRIS: Oh. Well you can go on as long as you like.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish the minister would clue up because the time is expired.

MS. COWAN: Fine; I think I said everything I wanted to.

MR. HARRIS: We only have ten minutes between us you see, and if you take up my time I have to come back another day but that's okay.

MS. COWAN: Feel free, Mr. Harris, feel free.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hulan.

DR. HULAN: Madam Minister, the real answer as to why you chose the Texas program is because everything is bigger and better in Texas.

MS. COWAN: That is right, so they say.

DR. HULAN: I want to commend you and your ministry for taking the steps you have taken with regard to the ATV regulations. They are probably not going to satisfy everybody but they are certainly a large step forward and something that was long in coming for some time. I am sure after further consultation and work on the rules as we go down the road they are going to be well accepted in the Province. All of us have some problems with them in our districts but I suppose that comes with everything that we do for the first time.

I was interested in you comment on flooding and I just want to make a comment on that before I ask a question. Flooding is becoming a major, major problem in the Province and one of the reasons for it is the way in which we have gone through the clear cutting operation in our forests. Of course flooding is not only a problem for high water problems but every time we have flooding we have soil erosion. It takes about 100 years under Newfoundland's climatic conditions to replace one inch of topsoil, 100 years minimum under our climatic conditions.

This year on the West Coast of the Island the rivers were higher than they have been in history as people remember. Major destruction was done on the alluvial flats of Robinsons River for instance, probably to the tune of $20,000 to $30,000 a number of times there, and it is all due to the fact that every time you cut a tree you increase the instances or the rate of run off and erosion. The flooding problem is certainly a major issue.

I have a number of small line items and various subheads that I could ask you about but the one thing that really takes my eye in this document is under 3.2.01, Land Use Planning. Maybe you or one of your officials would like to speak to that because I will have another question after that.

MS. COWAN: What is that again, now?

DR. HULAN: It is on Page 93, Land Use Planning. It says: for the development of policies and programs aimed at satisfying existing and future demands for land. What is under that subhead?

MS. COWAN: Just what would we be looking after?

DR. HULAN: Yes.

MS. COWAN: I will turn that over to Ms Wakeham but first of all I say that this is something that has been needed for a number of years in the Province and Barbara has been really setting her mind to dealing with it. It is looking at a variety of things. One being cost, what we charge people for buying land and that type of thing, but to look at the whole area I will let Barbara because she is a walking encyclopedia on land use. I will let her answer the question.

MS. WAKEHAM: The land use planning unit basically wasn't established until about 1978, prior to that there was no planning with respect to certain types of developments. What the land use planning is trying to do right now is maintain a controlled system of allocation based on the needs of municipalities, based on the needs of individual developers and based on the needs of individual departments. Essentially what the land use atlas does is set aside certain lands for certain activities. So we have agricultural land planning which is done in conjunction with various departments. We have forestry lands planning, we have subdivisions that are done with respect to municipalities, we have planning with respect to the watersheds and other things that are done with the other sections of the Department of the Environment and Lands.

We also have a system which was established in 1980 called the Interdepartmental Land Use Committee and that committee, which was established by the previous administration, has representation from all departments of government and they deal with all major proposals that are put forth for any use within the Province with respect to large use of lands. So they deal with agriculture, wilderness reserves and agricultural reserves. They deal with ecological reserves, they deal with the watersheds, they deal with any form of protected areas in terms of the types of activities that can go on in those areas. The intent is to maximize the use of the land without establishing any negative effects. So the intent is to either allow for sequential development or allow for multi-use of the land so we get the maximum return to the benefit of the people in the Province.

There's not a large planning staff within the land use management division. They also undertake a cottage lot development and have for quite a long time but they deal mainly with the proposals and with the - we deal also with the land issue itself based on the size of the environmental assessment. So we will look at the compatibility of a particular piece of land for the use of that land as a separate issue from the environmental impacts that may be associated with that land. It's a system of constantly updating. The staff update every single day. It's a daily updating in plotting and mapping of the actual uses that are occurring on that land. They deal basically with the internal - from governments requirements from major proposals and the Crown land administration deals with land use planning from the public side. So they'll take the applications from the public and they, together with the land use management, will do the allocations.

DR. HULAN: A couple of years ago, as you know, I chaired the task force on the agri-food industry in this Province, on an industry that has such great potential although not recognized yet enough but will be in turn and time.

In that study we noticed, in particular, the lack of an intergraded land use plan policy for the Province. I'm aware of the interdepartmental committee on land use but up to that time and I believe right up to now from what my knowledge of the events that has taken place, still points to the fact that we don't have an intergraded land use policy for the Province, is that right?

MS. WAKEHAM: We don't have one at the moment. There is a lot of work going on with other departments to look at the issues in terms of coming up with a comprehensive land use policy. That will deal with intergraded resource management under the auspices of a set of parameters. That work is ongoing, it's not completed.

DR. HULAN: Yes because that's very significant. If we are going to, as you were saying, make the best use of all possible areas of land then that gets down to the point that in this Province we have ample agricultural land for a very viable agri-food industry. An industry that we can put in a place of export from this Province, not only for self-sufficiency - as long as we think of self sufficiency that's as far as we will go but unfortunately up to this point good areas of agricultural land have been taken and used for other things. Therefore the interdepartmental committee is in place but I personally don't think it is working. It is not doing the job properly, as far as the agri-food industry is concerned certainly. I can name you many instances (inaudible) around this Province.

That must not happen. Because although we have ample land for agriculture, and food production must be our first consideration rather than cottages or anything else, we don't have enough agricultural land to waste and let go for other purposes. I will be very interested in seeing how this thing develops in the very near future because it is very needed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Thank you, sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think about right now would be a good time for a break. I think we've coffee arranged in the government members common room. The minister and her officials are invited to take part with the Committee to see if we can get a nice feeling going between them over the coffee break so we won't have any acrimony when we come back. Everybody will be fine.

I would like at this time to thank Mr. Matthews and Dr. Hulan for filling in for our two regular Committee members who had a previous arrangement who are now back. Thank you, you did a great job. We will adjourn now till 8:45 p.m. at which time you will hear the chimes and we will come back and start again.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The meeting will now reconvene and I will call on Ms. Verge to start off.

