The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the 5th Floor Committee Room, Confederation Building.

CLERK (Noel): Order, please!

This being the first meeting of the Social Services Committee, before the meeting can proceed we must elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair. I am looking for a motion for the election of Chair of the Committee.

On motion of Ms Hodder, seconded by Mr. Parsons, Mr. Mercer was elected Chair of the Committee.

CHAIR (Mercer): Thank you kindly, Sir.

Just before we get started, the second order of business is to nominate and appoint a Vice-Chair. I call for nominations for Vice-Chair of the Social Services Committee.

On motion of Mr. Hedderson, seconded by Ms Jones, Mr. Osborne was elected Vice-Chair.

CHAIR: Congratulations, Tom. Unless we want to take a vote, I am sure the vote would be a foregone conclusion.

As the Clerk has indicated, this is the first meeting of the Social Services Committee. Most of the members are new. Tom and Mary have been through these committee hearings before.

Just to give a brief introduction of how we will proceed, we will first call upon the minister to make a short presentation and, Minister, we try to keep that within fifteen minutes. Some ministers say they do not plan to use fifteen and then proceed to take thirty, but we try to keep it within fifteen minutes or so.

Following that, we will then proceed with questioning. It has been my practice for the Vice-Chair to lead off with the questioning and then we alternate between each side, if that is our preference, and we continue until all the questions have been duly asked or until we, by consent, decide that all the questions have been asked.

With that brief introduction I would ask that the Clerk, in a moment, call the first head. Again, I will just ask for clarification for the members of the Committee, there are two ways to proceed. One is to call each individual head and discuss each separately and take a vote; or, as has been the practice many times, to call the first head and then discuss the entire Estimates around that one head.

Once the Clerk has called the first head, questions will flow until... I think that probably is the better way to handle it. I see the Vice-Chair nodding his consent, so that will be the way we will proceed.

Before we call the first head I would just like to introduce, for the purpose of the record, the members of the Committee. They are, starting from my left: Mr. Kelvin Parsons from Burgeo & LaPoile - the grand and historic district of; Yvonne Jones from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; Mary Hodder from the grand District of Burin-Placentia West, not to forget the west side; Tom Hedderson from out in my original neck of the country, representing Harbour Main-Whitbourne; and, of course, the venerable Tom Osborne, representing St. John's South.

I would ask, when questions are being asked, that we identify ourselves. I think the recorder would greatly appreciate that. For most of the members of the House, he would probably recognize us by sight; but, Mr. Langdon, for yourself and particularly for the members of your delegation, if you could identify yourself before you speak into the microphone.

That being said, I think that covers all the necessary upfront preambles.

Mr. Langdon, you are on.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Bob.

I want to introduce my staff with me. To my far left is Joe O'Neill, Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for occupational health and safety within the division; to my immediate left is Ken Dominie, Assistant Deputy Minister for Environment; right here is Gerry Crocker, Director of Finance and Operations for the department; and to my far right is Rachelle Cochrane, Executive Director of Labour for the department.

My deputy is not here tonight. She is in Toronto working with the Voisey's Bay report, with the Innu and Inuit people and the feds, so that is where Ann Marie is. She would like to be here, but... Ken was also there, so we have Ken. I cannot say he is her better half but we have Ken, who knows the Environment side inside out and then some. He has been with the department for a long time.

I will not take up too much of your time. I will leave it for the people who are here to do the questioning and so on. The department is made up of four parts: the Environment, Labour, and Occupational Health and Safety, who are also the government agency for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

Just for a couple of minutes I would like to be able to highlight some of the things that we did in the environment side of the department, and from time to time I will ask the officials to fill in.

Probably one of the biggest things we did from the environment point of view this year was to get a new agreement with the Come By Chance Oil Refinery. There is a new certificate of operation with them. Before we started, really, we went to the community of Come By Chance and met with all of the people in the area. After we had done that, we went back to them and basically said: This is what we have been able to come to so far between ourselves and the refinery. What do you think of it?

I guess it was probably an eye-opener for all of us, Ken. You were there, and Ann Marie and other officials, at the time. They looked at it and said: Yes, but there is more that you can do.

They gave us a number of pointers, really, in a sense. They had a number of questions. One of the questions they asked of us was this: Do you have the expertise within the department to sit across from the table with the Come By Chance people and be able to talk on their level? Basically, I thought we did; but to satisfy the people who were in the area - and it is legitimate because these people live there, it is their area - we seconded a person from Ontario to come to the department and work with our people. He did a thorough analysis and basically before he left he gave us a vote of confidence.

Also, the people in the area know one of the people we have here - Frank O'Dea, who is just tremendous with liaison people (inaudible) and also knows a lot about the refinery business, so that was great.

The other thing they asked us to do was basically: How do you know what the finances of the company are? What we were able to do was, we said to the company: You give us, I think it was $50,000 - I am not sure if that was the exact amount but it was in that range - and what we would then do is go out and get some reputable international auditors who would audit the whole company. That is basically what they did.

They came back to us and said, well, number one, the company has not made any money. If it had not been for the parent company then the bills would not have been paid; but they did see where the company in Come By Chance was improving, and saw that down the road they might be able to make a profit probably by the year 2004 or 2005.

We were also able to wrestle a number of things from the company. For example, of all of the other things that they are doing, they have committed to $70 million between now and the year 2004 to improve the environmental aspects of the company. We were able to, with new legislation - and that was in the House not too long ago - where we increased the penalties from $25,000 to $1 million, which was significant, just a tremendous amount of monitoring that was not done before.

We just monitored SO₂. Then we are into the process of monitoring medium and fine particulate, and a lot has gone into that. We worked with the Department of Health. We worked with Dr. Kathy Donovan, who is in the CBS area, and with Dr. Cleary and so on in the region, so we did a number of things there.

Basically, I think, at the end of the day, one of the things that the company is doing - and we are monitoring that - is they are bringing in a different crude oil. As you know, it is a heavy oil refinery, it does not burn a lot of light crude, but they are doing a mixture for the summer so that the air quality in the summer can be much improved for the people in the region.

We are monitoring it and we are hoping that there is going to be an appreciable difference in the area this year. It took us a long time to do that, but we conversed with the people and I think at the end of the day it is not an end in itself but it was just a beginning. We want to be able to build on that. I guess the jury is out and we will have to work with the people to make sure that what the company says in the certificate of operation will happen.