MS. VERGE: I've got a few relatively short questions. If the answers are reasonably brief perhaps I can conclude in another ten minutes.

The federal government's TAGS program, the successor to -

MS. COWAN: Which program?

MS. VERGE: The new package, TAGS, is supposed to involve federally-funded green teams. In other words, make-work projects of an environmental nature. Has the minister or her department been consulted about the green teams or the work to be carried out through these projects? If not, will the minister be volunteering the advice to the federal government about any priority projects for employment of qualified fisheries workers?

MS. COWAN: We are aware of it, obviously. The department hasn't had any input as yet. I've had some input in my capacity as a Cabinet minister but as a department we haven't put our minds to the task yet, but it hasn't been run by us.

MS. VERGE: Will the minister be volunteering recommendations to the federal government for projects to be undertaken?

MS. COWAN: Yes, I will be.

MS. VERGE: What are the minister's priorities for these projects?

MS. COWAN: That is a matter now that would have to give a bit more thought to. Certainly I have my own personal priorities, I guess, but I would want to sit and discuss them with my officials to make sure that they are done in the order that I think they should be. Then of course it would be taken to Cabinet as well.

MS. VERGE: Would the minister give us some idea of her own thinking?

MS. COWAN: No, I don't think so at this stage. John, the Deputy Minister, was just saying to me too that there will be an opportunity in this program for local development of projects so that some of them will be bottom up as well as top down.

MS. VERGE: Last year the minister told the Committee that she and her officials were in the process of developing for the Province a quote 'overall waste management strategy.' Has that been completed? If so, may we have a copy? If not, when will it be completed?

MS. COWAN: Okay, one of the things I was really pleased about in this budget process, you will note it there, is that we have $150,000 this year for doing the basic study, so we will be either hiring consultants or people to work within the department, or a combination of both, so I am very pleased about that because it is much needed in the Province and is the first step to getting the whole area under control, and the focus of the thing will be the three r's - reduction, reuse and recycling.

MS. VERGE: How does the minister expect the soft drink industry funded advertising campaign to further these objectives of reduction, reusing and recycling?

MS. COWAN: I guess the first thing, it's an anti-litter campaign. The soft drink thing is an anti-litter campaign.

MS. VERGE: So the objective is to transfer the waste from the woods to the dumps?

MS. COWAN: No, not necessarily. That's where the CIPSI part - the Canadian Packaging Stewardship will kick in, to see in what manner we can best deal with these to get away from some of the problems we're encountering with too much stuff going into our waste disposal sites. So that will be a step in dealing with that, but that would be only a small step. The whole waste management strategy is going to identify more far-reaching efforts.

MS. VERGE: Okay, the strategy will be more far-reaching, but we'll probably have to wait for a long time to get it. In the meantime, I am asking: How will the soft drink industry funded advertising campaign, due to start on the May 24th. weekend, further the objectives of reducing, reusing and recycling?

MS. COWAN: Well it doesn't, and that's why the CIPSI part makes it attractive. The soft drink aspect is largely an anti-litter program; it's not largely, it is an anti-litter program, so on its own it's not adequate and that's why government didn't want to go ahead with it until we could get this packaging group working with it at the same time. We wouldn't have gone ahead with just the soft drink association proposal. We felt there had to be an intermeshing, as you suggest.

MS. VERGE: The anti-litter advertising campaign due to start on the May 24th. weekend presumably will try to change attitudes and bad practices, but we've learned many times over that educating people isn't enough. We learned that, for example, with seat-belts; we've learned it with tobacco. It isn't enough for people to know that they shouldn't litter or they shouldn't smoke or they should use seat-belts. People basically have to be coerced. What is the minister proposing in the way of better enforcement of existing anti-litter laws?

MS. COWAN: I guess first of all I would say that I've thought of it in comparison to the seat-belt, too, and smoking and what have you, and I see it as sort of a different issue. (Inaudible) where life is at stake, and where you might want to come down much more heavily on people to get immediate responses to things.

In the litter thing it's not a health or safety issue. I have, I think it's in this last year, too, maybe it's because I was a teacher for twenty-two years, but I really feel education is significant. This program is going to be aimed at the age group who are the worst litterers, and that is it is going to be aimed at young men between the ages of fourteen and twenty-six - I think twenty-six, but somewhere in that area - and that is the group that really needs the education because they do the most littering.

The young children in the schools today seem to have assimilated, if that's the word I want, a value system that is thinking in a more constructive way about what they do with litter and that type of thing, so the program is going to focus on these young men. We don't know if it is going to work but I am quite frank with you that we hope it will work; it has worked well in Texas, we have in our hip pocket other ideas that can be hauled out if this doesn't work, and that's why we built into the agreement with the Canadian Soft Drink Association, that there will be certain targets that they will have to work toward if those aren't met, then we will revert to some alternate method.

MS. VERGE: But surely, enforcement of anti-litter laws has to go hand in hand with education and -

MS. COWAN: Oh yes, you asked that. Yes, you know, that's something that I have pondered as well and it may come to that. The provinces where they have anti-litter legislation have not been that effective in cleaning up litter; as I mentioned earlier, there are provinces that are far worse than ours when it comes to littering and they have, many of them, anti-littering legislation so, Lynn, I will be continuing to monitor that and if there is a necessity for anti-litter laws to be brought in and to be enforced rigidly - right now we have -

MS. VERGE: Don't we have anti-litter laws?

MS. COWAN: Well not as such. Under the Waste Materials Disposal Act, people can be charged with littering. We don't have an actual act that talks about general kind of tossing stuff out car windows and that kind of thing, but we can prosecute people under the Waste Materials Disposal Act. I am not sure if that is adequate, and so it is something that is being considered.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a question about the railway then, which I understand was finally transferred from the federal Crown to the provincial Crown -

AN HON. MEMBER: I bet I know what question (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: - in the past year. There are several people in the Province including Rural Development Associations and people involved in the tourism industry who have been advocating the maintenance of the railway bed for a trail for recreational use, but people are seeing the railway land being frittered away, taken for a variety of uses, encroached upon by householders, is the Department of Environment and Lands in charge of managing that former railway land?

MS. COWAN: Right now the Department of Environment and Lands is making sure that, or trying to make sure because it is a big job, that land is frozen. I realize that there are problems with different things that are causing the rail bed to deteriorate; we will prosecute anybody whom we can catch stealing any of the ground, the gravel and stuff that is around or using it in a way that they are not supposed to. In the meantime, while that is in a frozen state, we are also not giving anybody any access across the railroad track or offshoots, what do you call them, by-ways?

MS. VERGE: Trunk lines?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: The branch lines, unless it is with the approval of Cabinet and you know, that is very tricky to get. We are being quite stringent about that. At the moment, while that's taking place we are looking at the concept of the Rails for Trails.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I thank you. Ms. Verge's time has expired.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister made a comment about how she thought that the New Democratic Party would be happy to see that there is somebody cracking down on big businesses instead of making the consumer pay. First of all, I should say that the minister's rhetorical comment about the NDP being opposed to big businesses is very far off the mark. We are not at all opposed to big businesses but we are interested in making sure that they pay their fair share and that we don't subsidize their profits, as I pointed out to the minister, that we were doing at a tune of seven dollars per taxpayer for landfill alone. I understood from the minister's program that the consumer was in fact paying for this by one cent being added to every soft drink being sold. They even had accountants collecting it and that they were going to dole out the money so that the consumer is paying directly for the cost of this anti-litter education program. Am I right or am I wrong?

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible) added on all soft drink bottles, yes or all soft drink containers.

MR. HARRIS: Is the consumer paying that or -

MS. COWAN: The consumer is paying that yes. I guess maybe paying, Jack wasn't the right word, but taking responsibility would probably have been a better word to use then paying.

MR. HARRIS: And would the minister regard a voluntary industry program as cracking down on big business?

MS. COWAN: They have been asked to do it in a voluntary way hoping that I suppose - it's again this whole system of changing people's values. However, they have the additional threat that if they don't do something about it legislation will be put in place to force them to do it. Actually, we have the legislation ready in our Province now. It came to the House last spring and under that legislation I can order anybody in the Province who is not complying with, say the CIPSI program or whatever to do so but we are hoping and it would appear that everybody is going to come on board.

MR. HARRIS: Are you sure you have that power, minister? I understood that that legislation gave you the power to order them to give you information and that was all.

MS. COWAN: Yes, I haven't got a copy of the act here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Yes, it is power for -

MR. HARRIS: - how to make regulations to order them to give you information and that's all.

MS. COWAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: I would suggest that you check with your officials on that because that was the criticism that I made last spring when legislation was brought in and it wasn't answered by the minister or anybody else.

MS. COWAN: Okay, John are you able to give an answer?

MR. FLEMING: The packaging act does give the Lieutenant-Governor in council authority to make regulations regarding a whole variety of issues regarding packaging, including regulations of a certain type of packaging, the distribution of packaging and all that manner of things as well, not just information.

MR. HARRIS: I beg to differ on that but I won't make an issue of it any further at the moment.

The studies that I have seen reports of and the conclusions that are reached as a result of an analysis of the deposit return system show that the rate of return in the beer industry for example in the bottle refund system is a 98 per cent return rate. In the United States, nine states have passed beverage deposit refund laws with container redemption rates ranging from 85 to 97 per cent. They're very significant numbers, very significant assurance that these beverage containers do not end up either in the environment as litter, in the countryside or in landfills at a great expense to the public and to the taxpayer. Can the minister tell us what studies she has or what studies the Canadian soft drink lobby produced for the minister and what her estimates, based on those studies, are of the rate of return or success rate for this voluntary program that's being undertaken by the industry by adding a cent to the cost of soft drinks?

MS. COWAN: I'm not quite sure what the question is.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister tell us how many soft - what is the rate of return -

MS. COWAN: What do they anticipate?

MR. HARRIS: - anticipated in terms of, well, I guess, recyclables. There is not one single product sold in Newfoundland today other than beer in the soft drink beverage industry that is refillable. We only have some recyclable and lots of one way glass containers and other things like that. I want to know whether the minister can say what is the percentage return rate that she expects to have with these tetra-packs, which I understand are recyclable, with some of the cans, which I understand are recyclable. What is the return rate that the minister has been promised by the Canadian soft drink industry in their lobby as a result of the programs that they've proposed? Because now we can compare those figures to the 98 per cent that we have for beer, to the 85 per cent to 97 per cent that we see in studies from the American states that have these systems, as opposed to Texas, you know.

MS. COWAN: First of all, we don't look at it in rates of return, we are looking at it in reduction. That is why we have the CIPSI program feeding into it.

MR. HARRIS: The CIPSI program is about other kinds of packaging. I know they are trying to disguise the problem but I want to talk about the 15 per cent of the landfill, the ten tons per year that is beverage containers. I want to know whether the minister has been told by CIPSI or whoever they are, the soft drink lobby, what percentage of the containers that are now the 10 per cent to 15 per cent of our landfill site, what percentage of that, what in terms of rate of return, of those soft drink containers are now going to be recycled as a result of the minister's program?

MS. COWAN: No, because this is an anti-litter program for getting litter out of the ditches and wherever else it accumulates, in brooks and so on. It is not a program aimed at just soft drinks and other drinks.

MR. HARRIS: Why would the minister not put a ten cent a can deposit system in place for cans that would result in all of these cans being returned, or 98 per cent of them, the way that the beer bottles are now returned? If I, or if a member of the public, was wandering along a road or street or whatever and saw a half a dozen beer bottles there is a substantial likelihood that they would be picked up because they are worth ten cents each. You can bring them to a store and you can get sixty cents for them. People in fact do that - I don't think they make a living at it - but people go around doing that and they return those things. They collect them. Obviously lots of organizations collect them because they are very valuable to organizations when they have volunteer labour to pick them up. Why wouldn't the minister do that and ensure that perhaps 90 per cent, 95 per cent, 98 per cent of soft drink cans or beer cans or other cans would in fact end up in one place? Then they could be possibly used for recycling or other purposes. Why wouldn't the minister do that?

MS. COWAN: Because I'm not fond, Mr. Harris - maybe you are - particularly of tripping over Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes. I don't like to see Sobey's bags or other grocery bags flying from trees, which is very common now. I don't like to see all the other - Vienna Sausage cans in the woods when I go out for a walk. I want to get rid of all the litter. I certainly don't see us putting a deposit system on every type of packaging that we have in this Province. Yes, the brewing industry does get a good return, traditionally. It was something that was started in the very early days of the brewing industry so it is a tradition to take the beer bottles back. I don't think it would be as attractive if people didn't largely buy beer by the case and take a case back, in which they get a considerable return, and we usually buy more beer at that particular store when they return their bottles. That wouldn't necessarily happen with the soft drinks.