The other thing that took a fair bit of time was the environmental assessment of the Southern Labrador highway. We worked with the Aboriginal groups and so on in there. We have an agreement but the Quebec Innu, a side issue, challenged the legality of it, but we have never recognized these people to have any claim in Labrador. So we have rejected that outright, so they will have to deal with the feds. We are hoping that it will not become an issue.

The other big thing is the Voisey's Bay environmental panel. As I said earlier in the introduction, that is where Ann Marie is. It has been a major accomplishment. It is the first time that there has been a four party Memorandum of Understanding in Canada, where we have had the feds and the Province along with the two Aboriginal groups that have made up of the committee - the Innu and Inuit. As we speak, then these people are assessing the panel in Montreal. We have been able to do that.

Also, from the Environment side, we were able to do the beginning of the cleanup at Northwest Point and in Hopedale. In the budget this year we were able to get extra money to further the work in Northwest Point and Hopedale, two areas in Stephenville, one in Baie Verte and one in St. Anthony. In Baie Verte and St. Anthony they have PCB sites, so we want to clean them up.

We are also planning a new environmental assessment act that will probably come to the Legislature this fall. We are also doing a complete revision of our environment protection act. We will put that out for public scrutiny sometime in early fall. One of the things we will deal with in that act - of course there are many other things - is waste management. In a little province like ours we have 240 landfill sites. In New Brunswick there are 30. There are a lot of things here - not in my backyard, so to speak - but nevertheless we want to work and deal with that, and I think in the long run the people are more willing and able to find a decent site than everybody having their own. It is an environmental problem and we recognize that.

The other area where we have been working is West Hope Brook. Now that the company has gone into receivership - and Ken can speak on that later on - we are even working with the receiver, PricewaterhouseCoopers. We have a law firm in Ontario, I think it is Miller Thompson, and they are working on our behalf. We are hoping that at the end of the day when the spoils are divvied up we will at least find some of the money that is needed to clean up the site. There is a care and maintenance program on-site now that is expensive. I think it is around $800,000 a year to maintain that care and maintenance program that is there.

I will finish with the Environment. There are other issues but I won't go into them more now.

Under Labour, we addressed the minimum wage change. We assisted only recently with the Terra Nova agreement. There were some problems with the Terra Nova agreement. I called the employer and the unions and got one of our meditators with them and basically stayed in the room until they got an agreement. I think that is a real plus. Obviously the employer and the council of unions which were there wanted to be able to work without any friction because in the long run we wanted to build an industry, and we can do that only if there is peace in the labour front. So again, the mediators within the department do a great job with that and that is very much appreciated.

Our settlement rates were up about 90 per cent. We were not able to mediate the one with the nurses' union, but many of them we have. As I said, only recently we did one with IOC and we did one with the loggers union. Many of the NAPE settlements - thirty or more, I guess - we were involved with and were able to find a collective agreement in practically all of them. That is very much appreciated.

Also, one other thing is this. When you look at the way we do things in the twentieth century we look for commonalities. We do not look for, I guess, where we have loggerheads or foes, it is us against them. That is why we had a seminar recently in Corner Brook called interest space negotiations. We had over forty people show up for that, and we are hoping that it will pay dividends in the long run.

On the Occupational Health and Safety side, last year Joe O'Neill was signed full-time to Occupational Health and Safety to really revamp the whole division. Joe has worked at that and has done a lot of work, especially, as you know, with the merger of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, where we transferred the education component to them. There is a lot of work to be done from that point.

Joe is now responsible for the enforcement, policy and inspections, and that is where we have really made gains. We have hired five new inspectors - and Joe can comment on that a little later - and an hygienist with the department. We did an extensive training in each one of the things Joe did. He got all the inspectors together in Grand Falls and I went with him. He sat down with the inspectors and basically said: Tell me one of the things that we need to do here to improve, within the Department of Occupational Health and Safety, because safety is everybody's business, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Joe has had a tremendous career with the labour side and being able to bring people together and negotiate and so on. He needed all the expertise that he could and be able to work with here but he has done a great job, and I am sure there will be some questions to him later on.

One of the other things that is very near completion now is the diving regulations. We have worked with Memorial University and Dr. Ken Ledez on that, and we have worked with the aquaculture industry and stuff, so that is getting pretty much done. As I said, we have put a greater emphasis on health and safety within the workplace.

In the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission we, of course, introduced the statutory review reports last spring in the House where we expanded the board and set up a number of sub-committees. One was on deeming, and I think the committee has done a lot of work and we are beginning to see some changes.

I think one of the changes at the Commission - and I get reports from Joe all the time, because Joe is the representative from the department that sits with the Commission - is that the stakeholders more so than ever are being involved. You have the employer, you have the Federation of Labour, you have the Injured Workers' Association, the (inaudible) and so on. The people who are stakeholders in the Commission are having more, in a sense, of an advisory role in that. Basically with that it has become more of an open process.

I think with that in place you are not going to be able to have a situation where it going to be 100 per cent perfect. I think one of the things we asked about the Commission was we know they have to be financially prudent, but they have to put on a human face. That is one of the things that we have directed toward that and I am sure there is still room for improvement. They will never reach a utopian situation. Basically we work with what we have and improve from day to day. I think that is the whole idea with that.

I could go on more but I will not, because I think it is fairer to have the people from the Committee ask of us some of things. Anyhow, that is where we are, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister Langdon.

With that I will ask the Clerk to call the first head.

CLERK: Sub-head 1.l.01 of the Environment and Labour Head of Expenditure.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Thomas? Well, the senior Thomas in terms of parliamentary experience, yes.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have just a couple of brief questions before I get into the Estimates.

On Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, the deeming, what changes are going to come about? I guess Joe will probably answer that so I will direct my question to Joe. What changes are going to come about in the deeming process? As you have probably heard through the consultations that were done about the Workers Compensation Act, probably the biggest gripe most of the injured workers have is with the deeming process.

MR. O'NEILL: Coming out of the statutory review last year, of course, the minister ordered the appointment of a sub-committee of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission just specifically to examine how the deeming process was being applied, and to make recommendations with respect to the future of the deeming process at the Commission. That committee was struck, it is set up, and it has being doing a tremendous amount of analysis, research, looking at previous files of how deeming has been applied, and also looking at deeming in other parts of the country.