First of all, I've got a teenager and ten cents to him is nothing. He would want to have fifty pop bottles, and he doesn't have the energy to go and pick them up. I really think the deposit systems are not necessarily the way to go. I shouldn't be insulting my son, but watching the habits of young people over the years, ten cents to them is pretty insignificant, even a little kid. I don't see that there would be a great incentive to return one pepsi or coke bottle, can or whatever, for ten cents.

Now I still say, Mr. Harris, that if, indeed, we have to - deposit refund regulations are in my hip pocket, and if I have to drag them out, if this proves to be wrong, then I will drag them out, but I feel comfortable that we're heading in the right direction, but I'm not the kind of person who says that this is written in stone, and if we have to change direction or whatever then I am only too happy to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Harris' time is up. I will now recognize Mr. Hodder.

MR. HODDER: Madam Minister, this one cent charge on soft drinks that is now in effect -

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. HODDER: That is collected from the retailer?

MS. COWAN: I have no idea. It has nothing to do with government. It's an initiative of the Canadian Soft Drink Association. I haven't bothered to find out about it. One of my officials may know, but it's part of their initiative; it has nothing to do with me. If I had been bringing in a deposit refund it probably would have been ten cents, which is a good deal more than a cent, because we would maybe not give back the full ten cents. If one of my officials knows, I am quite happy to have them comment.

MR. HODDER: Okay. My point is that I know it's being collected at the retail level and just want to bring the attention in the comprehensive sense to government that this has been passed on from the manufacturers to the wholesalers to the retailer and, once set, is not something that can affect the cost of a soft drink, so therefore it becomes a disincentive to local business. It's causing concern for the small convenience store operator because he feels that he can't put his prices up. I have had convenience store operators who believe that this should have been - if it's there and it's being put on - it should be an initiative by the government and should be collected at the wholesale level rather than carry it through to the small retail store.

I only make that point to say that this is another example of ways in which our policies infringe upon the small businessman.

MS. COWAN: If I could, Mr. Chair, make a comment to that, it wasn't exactly a question, but we also did a study through ITT of your small corner grocery stores, your stores of that nature throughout the Province, and ITT found that those small stores did not want a deposit refund system because they didn't have the room to take the bottles in and store them, and that kind of thing, so I think this is the lesser of two evils. If they don't like it, they have other ways that they can solve the problem.

One of the things, too, that is a problem when you start putting deposit refund on soft drinks is the old level playing field, except they call it the share of the stomach in the grocery and drink business, so they are afraid that people will stop drinking pop and start to drink bottled water, or they will start to drink milk. Then the people who sell milk are afraid that if something happens people won't buy milk, and this kind of thing, so it's difficult to bring in this kind of deposit refund system, particularly in the economic climate that we have in this Province which can't absorb - the Province is not like southern Ontario or whatever that can absorb the shockwaves of what could happen with employment figures as well. We work in a very different economic environment here, which makes it even more difficult to make some of these decisions. That is why I like this stewardship program, because it sort of gives you the best of both worlds as we hope it will.

MR. HODDER: I will only just say to the minister that many of these small convenience store operators, I know that they don't want to be involved in the deposit refund, but also they feel that the initiatives undertaken by the industry and sanctioned by the government in essence boil down to a disincentive and a negative for the small businessman.

MS. COWAN: What do we do about litter? I mean, these people -

MR. HODDER: No, no, they are not disputing the fact of the program. They would tend to support the program. Their complaint is that the manufacturer is passing it along to the wholesaler who passes it along to the retailer, but they in turn cannot pass along one cent. One cent is not a transferrable thing to the consumer. Therefore it becomes a nightmare for them. They feel that they, and not the consumer, are paying that one cent per unit. There is some concern expressed to me by friends of mine who are in - you know, small convenience store operators. They feel that all of it is really falling on their shoulders, and the way the price arrangements go that they feel that they can't pass this one cent along to the consumer.

MS. COWAN: Why can't you?

MR. HODDER: Pardon?

MS. COWAN: Why can't you? I mean, we pay taxes on things that give us one cent and two cents and (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I'm just saying that they find that they have difficulty transferring it.

MS. COWAN: There is nothing I can do about it. As I said, it is an initiative of the industry itself, but I certainly am interested in hearing what you have to say (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: The other thing I wanted to talk about in the few minutes I have is that I find it difficult to understand why the department would still be into Cottage Land Development, under section 3.2.02. When we were talking privatization that - I can understand the department regulating, I can understand the department saying to a group of people: If you are going to develop this particular site you have to have it as a comprehensive development and you can't just simply push roads along, there has to be some kind of a land plan that has to be followed and it has to have gone through the appropriate environmental studies. Why is it necessary for the department, even though it recovers its cost, to be spending $245,000 in this budgetary year on cottage land development?

MS. COWAN: I don't know, to be perfectly honest. It is a question that I've asked myself from time to time. Should we be involved in it? Historically, a lot of these programs were set in place some years ago and are going to be brought through to fruition. As far as the future of this kind of thing, I'm not sure what it will be.

MR. HODDER: This is -

MS. COWAN: We certainly have voiced as a government that we would like to get away from government initiated business and have the private sector, to move (inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I would encourage the minister to look at that particular program.

MS. COWAN: I am.

MR. HODDER: I fail to see the rational thought process behind it. Historically it may have been that - particularly in the Avalon area where there were roads being pushed all over the place, and cottages were being developed without proper assessments done, and the department in its early years came onto the scene and had to make all kinds of adjustments. But why should your department be up developing lands in Deer Park or Middle Gull Pond or wherever?

MS. COWAN: Yes, it is a good question. I welcome it.

MR. HODDER: It is $245,000 that - although you recover it, the private industry should be looking after that

MR. HODDER: Its $245,000 that, although you recover it, private industry should be looking after.

The other thing I wanted to speak about is the liquid waste disposal. What is the status of the relationship between the City of St. John's and the disposal now at Robin Hood Bay and how are the other municipalities in this region now coping? Are there ample agreements in place or do we have septic tank -

MS. COWAN: You're talking about septic tank (inaudible)?

MR. HODDER: - disposal taking place late at night?

MS. COWAN: You're talking simply about septic waste are you, liquid waste?

MR. HODDER: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Well I wouldn't be surprised that people are doing it late at night and I wouldn't want to deny that. It does happen and we know it happens. We have it drawn to our attention frequently. We try to find out who's responsible for it and lay charges. As you know from your experience as mayor and your involvement in the thing, the people on the Avalon Peninsula have been directed not to do that and to use the facility on the Foxtrap Access Road, to have the waste treated and then dumped into the ocean in a much better state then it is to just go directly in but I think there are people who still have the attitude that they can just do whatever they like with their sewage and are still doing that. I hope that gradually that will fade out but it is a problem.

MR. HODDER: It continues to be a problem. We all hear rumours of the late night operators and we hear comments - I don't know whether we do any good by continuing to talk about it in a public forum but I don't know where else we can do it.

MS. COWAN: To give people the idea.

MR. HODDER: Yes, yes and -

MS. COWAN: But more people are willing to report it now, which I think is an interesting sign, because obviously more people find it offensive and are ready to report it to us, then we can act on it. So as more people recognize it as a problem and start reporting, I think that it will dissipate. I hope it will dissipate over the next -

MR. HODDER: My final question for the evening has to do with Come By Chance.

MS. COWAN: Oh yes.

MR. HODDER: I drove by there on Sunday in fact and the - I call it the stench -

MS. COWAN: Yes, there was a fire there and -

MR. HODDER: Well I drove by there on Friday -

MS. COWAN: Oh before the fire, okay.

MR. HODDER: - and I drove by there on Sunday after the fire.

MS. COWAN: There's no doubt there was a stench. It was worst on Sunday I gather.

MR. HODDER: - and probably a little worst on Sunday. What is the status of the modifications to the equipment there? I understand that the company is living up to the policies that are there but many people believe the regulations that are in effect, the law of the land, many people believe that if they're living up to the current law then the law itself is in need of being changed.

MS. COWAN: Well Come By Chance is indeed a problem area. As you know, they have filed for protection under the Bankruptcy Act some time ago and when that happened we saw a real problem emerging there then with them buying a high sulphur content crude and that kind of thing and a general let down on maintenance and what have you. We are not particularly pleased. They started with great furore and interest in cleaning things up after several meetings that we had with them last fall - it was last spring - and it seemed to be making headway. They started buying a sweeter crude which cut down a lot of the problems. It's very frustrating for an environment minister. They have trouble with their sulphur recovery plant. It had a fire in it awhile ago and of course as soon as the sulphur recovery plant can't operate then you need a sweeter crude right off the bat and they often don't have that on site. The smell that you refer to, was it a rotten egg smell or more like a car oily motor smell?

MR. HODDER: I cannot remember breathing from the time I entered.

MS. COWAN: They are different things and the Esso 2 problem gives you sort of a very distinctive smell. There has been an improvement in that area but the smell disturbs people. It is coming from this compounding basin and it is also coming from the machine that separates oil and water, the API separator. We are not satisfied with what the refinery has done in dealing with these problems. Again, to be perfectly honest with you, I am disturbed and I have written a letter to Mr. Mifflin who is managing the plant at this time and requested another meeting with him.

Now, since I have written that letter there has been a fire out there and the plant is not operating. I will still obviously be meeting with him but I do not know the extend of the damage of the fire at this stage and how it will impact on future operations of the facility.

MR. HODDER: As the minister is well aware this is a very critical issue for many people who live in that part of the Province. It is a persistent thing that has been there for many, many years. People have concerns over their health, and as you know the thing that is being promoted all across the country now is what they call healthy public policies. Healthy public policy means that the regulations which emanate from your department have to be monitored for their impact on health and people in the macro sense, so that people do have real genuine concerns about long-term effects and, I think, the pressure upon government is if the regulations that now exist do not address the issue then there is need for new regulations, or new legislation to give the minister the power to cause this matter to be addressed effectively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you finished, Mr. Hodder?

MR. HODDER: I am finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is your last question for the night. Thank you, very much, Sir.

Ms Verge.

MS. VERGE: I would like to ask a couple of questions, and this will be my last topic on environment of the Department of Environment. In highway construction, does the Department of Environment, the environmental protection part of the department, have any authority over highway construction when highway construction involves significant alteration to the landscape?

MS. COWAN: First of all the new highways and so on have to go through the Environmental Assessment Act. Right now we are doing the Goulds by-pass, for example. I will let one of the officials elaborate on it, but in most cases the legislation is not incumbent on the Crown.

Dave, I will let you speak on that exactly.

MR. JEANS: We work very closely with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation so that in the case of new highway construction, river crossings, bridges, culverts, and so on, engineering design specifications are reviewed with the department so that the final works are in accordance with our requirements.

MS. VERGE: Where are the environmental requirements set out?

MR. JEANS: Well, the Department of Environment and Lands Act, which as the minister noted normally does not bind the Crown, but on a volunteer basis the Department of Works, Services and Transportation still provides us with the kind of information we need with respect to watercourse crossings, bridges, culverts and these type of facilities and we have the engineering design criteria within our water resources division that know the sizes of culverts required and the construction practices needed to insure that watercourses are not silted up in the area and perhaps it is seen at the time during construction the siltation fabric in the ditches at the side as they are constructing the highways and this is to prevent siltation from runoff in areas under construction affecting the downstream watercourses.

MS. VERGE: Apart from looking at watercourses, does the Department of Environment and Lands look at other aspects of highway construction?

MR. JEANS: Generally, with respect to garbage handling and disturbance of vegetation, there are guidelines that the contractors must abide by that are provided by the Department of Work, Services and Transportation, and these are environmental guidelines to which we have had input in the past. They are pretty common with all types of construction activities.

MS. VERGE: Okay. What involvement -

MS. COWAN: Do you feel there is some inadequacy in that particular area (inaudible) answer to the question?

MS. VERGE: Well I am quite disturbed by what's happening in the Humber Valley. The provincial Department of Works, Services and Transportation using federal money is in the process of four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway between Massey Drive and Deer Lake. The work that has been completed in the Corner Brook area above Riverside Drive, I believe, has resulted in a significant flooding problem and last spring, during the election campaign, there was flooding on Riverside Drive; this year, there was not only flooding but a landslide and I am wondering if the Department of Environment and Lands was involved in any way in looking at that recent, new, highway construction.