That committee will have to report to the minister at the end of this year on their findings and recommendations in terms of the future applications of the deeming process. The committee is up and running and doing a fair bit of work (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: What positive changes can we see within the Commission regarding the deeming?

MR. O'NEILL: I guess it is too early to tell right now because the committee is in the process of looking at a whole host of things, things like how people are deemed, the types of jobs they are deemed for when they are deemed to go back to work, whether or not there is an availability of that job for example in the Province, and the location of the deemed position in the Province. As you know, we heard many examples of people, for example, living in St. John's and being deemed for a position in Goose Bay or vice versa, and being deemed for positions in areas of the Province where there wasn't even in fact a position.

All of these sorts of issues are going to be looked at by that committee and recommendations will be made as to how they can be addressed. There is a whole host of things there. I think one of the other issues too that they will probably be looking at - and I think while it was not legislated in the amendments to coming out of statutory review - is this. There is an onus and a greater appreciation - and as the minister has said, the Commission is working more closely with the stakeholders - to look at the duty to accommodate our employers.

Basically, the best resolution with injured workers is if you can accommodate that injured worker back into the pre-injury employment. I suspect that will be a big issue for them as well. They have a mandate to report by the end of this year on their findings and recommendations.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The second question I had was on air quality - and I will direct that, I guess, to Ken - and more specifically, I guess, with the Come By Chance Refinery.

I am aware of the agreement struck between the government and the refinery. We have seen previous agreements with the refinery where the refinery had gone beyond their allowable emissions. What is put in place? Are there any penalties put in place now within that agreement? What is put in place to ensure that the refinery will stay within the standards that are put forward within the new agreement?

MR. DOMINIE: In the past there were two agreements. One was called a compliance agreement. When the company was bought by Vitol back in 1994, it was recognized that there were a lot of deficiencies at the refinery so there was a compliance initiative developed between government and the company at the time. There was also a certificate of approval of their operating conditions.

We have taken that now and rolled it all into one document which has the force of the environment act behind it. So if they do not comply with a term or condition and the minister or the department feels that it is significant enough, we can challenge it legally. So this is a legal document now.

As the minister mentioned earlier, legislation will be forthcoming to increase penalties. I think that will send a message to companies now that the government and the department is serious about violations. The certificate of approval now has the force of law behind it, and these conditions are outlined in that certificate of approval; I guess, depending on the nature of the infraction, how much you want to challenge it legally.

What we have done - and a condition of the approval, to make sure there is no slippage - there is a condition in there that there will be regularly scheduled quarterly meetings to make sure everyone stays on track. The first meeting now is scheduled for early June. The certificate was signed, I think, March 8 or 9. Now, in the first week of June, we will make sure they are on track. We are really staying on top of it.

I might add, too, as of last week, that Frank O'Dea - who the minister mentioned - was out there and there is noticeable improvement, right now at least, and we hope that keeps up.

The emissions of sulphur dioxide right now are about 40 per cent of what they were last year at this time.

MR. T. OSBORNE: What about the heavy metals content?

MR. DOMINIE: That is a part of the monitoring program. We have asked the company - or directed them, not asked - in the certificate of approval, to do two types of monitoring. One is to monitor what actually comes out of the stacks at the refinery. There are three stacks being monitored. Also, we have increased the monitoring in the communities, added one new station, and added a variety of other things that will be monitored in the communities.

The minister mentioned particulate matter, which is one of the bigger health concerns nowadays. Before, we were only monitoring for sulphur dioxide and now it is particulate matter. This particulate matter will be analyzed not only for how much is there, but what is contained in it. There will be a metal scan done on the particulate matter itself.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know the refinery in the past was responsible for their own monitoring which, I guess, raises questions when they are their own gatekeeper, so to speak. Has there been anything within the new agreement, or what measures are going to be taken to ensure that, over and above them doing the monitoring, the people of the area, and I guess the people of the Province, have some assurances that their monitoring is not only accurate but done in a timely fashion?

MR. DOMINIE: The stack sampling will be done by independent contractors. They are very specialized people. The company just does not have the people to do that. They bring them in about three times a year to do that piece of work. That is on the stack side.

On the (inaudible) monitoring of communities, you are correct, the company is doing their own monitoring. We establish the protocols. We tell a company how it must be done, right upfront: This is the type of equipment you have, this is how it has to be calibrated, and this is how it has to work.

We have a staff person assigned to that. He goes out to make sure - he is an auditor of sorts - that the equipment is run in the fashion that it is supposed to be run. That is his full-time job. He does that auditing function, and not only at Come By Chance but other air monitors throughout the Province.

I might add, he is a very keen individual. Jeff Dawe is his name. Since he has been on staff, about a year, he has been able to convince the federal government to establish more air monitoring stations in the Province. So we are really seeing an increase of monitoring, not necessarily in Come By Chance but other areas of the Province as well.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Another question for Ken Dominie on water quality. I asked questions, actually, of the minister recently in the House on not only the Gander River but on St. Alban's. I guess, in the best interest of the aquaculture industry, we have not made a huge issue of it because of the sensitive nature of the aquaculture industry. What measures are the Department of Environment, or government specifically, going to take in regard to the problem out there, to ensure that the safety of the aquaculture industry is safeguarded?

MR. LANGDON: I will answer the first part, on the Gander River situation. I did not know, on the day when you asked me the question, toward the end of the Question Period, that the towns have now secured funding to put the Glenwood Sewage Treatment facility back into operation. They have hired - Glenwood, and I think Appleton, too, and I get this from the Member for Gander - a guy who worked as an engineer on the West Coast. He has been working with the towns because he has settled in that area.

With the money that has been given to the towns, they think they can make the two sewage treatments operational for the next two or three years, and in that time give us an opportunity to be able to put in new facilities. I think it would cost somewhere around $3.7 million or $3.8 million to put in the two new facilities.

The immediate concern is addressed, where we know sewage would be going into the Gander River, and hopefully in the two-year period we will have some long-term.

In the St. Alban's one, basically, we had Tom Kendall from H.T. Kendall & Associates Ltd. do a report for us in St. Alban's. Dr. Jerome Power, afterwards, the mayor, basically said I think it was $700,000 to repair the old system. That figure is not correct. We have to put a new facility in St. Alban's. You are looking at approximately $2 million to build a new sewage treatment plant. On a 50/50 basis, it would cost the town $1 million and the government $1 million to put that into operation, but there has been no decision made unto the actual percentage of funding for that. That will be depending on, shall we say, the infrastructure funding for this year. We are working with the town on that and we recognize the delicacy of the situation in the Bay d'Espoir region.