MR. JEANS: I am not aware that we had been contacted with respect to that landslide, but we may well have at the officials working level.

MS. VERGE: Okay. Now further up the valley, yet to be reconstructed, are the areas of Little Rapids and Pasadena. One version of the department's plan for Little Rapids, which was unveiled at a public meeting a couple of months ago, involved the new, four-lane divided super highway, taking agricultural land from Hammond Farm, and then actually going through what is now Strawberry Hill. In other words, taking the Hill for fill, that was the reason given by the government official, and then building two culvert-style interchanges for access to the new divided highway at the western and eastern ends of Little Rapids.

As we move further east, the current plan, as the minister would know from discussion in the House of Assembly, is to put the new super highway in a deep pit or trench through the middle of Pasadena. Pasadena, as most people realize is quite flat and the thinking of the minister is that the divided highway would go under a level community road with the tractor trailers and the woods trucks whizzing along eighteen feet below ground level where Lakeland Lodge now stands.

Now the minister hasn't produced any engineering design, plans or specifications, I rather doubt that any exist. Has the Department of Environment and Lands been involved in any of that discussion, thinking, planning or whatever it is Mr. Efford and his people are proposing?

MS. COWAN: We're not aware of it to date. Now it wouldn't go up to the environmental assessment branch because we only do that with new roads. As far as having -

MS. VERGE: But no, this will be a brand new road. It'll be a four lane divided highway in a different location.

MS. COWAN: Yes, but I guess it's part of the Trans-Canada corridor though is it?

MS. VERGE: Basically it will be a replacement for the present Trans-Canada Highway but it will be brand new construction.

MS. COWAN: The work that's being done on the Trans-Canada has not been subject to the environmental assessment process.

MS. VERGE: But how is that distinguished from the Goulds by-pass road or any other new highway construction?

MS. COWAN: I guess because it's a brand new road.

MS. VERGE: But this is a brand new road -

MS. COWAN: I'm sorry - can you make a distinction there please?

MS. VERGE: But why would you want to make a distinction? I mean in both cases there are new highways being built or being proposed.

MR. JEANS: It depends on whether this is in a new corridor that's outside, say a 500 metre right of way, as to whether it's required to be registered under the Environmental Assessment Act. It also depends on the length of the road - so this, to my knowledge, hasn't met those requirements. So our only concern - it would not be subject to the assessment act but it would still be, with respect to bridges, culverts and water course crossings, be subject to our involvement through a normal permitting process. As I indicated earlier, voluntary because this is a Crown department rather than a private corporation.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I said that was going to be the last topic but just one quick question. The Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Mill in Corner Brook, the Kruger Mill in Corner Brook, the department has many times extended the deadline for the new boiler that's supposed to curb air pollution and in particular cut down on the sooty particulate emission from the mill. The Premier has said publicly that to help out the company with its current cash shortage, he would consider giving them concessions on environmental requirements. What's the status of the current Department of Environment and Lands compliance schedule or requirements for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper? Do you think we'll ever get that new boiler completed?

MS. COWAN: I hope that we do some day, yes. All the improvements that we have been making over the years, your government when it was in power, it was very halting, very slow, largely, I guess, due to the financial position of the company. As far as the status of the bark burner at this particular time, I can't really comment on it. I'm not sure what the date is -

AN HON. MEMBER: June '95.

MS. COWAN: - June '95, so that's all I can really say at this particular stage. Just where they are in that process I'm not quite sure.

Okay, John is just saying that they spent $32 million, you probably know that as well, for that area of the $40 million estimate.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Verge. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. First let me say to Mr. Fleming that I was wrong and he was right about the packaging material act. What I was talking about was the minister's power; what the deputy minister was talking about was the power of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council of course does have the power to make regulations in respect to packaging standards. In fact, it also has the power to make regulations requiring the payment of a deposit on a package or class of packaging. We really don't even need to pass legislation. We merely have to have a Cabinet install such a system, which is good news if there was any will on the part of the government to take such action.

Can the minister, since she seems to have let the House of Assembly know it before, and the Committee know now, that somehow or other the deposit-return system is no longer in vogue or - I forget exactly how she put it, but it doesn't seem to be the - people aren't very happy with it. Can she tell me what governments across the country have gotten rid of their deposit-return systems for soft drink containers in the last couple of years?

MS. COWAN: None of them have, as far as I know, but some of them are now looking to involve the same type of education program as we are. Because they have realized that it hasn't addressed the litter problem as adequately as they had intended. That the beverage containers, yes, they make up a good amount of the litter stream, but there was all the rest of that litter left. So you will see a number of other provinces following in this way. Also, Nova Scotia, which doesn't have the deposit refund, is currently looking, and has announced this publicly, at the same program that we are putting in place here. Manitoba as well, and Ontario, and British Columbia.

MR. HARRIS: So there is nobody getting rid of their deposit-return system?

MS. COWAN: Not at this particular stage, no.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. In fact, New Brunswick just brought it's in in 1992.

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: In fact, New Brunswick just brought it's own in in 1992.

MS. COWAN: Yes, they are the most recent one.

MR. HARRIS: I suppose this may well be a rhetorical question, but then I won't refer to your own son. This mythical teenager, this mythical lazy teenager to whom ten cents means nothing, do you think this mythical lazy teenager to whom ten cents for an aluminium can means nothing is going to be affected by a waste program that tells him to pick up after himself?

MS. COWAN: I think it is a possibility, yes. Obviously, Mr. Harris, if I didn't think that I wouldn't be having the program introduced. I keep saying that if it doesn't work then we will have to use some other methodology. But it seems right now that the -

MR. HARRIS: How will we know if it works?

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: How will we know if it works? What is your measuring target?

MS. COWAN: The Canadian Soft Drink Association had a study done in the Province last year or so, so that they now have bench mark figures.

MR. HARRIS: Do you have it?

MS. COWAN: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: Do you have that study?

MS. COWAN: Yes. I've seen it. It is not a study for government.

MR. HARRIS: Can you give us a copy of it?

MS. COWAN: No. You can phone the Canadian Soft Drink Association and they may release it to you. It is not in my power to release.