As you know, on the other side of the bay you have two municipalities. One is the (inaudible) the bay. They are not a big municipality. There are around 1,000 people. Then, on the other side of Conne River, you have an even smaller community of about 200 people. They need a sewage treatment plant as well, if you want to fully do the bay area. These are areas that are of priority to address.

I guess, if we were to look at all of the Province as such, you would need hundreds of millions of dollars to be able to put a sewage treatment plant into every community. Even if they were installed, the communities themselves would find it very difficult to able to manage it. Therefore, in that sense, I do not think that in the foreseeable future you will see a sewage treatment plant in every community.

These are delicate issues that you talk about. We have been able to address the Gander one now. Hopefully, when the infrastructure money or capital works money is done, we can work with the Bay d'Espoir region.

Do you want to add more to that?

MR. DOMINIE: Mr. Osborne, you strike on a very important subject actually. As the minister mentioned, to supply sewage treatment facilities in every community in the Province would cost hundreds of millions. The figure that we have estimated is about $3 billion dollars just for the plants themselves. That is not to get everything to one central location - the piping and the pumps that we require together - $3 billion for the plants themselves.

Government, about a year ago - better than a year - recognized this problem more so, I think, in the rural areas of the Province, and what stress that may be putting on the municipalities. Two million dollars or $5 million for Glenwood and Appleton, as you can appreciate, are very significant dollars.

We have worked through Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I and one of my staff have been part of a group, along with the Department of Health and the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, to look at what technologies or what processes might be available to the Province, particularly in the rural areas, to protect areas like aquaculture or recreation or whatever uses you might want to put to the environmental - marine and freshwater environments.

We worked for about a year now and there is a report being completed at the moment. The technical committee is finished with its work and it is obviously being considered at the moment. That may give the Province some direction as to how we might provide services to people in the rural areas who need them desperately and, at the same time, something they can afford and provide the level of environmental protection that we need; but $3 billion is the figure we have been working with, about what it would take.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Just on that subject, before I move to the next question, while we would like to see facilities put in every area of the Province, and statistically we are probably the worst Province, in regard to putting raw sewage into our environment, than any other province in Canada, those two areas - and there are others in the Province as well but they are sensitive areas, I guess, because of the nature with St. Alban's, for example, of the aquaculture industry and trying to develop an industry throughout the world, it would make it much harder to sell it if it were made aware to some of the buyers the type of situation that is out there.

On another question, again to Ken Dominie, while I realize it is a federal issue, it very much affects our environment, our coastal environment, our fishery, our bird populations and so on, and that is the pumping of bilges by foreign ships travelling through our waters.

I was rather disappointed last week to see that one of the violators that were caught, and charged successfully, were fined $35,000. To a large shipping company, that is a slap on the wrist. It is certainly not a deterrent to pumping their bilges, when you take into account the cost of bilge pumping at port, and when you look at the fact that the federal government are doing a deplorable job of monitoring our coastal waters for violators - people pumping bilges, not to mention overfishing and so on.

What does the Province intend to do with the federal government, the federal Department of Environment, the Coast Guard, through the Department of Fisheries, to step up the fines, to step up surveillance, to ensure that this type of activity is decreased or eliminated?

MR. DOMINIE: I agree, that again is very important. I think particularly most of the shipping that passes by the Province, or a significant portion of it anyway, goes on the South Coast of the Province and we have a couple of bird sanctuaries down there, Cape St. Mary's and off the Bay Bulls area.

Again, I have been working with the federal government, through the Coast Guard, this past year. It is a project called Prevention of Oily Waterfowl; POW, I think, is the word they used. That is a group - mostly federal people - that has been put together to look at this problem. We have some very concerned people in the Coast Guard. They have been working and they have come up with an interim report with some recommendations. We were invited, as a Province, to be part of that group and to obviously keep our interests known. The minister has written the federal Minister of Fisheries on a couple of occasions, expressing concern that this is federal responsibility - indeed it will potentially have a big impact on the Province - and made our views known that whatever needs to be done must be done.

I guess while the fine you mentioned, $35,000, is relatively small, there is some encouragement. There have been at least two convictions in the past two years. Up until the past two years there was nothing ever done about this.

They have aircraft dedicated now to oil pollution surveillance, they have fisheries surveillance, and a number of hours - I don't know the number of hours, Mr. Osborne - dedicated flying hours, that are dedicated to the pollution side of it. They have more time for fisheries observers, but the fisheries observers themselves are trained to look for this stuff as well. I think, in total, there are over a couple of thousand hours of flying time available now. I think, of that, about 400 or so hours - please don't quote me on the numbers - are dedicated strictly to environmental surveillance and the rest is fishery surveillance with an environmental component to it.

They have stepped up that part in the past few years but I think a lot more needs to be done, no doubt about that. It has certainly raised the profile and I think it has been raised on the national level in Ottawa. The local people here in St. John's have been reporting back to their bosses in Ottawa with this problem, and it certainly has received some attention.

To change international rules certainly is a challenge because Canada signs on to all kinds of international protocols or whatever for this type of stuff, and to get the equipment that is required on vessels to handle the stuff and then to sort of have the proper surveillance program in place. It is starting to come around a little bit, but you can appreciate the damage that would be caused if there was a major oil spill in the area of Cape St. Mary's. I think, as a Province, we are certainly on record of going to the federal government and expressing our concerns, and when this group was formed we were invited to participate on a regular basis.

MR. T. OSBORNE: As you know - I guess I don't have to tell you - statistics show one litre of oil pollutes a million litres of water, so it does not take much. Like I say, $35,000 is certainly not a deterrent.

One of the recommendations that I had made - when it was discovered that this particular ship actually had pumped its bilges off our coast - was that, once fined and convicted, they should have to report to authorities upon entering our waters. I feel that if they were made to do that - a convicted party or a convicted shipping line - it would probably prevent them from pumping their bilges off our coast in the future.

MR. LANGDON: Could you give me that suggestion again and I can... I am sorry, what was your suggestion? If someone is convicted -

MR. T. OSBORNE: That a guilty party, a ship and ship's captain, once convicted - such as this particular ship now - should have to report to federal authorities upon entering our water and chart their destination and the course that they are going to be taking while in our waters.