MR. HARRIS: So you don't have the study, and that is how you are going to decide?

MS. COWAN: I have the study. They released it to me, but I can't release it to you.

MR. HARRIS: Why can't you give us a copy of it? If that is what you are going to use to decide whether or not it has been successful or not - surely it is not a secret study, is it?

MS. COWAN: Oh no. It is not a secret study.

MR. HARRIS: So why can't we have a -

MS. COWAN: I guess it isn't. I don't know what the Canadian Soft Drink -

MR. HARRIS: Why can't we have a copy of it?

MS. COWAN: Because I didn't initiate the study. It doesn't belong to me.

MR. HARRIS: Madam Minister, can you tell us in the Committee -

MS. COWAN: Actually, I should say in defence of my son Jeff that he is not lazy.

MR. HARRIS: I'm not talking about your son, I'm talking about -

MS. COWAN: No.

MR. HARRIS: - some mythical lazy teenager to whom ten cents means nothing. There aren't a lot of them around to whom ten cents means nothing. I'm sure that those who do feel that way - for each one who does there are probably lots of others who would quite eagerly go out and collect bottles or save them and bring them back to deposit at recycle centres in order to get the ten cents. There may be some who don't but I suspect - as I've seen in other provinces, and I say to the minister, I lived in Alberta for a number of years a long time ago, fifteen years ago, at that time Alberta had a deposit-return system for which you would get five cents for wine bottles, you would five cents for beer cans, there was no burden on the stores, the liquor stores or the convenience stores. There were separate recycling businesses or separate deposit refund centres.

People eagerly, on Saturday mornings brought their empties and they might even have used Sobey's bags to do it and keep some of them I suppose off the trees as well, so there are a lot of alternate ways of doing things and I have to say that I don't have a lot of assurance from the program that has been put forth, particularly where we have no information about what the targets are, what the baselines are, what method is going to be used to judge the success of this program, and I have to say that I and many others are greatly disappointed with that.

MS. COWAN: May I make a comment?

Mr. Harris, I will give you the name of the woman who is the President of the Canadian Soft Drink Association, if you would like to call her when she is in Newfoundland, I am sure she will be happy to sit down with you, in fact, I am sure she will be delighted to go through some of these questions which you have.

MR. HARRIS: Oh I am sure. I would like a copy of that study; I kind of know what she is going to say because I guess I have heard the minister saying most of what this person would probably say, but I wouldn't mind seeing that study because that seems to be what the minister is prepared to use to judge the success of the program and I think that that's of considerable public interest, and I would like the minister to get the permission if she feels it necessary, in order to release that document and to release that document to the House or to the committee. Is the minister prepared to seek the permission to do that if that's felt to be necessary?

MS. COWAN: Well I think it's the only thing to do you know, I would do the same thing for you if you had done a study for me or for anyone.

MR. HARRIS: No, but I want to know, is the minister prepared to seek that permission and make the study available?

MS. COWAN: Certainly, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Moving on to a couple of other issues; there are so many; unfortunately time might not allow all of them to be dealt with.

The situation at Come by Chance, and I know that the minister has had difficulties with that company and I also know that there are financial considerations involved. It seems however that the message of the government is that if you have financial difficulties that we would allow the environment and the neighbours to suffer. It has happened in Corner Brook, it's happening in the neighbourhood of Come by Chance refinery, and whether it be sulphur odors, whether it be air quality emissions, whether it be impounding basin problems or the process itself, there seems to be a fair degree of leniency on the part of government with respect to that oil refinery.

What I want to know is that since there are discussions going on to sell the refinery to a new owner, in fact, I think there may be some sort of a deal that's waiting to come down, what kind of confidence can the public have that this new owner or any potential owner of the Come by Chance refinery is going to be treated any differently, whether it appears that all a company of that kind has to do is plead financial problems with the government and get treated leniently; what kind of assurances do the public have that any potential buyer is also going to expect the same treatment from the government and what can you say to convince us otherwise?

MS. COWAN: Okay. Well first of all, we wouldn't have a company coming into the Province and setting up who had filed under the Bankruptcy Act. So obviously we can't forecast the viability of a business decision as to whether or not a company opens or whether they're viable. We have to simply sit down with them and work out a compliance agreement that launches them on the road to positive and environmental practices. We're not lenient with Come By Chance or anybody else. We expect to see constant improvement and we have goals to meet and so on.

When it comes to emissions for example, with Hydro we have by the Year 2000, I can't remember what it is but we have a deadline set for them in which they have to have their emissions reduced to a certain level. It's a very difficult problem in a Province such as ours but I assure you that through the compliance act the department does the best it can to ensure that any new company setting up in the Province will do so in a responsible manner. Now if it's a brand new company that's never been here before, obviously it goes through the Environmental Assessment Act process. In that way we can -

MR. HARRIS: We're talking about the Come By Chance refinery now.

MS. COWAN: Yes, okay -

MR. HARRIS: If I had the money to buy the refinery and I could go and buy it, I wouldn't have to go through an environmental assessment process?

MS. COWAN: Not you would have to have a compliance agreement with us which would set down your emission levels and all that kind of thing.

MR. HARRIS: In order for any new company to buy the refinery?

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And where is that found?

MS. COWAN: I don't know what you mean by where it's -

MR. HARRIS: Where is the authority for that?

MS. COWAN: Yes, like we know what the problems are out in Come By Chance so we sit down with any potential company or whatever, if it happens to be Come By Chance or anything else, and make sure that these problems are going to be met. I don't know what you mean other than that.

MR. HARRIS: Well let me give you an example then, a statement that you gave in the House in December of '93 in response to questions from the Member for St. John's East Extern, Jack Byrne, you indicated on page 7 of that, that you prevailed upon the management of NPL, Newfoundland Processing Limited, to make a number of essential modifications. Then you go on to say the improvements which are expected to be made within two to three months include one which it says: NPL will install separator covers. We should also reduce odors from volatile hydrocarbons, price quotes are currently being obtained. Is that one of the ones that you're now still writing them about or has that been done?

MS. COWAN: Yes, but I never said it would take place in three months time because I knew it never would and I have never made any bones about that. There are other things that I expected to take place in three months, the API separator cover was not one of them. It had to be engineered, designs had to be drawn up that were particular to that type of separator and once that was done there was still the process of ordering the materials, developing and installing them and so on. So I've known for quite awhile that the API separator would not be covered, have made no bones about it and speak to Mr. Mifflin every time I see him, about the necessity for continued action on that particular thing.