MR. LANGDON: I will commit to that, to making a note and write in support. What you should do is give me a copy of the letter that you wrote and then we will be able to all write and quote it, (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will send that over (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: No problem.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have a final question before getting into the Estimates, on Newfoundland Hardwoods. In the Auditor General's report last year there were a number of concerns. Some of those were about the crystallization of the oil products within the tanks. What has been done to date now to rectify that problem?

MR. DOMINIE: I will have to check that one, Mr. Osborne. The Department of Industry, Trade and Technology is responsible for that site. We have been in correspondence with them and agreed upon a plan of action we would take. I will have to check to see where it is and if any of the staff is aware of what progress is made. I am not personally aware of it. I will have to make a note of that and we will get back to you.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I guess I should ask one other question. I will move into Estimates then.

The Irving tank farm, a couple of years ago when they had their spill, I believe it was in excess of 100,000 litres at the time. It was the largest spill they had. Again, one of the recommendations I made at that particular time was that while the Department of Environment have the right to request an inspection of the facility, there is nothing within legislation, there is no set structure, where every second year or every year a site inspection would have to be done.

Is the department going to move towards putting in regulations where there would be regular inspections of oil containment facilities to prevent such an occurrence in the future? If that site were inspected even a year prior to that occurrence - actually, there were a couple of occurrences that particular year. One of them was due to old pipes that had ruptured. If there were inspections done of the site prior to that perhaps that one could have been avoided.

MR. DOMINIE: My recollection of the regulations is that we do have that authority. As a matter of fact, around the time of that oil spill we did - because of the concern expressed by some people at the age of the facility - ask the company, Irving Oil at the time, to do a complete pressure testing of the system and inspection. I forget which section of the regulations now, but certainly we asked them to do that and they did do that, a full pressure test of the facility right from the St. John's Harbour up to the tanks. That was done and we do have the (inaudible) to do that in the regulations right now.

With regards to conducting regular inspections, I don't know if it would be covered in the same section or not, but certainly we had the ability to -

MR. T. OSBORNE: According to the regulations right now, the pressure testing and inspection of these facilities are at the discretion of the minister, or at least they were at that particular time. I cannot recall anything going through the House to update the legislation. I don't think there has been. Pressure testing would be at the discretion of the minister. There should be regularly scheduled pressure testing of oil containment facilities, especially now that we are getting into a new industry, with Whiffen Head and so on. Not in the immediate future certainly, because of equipment breakdown, but certainly in years to come the potential of a major environmental disaster is there.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, we will have a look at that.

MR. DOMINIE: As the minister indicated, our legislation is being reviewed totally for a new legislative package to be brought forward, and (inaudible) can certainly look at it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Now, into the Estimates. I do not have a whole lot of questions on Estimates, actually, so I will be very brief.

Under Section 1.1.01, Minister's Office, the 1998-1999 budget for Salaries was $211,800, and there was an increase there to $256,800. Was there new staff hired on or was that an increase in individual salaries?

MR. CROCKER: There was some severance pay paid out, approximately $29,000. Also, there are some changes in staff that would account for some of it also. If a replacement came in, it would probably be at a different level, a different (inaudible) level, which would cause an increase in salary allocation also.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I will direct this to Gerry again. In Section 1.2.01, Executive Support, in 1998-1999 the budgeted amount was $346,500. While it is not a significant increase, it went to $352,300, but for the 1999-2000 Estimates it is $391,900.

MR. CROCKER: Most of that change would be the recent appointment of the Executive Director of Labour. It was during the last few months of the 1998-1999 fiscal year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Welcome aboard.

MR. CROCKER: There are other adjustments of course to (inaudible). Every year there are a lot of changes to the salary allocations. In 1998-1999, there were twenty-seven pay periods, so right off the bat we had to back off the additional pay period for 1999-2000. Plus then you have your 2 per cent increase, you have annualization steps, or step increases. That would account for most of it, the additional positions.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay. In Employee Benefits I notice that the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 benefits are the same at $1,200, yet the amount spent was $6,200. Why would the extra $5,000 be there?

MR. CROCKER: Under Employee Benefits, that would cover the cost of seminars and conferences. I guess we could have reallocated some of the operating dollars to cover in the following year, but if we go back to the base amount - because we do not really know how many conferences and seminars may be in 1999-2000. There may not be as many attended, so we go back to the base amount of $1,200.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So seminars and conferences would come under Employee Benefits?

MR. CROCKER: Yes, that's right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Transportation and Communications, the amount spent was almost double that budgeted.

MR. CROCKER: The Executive Support, of course there is a lot of pressure to get involved in a number of different national-international committees on a number of different areas in regard to environment, occupational health and safety and labour also. We have tried to take some action. In the new year we have added an additional $20,000 but - well, I guess we can only wait to see what happens there. There is quite a bit of travel involved in order to attend the number of conferences and that involved here.

MR. LANGDON: That is not me, that is people within the department, right?

MR. CROCKER: Executive Support.

MR. LANGDON: Yes.

WITNESS: That is us.

MR. T. OSBORNE: You are afraid of developing a reputation like Chuck.

MR. LANGDON: No, I don't think that is going to happen.

WITNESS: Who's Chuck?

WITNESS: He's in Texas (inaudible).

WITNESS: No, I said who is he, not where, although yours may be a more appropriate question.

MR. CROCKER: If I could make a comment too, in regard to the environment side of the executive. It is not so much in conferences, because there are very (inaudible)conferences. Even recently there was one on climate change, that being a major environmental issue in Canada and worldwide. This required participation of the Province in to sort of straightening out how the Province is going to react to that issue. There are several major ones like that.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has a number of good initiatives on the go linked to air quality and trying to figure out what air quality standards should be for the country. There was a very significant push in the last twelve months, when there was an agreement signed by all the ministers in Canada to develop some consistent approach to air quality across the country. This has required a lot of participation in these types of events. I have never seen such an explosion of stuff. We are not participating probably in all that we should be because of the resources, but certainly there is a lot of pressure on us. You can imagine what climate changes (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Revenue-Provincial for Executive Support, one, I guess we should not be complaining that it is more than double the budgeted amount for last year and the budgeted amount for this year. What would cause the increase in revenues?

MR. CROCKER: During the budget process we reviewed the amount that was being claimed back from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. A portion of the executive salaries, there is a portion of administrative support, and also the cost of the Occupational Health and Safety program is being recovered right now. We were only recovering a portion of the ADM salary, a portion of the secretary's salary and some of the travel, but when we had a look at it we said: Maybe we should recover a portion also of the Deputy Minister's salary, her secretary, and of her travel also. So the amount, like you say, has gone up an additional $60,000-odd.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 1.2.02.01, Administrative Support, in the budgeted and spent amount for last year there was about a $50,000 drop. Was that due to somebody being let go? I would not assume a decrease in salaries.

MR. CROCKER: No. Actually, under the Administrative Support area there are only two permanent positions and the rest is an allocation for additional temporary support as required during the year. I guess any division can sort of access that, based on the salary plan for the department. Actually, there was one permanent position. One person did leave during the year and that has not been filled, so that did result in some savings.

The other amount, based on the salary plan, wasn't needed in other areas to order to balance off the budget, so the temporary dollars were not spent under Administrative Support.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under Revenue-Provincial, there is a $32,000 decline in the amount that was anticipated and the actual amount. Yet, this year's Estimates show the same amount that you expected last year.

MR. CROCKER: The amount there to be recovered is to do with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission occupational health and safety claim again. I guess the reason is the timing of the claim. We are budgeted on a fiscal year where the claims are done on a calendar year. You get some timing differences there. You are not going to recover the exact amount every year. It depends on when the expenditure is made. So even though we use the same amounts from one year to the next, it may be a different amount of expenditure in each quarter. There are four quarterly claims, and depending on when the expenditure is made during the year, that affects the total amount you receive in one given fiscal year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Under 2.1.01.05, Pollution Prevention, Professional Services, I guess there is great hope for optimism under this year's budget, which is at $820,000. Nobody likes to see less money being spent on pollution prevention. Why was there only half as much spent as budgeted last year?

MR. DOMINIE: That $200,000 was allocated last year to do some work on investigating some problems, as the minister mentioned, in North West Point and Hopedale in Labrador, former military bases. We had allocated $200,000 for a consultant to go in and identify the problems. That consultant's contract was worth roughly $100,000.

We had hoped last year to perhaps undertake some of the actual clean up work itself, but the winter came on us fairly quickly, as you know, in Labrador, and we never got around to doing the physical cleanup last year. What we are doing this year, in the $820,000, is a continuation of that work and perhaps do some cleanup, depending on how far we get this year. It was dedicated to one or two projects that we did not get to the clean up phase.

MR. T. OSBORNE: That is on the air force base itself?

MR. DOMINIE: They were former military bases, part of the old DEW Line site in Labrador, and they were all closed out in the mid-1980s. These sites were cleaned up right away in the mid-1980s but there were some residual problems (inaudible). We went back and reinvestigated. Last year we allocated some money for the consultant to do that for us.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I have to ask this. What is the provincial government, or I guess even the federal government, doing to recover some of the costs of the cleanups on the former American sites from the Americans?

MR. DOMINIE: The approach we have taken is that it is the federal government's responsibility to clean up these sites and whatever moves they want to make with the Americans, that is up to the federal government. If they want to pay the bill themselves, that's fine. They have gone to the Americans, I understand. I cannot speak for the federal government. In the case of Argentia and Goose Bay they went to the Americans, put their case on the table, and there has been some compensation, I understand, coming from the American government to the federal government for those two sites at least.

We have, as you know, a similar question in Stephenville. The approach we have taken is that it should be the federal government's responsibility to clean up the site in Stephenville or compensate the Province for any work we might do. If they want to go forward to the Americans for compensation, then I guess that is their business, country to country. We cannot negotiate directly with the Americans ourselves (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: We have money budgeted for that though in our budget, for the cleanup of the American sites.

MR. DOMINIE: Only in Stephenville.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So do you expect to recover the amount that is budgeted then from the federal government?

MR. DOMINIE: The Province has gone on record a number of times now - even at the Prime Minister level I understand - indicating this is not a problem of the Province's making. We expect compensation. It became an issue - well, if I can speak on Stephenville, where there were two parts to that former American property. Part of it was retained by the federal government, the airport piece, and there was a larger piece which was residential properties. That the Province took over through the Housing Corporation.

The Premier indicated that if there were problems there, rather than wait, and if residents of Stephenville were at any risk from their water supply or for other reasons, that the Province was not going to stand by and argue who was going to be responsible for this. He would take the appropriate, responsible action on the Province's part and then we will argue about money afterwards. He was not prepared to let this thing sit between the Province and the federal government for the next five years and argue over who is responsible. So the Province, through the Housing Corporation, has actually undertaken the work, on the understanding, as I say, that we have written to the federal government indicating that we will be reclaiming -

MR. T. OSBORNE: So is the reimbursement or expected reimbursement of that allocation of funding acknowledged here under Revenues?

MR. DOMINIE: No, it would not be, because that is through the Housing Corporation. It would go in their budget. The clean up in Stephenville will be undertaken through the Housing Corporation and would be reflected in their budget, I assume. I have not seen their budget, (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yet the Department of Environment has some money budgeted, though, for Stephenville.

MR. DOMINIE: Just $120,000 right now, the two satellite sites, one (inaudible) the Port au Port Peninsula. They were associated with a military base in the past, where they are about twenty miles distant I think from the base. There is one place called Jerry's Nose, and West Bay, those are the actual two sites. Again, we have taken the approach that we are going to do the investigation this year and see what the problems may be. I would think, it is only reasonable to assume, that that might be part of a package as well for the entire Stephenville base when we go forward with a final claim to the federal government. There is no revenue associated with that in the Department of Environment assessments right now.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay.

There was a news release on Budget Day, actually March 22, that states that "$820,000 has been allocated in the 1999/2000 Budget for further environmental work at six sites in the Province." They list the sites as former American military sites: North West Point, Hopedale, Jerry's Nose, West Bay, Port au Port and so on. It is to clean up ship PCBs, PCB contaminated material, and so on.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, the PCBs are in Foxtrap and in Baie Verte. That is a part of this $800,000. In North West Point, that is near Happy Valley-Goose Bay, we did some work there last year and we are going to go back and do some extra work. The same thing will happen with Hopedale.