MR. HARRIS: This is just a quote from the minister: the improvements which are expected to be made within two to three months including this one on the list, so I -

MS. COWAN: I never trust a member of the Opposition with a piece of information unless I have it in my hands. Sorry, Jack, I know you are very trustworthy but you're also Opposition - but I tell you, if I said that I was wrong because I've made no bones from the beginning that the API separator wouldn't be covered.

MR. HARRIS: I would encourage the minister not to adopt the Premier's line of approach when dealing with questions like that because it's not - I quoted from the minister and the minister's written documents which you now have before you. I'm not going to belabour the point.

MS. COWAN: There's nothing in here on Come By Chance. Oh here we are, okay.

MR. HARRIS: I'm not going to belabour the point. The point is, that was one of the ones that you said was expected within two to three months. I just wanted to know whether that was one of the ones that had been complied with. The fact that you expected it didn't mean it was going to be complied with. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the expectations for companies, particularly involving this type of environmental compliance, and what actually happens are two different things. I wanted to know what assurances the public could have that it would be any different with a new operator? Why wouldn't any new operator expect to receive the same treatment from the government in terms of... I don't know if lackadaisical is the word, but certainly leniency by government in terms of compliance. Why would a new company not expect the same treatment as the current operators?

MS. COWAN: Because they have to have a compliance agreement with us before they begin operation of that particular plant, so they know what is expected of them. They have to have a certificate of approval, that is what it is called.

MR. HARRIS: I will ask an easy question now, I guess. In the estimates under Industrial Environmental Engineering, which I guess is what we are talking about here, pollution control, enforcement standards, et cetera, there is a new - this is page 85 of the Estimates - line item under vote 2.3.01 for Purchased Services in the amount of $163,600. The same budgeted item last year was $13,600 of which $10,000 was spent. There is an additional $150,000 there. Would the minister or one of the officials be able to advise what that is for?

MS. COWAN: What page is that, Jack?

MR. HARRIS: Page 85, line .06 under vote 2.3.01.

MS. COWAN: I might while we are just waiting to find the right place say that we have hired or will be hiring three extra people for that particular division, which I'm really pleased about, because we need them.

MR. HARRIS: That would be in line .01, yes.

MS. COWAN: I will just mention that while they are checking your particular question. Purchased Services?

MR. HARRIS: Yes.

MS. COWAN: Oh, okay, yes. That is funding for the demolition and removal of the Humber cold storage fish meal plant facilities. We will be looking to get that money back.

MR. HARRIS: What was it, Humber cold storage fish meal plant?

MS. COWAN: Humber cold storage fish meal plant.

MR. JEANS: Yes. That is the one over beyond Sunnyside. It is an old fish meal plant. So it is to clean up the dilapidated plant and garbage (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Who does the department expect to get the money back from?

MR. JEANS: From the estate.

MR. HARRIS: The estate of an individual?

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Could I interject here? I thought that the abandoned Humber fish meal plant was in Bay of Islands.

MS. COWAN: It is, yes.

MS. VERGE: Not Come By Chance?

MS. COWAN: Oh no. Summerside.

MS. VERGE: There is an abandoned Crosbie's plant there, but isn't the Humber plant in York Harbour on the other side of the Bay of Islands?

MR. JEANS: No, this is the Crosbie plant, this is the one we are talking about.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I thought you were talking about the Tom Dunphy one in York Harbour.

MR. JEANS: No.

MS. COWAN: We have a certain amount of money, Mr. Harris, set aside for these kinds of things every year. Some years we may have to spend it, other years we may not, but we have to have a certain amount budgeted for it.

MR. HARRIS: So it is under Purchased Services as a contracted operation? Is that the idea?

MS. COWAN: Yes.

MR. JEANS: Yes, that is correct.

MR. HARRIS: You call for tenders?

MR. JEANS: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Is this the Andrew Crosbie estate you are talking about?

MR. JEANS: No, it is not that Crosbie. It was originally owned by Crosbies but there was a change of ownership. I cannot tell you off the top of my head who owns the estate now.

MR. HARRIS: But you believe there is some estate that can repay the money?

MR. JEANS: Yes, that is the owner of the property.

MR. HARRIS: I am interested very much in some of the concerns that were raised by Dr. Hulan a little earlier about forest lands. Some of them are under private ownership. Quite a lot of the forest lands, I suppose not the majority of them, but a lot of forest lands are Crown lands and perhaps the minister or Ms Wakeham could answer: does the Department of Environment and Lands have any say or anything to do with the Crown lands that are used for forest purposes and for logging, woodcutting, or whatever? Does the Department of Environment and Lands have any involvement in that process of using Crown lands for forestry use, woodcutting, logging, etc?

MS. WAKEHAM: The actual timber rights are administered by the Department of Forestry with respect to trees on the lands. The surface rights are administered by the lands branch itself. With respect to the forest plans, the management plans for the productive units, the actual distributional plans in terms of allowable cuts sustainable to development, those things are actually viewed by the environmental assessment division.

I do not know if that gives you the answer that you want.

MR. HARRIS: This is the five year plans of the cuts and whatnot.

MS. WAKEHAM: The operating plans themselves, the management plans for the productive units, but with respect to the timber rights, the actual administration of the timber rights are the responsibility of the Department of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. HARRIS: There is a great deal of unease amongst the people who are concerned about the environment across the country. We have seen it in British Columbia and obviously it has received more publicity than anything else because we are talking about logging old growth forests and the competition in British Columbia from foresters, and the very strong environmental movement there also makes it very obvious, and they seem to have a process of resolving some of these problems.

The unease that we see here from stories about -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, it is now 10 o'clock so if we are going to continue on it will be provisional, I would assume if you could clue up your questioning in a reasonable period of time, say in another five to ten minutes, if not the committee will now rise and move to sit another day. Do you think you could clue up, but by leave of the committee, of course?

MR. HARRIS: No, I do not think I could actually.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You do not think you can? In that case it now being 10 o'clock the committee will now adjourn and sit another day.

Thank you, Minister. We will have to arrange another meeting to conclude the estimates at which time you will receive due notification.