The problem in North West Point is this. Now it is a fact that that happened, say, back in the 1940s. On top of the barrels and so on it is almost impossible to tell what is there now, because you have trees that are thirty and forty feet high, and you have all the alders and underbrush and stuff that is there. So it is going to be very difficult to get in and be able to assess the whole site. That is why the (inaudible) is there for that, to continue these (inaudible), and for the PCBs which we said were in Baie Verte and Foxtrap, and to do Jerry's Nose and the other part of the Port au Port Peninsula. That is why that (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: So of that $820,000, two of them are former military sites. Two sites, Jerry's Nose and West Bay, were associated with the former American sites.

MR. LANGDON: That's right.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So that's four of the six sites that you are going to spend $820,000 on.

MR. DOMINIE: There is $120,000 for West Bay and Jerry's Nose to do an evaluation and $200,000 in North West Point and Hopedale. That is $320,000. I think the balance is for the PCBs, (inaudible) $450,000. (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Where did those PCBs originally come from?

MR. DOMINIE: The stuff in Baie Verte was the result of former mining operations, and companies that (inaudible) bankrupt (inaudible) the province just assumed liabilities for sites once the mining lease has been turned back. So there were some minor - well, there are a couple of fairly large transformers on those sites in Baie Verte: the asbestos mine plus the former Rambler mine.

In Foxtrap, that came from a scrap yard that was cleaned up in Makinsons through a federal-provincial program. This was the residual stuff that had still been left as a result of that clean up project. It has been stored in the Province since that time and this year we are making plans to ship it away.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Of the $820,000, $320,000, you are saying, is going to former military sites and that is coming out of the Environment budget?

MR. DOMINIE: That's correct.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Okay, so -

MR. LANGDON: Then what Ken says is that as a part of the overall bill for Stephenville and so on, (inaudible), then say to the federal government and ask for compensation for it.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So the Environment portion of the budget that is spent, is the amount that you are hoping to get back from the federal government reflected in the revenues within the budget?

MR. DOMINIE: No, it is not.

MR. T. OSBORNE: So when will that be there? In next year's revenues?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes, I would suspect. This is an ongoing negotiation with the federal government. This Province has recently written the federal government again outlining our claim, indicating how much the Housing Corporation has spent (inaudible). By the way, we are planning on more expenditures this year (inaudible), and we expect that to be considered in the compensation package as well, but that is not in the revenue right now this year.

MR. T. OSBORNE: The final question I have is on Water Resources Management, specifically, 2.2.02, Water Quality Agreement. Again, under Salaries, .01, we go from $84,800 to $89,800 which is probably accounted for through temporary positions or what have you. That is estimated at $97,200 in this year's budget. What would account for that? I presume Gerry -

MR. CROCKER: That is under the Water Quality Agreement? That is a parallel funding agreement with the federal government. The feds agreed to add an additional $40,000 for the 1999-2000 year, and the Province has put in an additional - well, it adds up to about $28,000 all together. We needed some additional money in salaries, so $12,400, a portion of that increase, is to provide some salaries for temporary employees.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Where in the Province is the water quality monitoring going to take place?

MR. DOMINIE: We have an extensive water quality monitoring system throughout the Province right now. This work will be done in Labrador. The incremental work will be done in Labrador this year. It is really somewhat in association with the Churchill Falls project. That project has given us money to establish water quantity stations to measure how much water (inaudible). It is totally funded by the project. We felt while we were in that it made sense to get some water quality information as well. The feds came to the table with their part and we (inaudible) $28,000 extra. By putting in that $28,000 we probably leveraged another $50,000 or so from the federal government to do that piece of work. Yes, (inaudible) Labrador (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Transportation and Communications, that budget is up as well. Is that associated with the work in Labrador?

MR. DOMINIE: Yes, it is. Gerry said it all adds up to about $28,000, (inaudible) salaries and more for travel, so if you add up the incremental work it is about $28,000.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Osborne. We now go to Ms Hodder, and after that we will come back to Mr. Hedderson.

MS M. HODDER: I do not have a whole lot. I will just ask a couple of questions, because most of these are pretty basic as you look through the Estimates, and I want to leave a few there for others as we go along.

I just looked at 1.2.02.10, Grants and Subsidies. It is budgeted there at $38,000 and the revised is $85,500. I wonder what is included in those Grants and Subsidies and why the variance?

MR. LANGDON: What one did you say?

MS M. HODDER: 1.2.02, Administrative Support.

MR. CROCKER: Thirty eight thousand dollars would be for CCME and each year there is probably -

CHAIR: CCME being what?

MR. CROCKER: The Canadian Council of Ministers on the Environment.

CHAIR: I was aware of that; others may not have been.

MR. CROCKER: That is $38,000, but every year there is also an allocation of probably $5,000 or so for some miscellaneous grants, and of course we added some additional dollars there this year to put our projected revised up to $85,500. Some of those grants (inaudible) there was about $20,000 given to Gaultois in connection with an environmental clean up there. There was also $15,000 allocated for the Residential Hazardous Waste Program. There are a few thousand dollars also for some Voluntary Climate Registry programs, Voluntary (inaudible) Registry. That would cover off most of that variance there, the additional $47,000.

MS M. HODDER: We will go to Grants and Subsidies again in Workplace Health and Safety Services, 4.1.01.10. Basically it is the same thing there. I just wanted to know what is included and why the variance.

MR. CROCKER: The $184,100 was for Occupational Health and Safety research projects. During the 1999 fiscal year there was a large portion of - the education committees part of the program was, I guess, moved over to the commission. There was a small portion, I think it was one-sixth of their original budget, that was budgeted as a transition, but the full amount of the research grants was put in there, although we only spent $83,500. Any grants that were, I guess, put through after that were dealt with directly by the commission, so that is why there were savings of $100,000 there.

MS M. HODDER: We will go to 4.2.02.10, Grants and Subsidies again. I would like to know what is included in Grants and Subsidies in that.

MR. CROCKER: 4.2.02?

MS M. HODDER: Yes.

MR. CROCKER: Assistance to Outside Agencies. Under the Grants and Subsidies, the $200,000 would be the grants to the Federation of Labour and the Employers Council for the advisors to the Workers' Compensation Commission. The other $29,000 would be a number of smaller grants. I guess I could get the list if you need it, but that was a mix of most of it. The $200,000 would be payable to the Federation of Labour and the Employers Council.

MS M. HODDER: That is it for me, thank you.

CHAIR: Mr. Hedderson first, and then we will go back to Ms Jones.

MR. HEDDERSON: We will pick it up at 2.3.01.01, Environmental Assessment, Salaries. I see probably a $63,000 difference in what has been budgeted this year and what was actually spent last year.

MR. CROCKER: We had some additional salary allocations put in there. There was funding provided for the Voisey's Bay assessment, about $150,000. Approximately $50,000 of that relates to salary allocation. Also there is $400,000 in there for the Churchill River project, and approximately $40,000 of it is, I think it is for a biologist, is provided in the salary allocation there.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. CROCKER: Yes, it is 100 per cent recoverable of course from Hydro or Inco, depending on which project you are talking about.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under Transportation and Communications there is a fluctuation as well, from $98,400 to $55,800 to $88,100.

MR. CROCKER: Yes. There is also additional funding in there for the Churchill River project and Voisey's Bay in connection with the environmental assessment, and that is also 100 per cent recoverable.

MR. HEDDERSON: 3.1.01.01, under Salaries, again the fluctuation between what is -

MR. CROCKER: The savings were caused I by a vacant position there. There was approximately $46,000 in savings. For this fiscal year, you have a number of salary adjustments as I mentioned earlier. You have the twenty-seven pay days taken off, the 2 per cent increase is on, step progression, whatever, plus there are also some planned savings because there is a position still vacant there.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, so there is a vacant position.

MR. CROCKER: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under Transportation and Communications, you overspent from $74,300 to $131,200, and budgeted again $74,300. Again, there is a big difference there.

MR. CROCKER: During the fiscal year there was $150,000 allocated for the fish crab pricing mediation. It is a pilot project. There was $150,000 put into Professional Services, but during the fiscal year it was required to transfer a portion of that to Transportation and Communications to cover off travel costs to Norway. That is why there is a fluctuation in the allocation. That $150,000 is back in there again for the 1999-2000 year, but the full amount is indicated under Professional Services. We have not actually seen how much will be required in the travel area.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under Professional Services, again, it went from $150,000 to $90,000 to 190,000.

MR. CROCKER: That relates to the reallocation of funds from Professional Services into the travel one.

MR. HEDDERSON: You are just sort of throwing it back and forth.

MR. CROCKER: Yes.

MR. HEDDERSON: 3.1.02.04, Labour Relations Board, under Supplies, again, there was $6,400 spent but we are back to just budgeting $1,800. Any particular reason for that?

MR. CROCKER: Usually we do not adjust the base amounts. We look at the budget overall as their operating budget which takes into account Employee Benefits, Transportation and Communications, Supplies, Purchased Services, and Property, Furnishings and Equipment. Under the Labour Relations Board, their full operating budget has not changed, it is still $62,300. I guess we could have reallocated it but we usually do that during the year.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under Professional Services, again (inaudible) from $185,200 to $215,200. What services are we talking about here? What would be under that? I'm just curious.

MR. CROCKER: That would cover the legal fees for the Labour Relations Board and also the per diem fees for the members. The increase in the 1998-1999 fiscal year would be directly related to the caseload, the number of hearings. Also the travel dollars would be up slightly too, based on the caseload.

MR. HEDDERSON: So with $170,200 you are expecting less? Because it was $185,200?

MR. CROCKER: I was just speaking to the - right, the projected revised for 1999. For the 1999-2000 fiscal year it was part of the program review process that we reduced the Professional Services for 1999-2000 by $15,000, and that may be a problem if we (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: That is, again, just (inaudible) or (inaudible), obviously, right? Purchased Services, again, what would fall under that?

MR. CROCKER: Under the Labour Relations Board, a large portion of that would relate to the cost of a conference. There was no conference in 1998-1999, therefore you have some significant savings there, $14,300.

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay, but there will be one this year?

MR. CROCKER: There may be one this year, right.

MR. HEDDERSON: 4.1.01.01. Again, just an explanation of the Salaries (inaudible) from $1,761,700 to $1,990,100.

MR. CROCKER: There have been additional positions approved for Workplace Health and Safety. There are five inspectors and one hygienist.

WITNESS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Okay. Back to Transportation and Communications, 4.1.01.03. Again, there is not much of a difference but there is a difference.

MR. CROCKER: As I mentioned, the budget for 1998-1999 was sort of a transitional budget where we had one-sixth of the budget for the education and committees section was in the budget. So that was sort of backed out for 1999-2000. There were additional positions hired and there was a number of fluctuations in the whole area there. So I guess it completely sort of revamped their estimate. Because the full amount of course is recoverable from the Commission.

MR. HEDDERSON: Under Professional Services - obviously you are expecting a lot more this particular year - you have gone from $101,200 which was budgeted to $75,000, and now it is $239,000. What would fall under Professional Services?

MR. CROCKER: There is some anticipation with regard to Marystown Shipyard, you have the Labrador West dust study, and a number of issues like that. There is additional money provided for that.

MR. HEDDERSON: The last one, 4.2.02, Allowances and Assistance, could you just explain that to me? What would fall under that?

MR. CROCKER: Allowances and Assistance in that area was the Back Injury Prevention Program which was done by the Newfoundland Safety Council. They would do the training and send their invoices into us, so much per person, and we would reimburse them the $57,000.

MR. HEDDERSON: So there is no need of that.

MR. CROCKER: What's that?

MR. HEDDERSON: There is nothing there.

MR. CROCKER: No, I am sorry. That was transferred to the Commission as part of one of the recommendations. So they will be continuing with that program.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Hedderson.

Now to Ms Jones, and from there to Mr. Parsons.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have any questions as such on the Estimates themselves. I think most of the things have been covered and the rest of it is pretty self-explanatory. Although I do have a question on the EIS process for the Churchill River project. I am just wondering at what stage it would be at now, and if the project is being assessed in phases, or it is just one entire project?

MR. DOMINIE: As the minister mentioned, when the Voisey's Bay project was undertaken it was the first time in Canada where we had a Memorandum of Understanding as to how the project may be assessed environmentally. The same thing is being discussed for this project. The Memorandum of Understanding gets a little bit more complicated because we are dealing with three governments I guess: the federal government, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as well the aboriginal groups in Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The negotiations have been ongoing and they are starting to conclude. As you can appreciate, it has been difficult because of the relationship between Quebec and the federal government. I think sometimes we are a broker. They do not want to talk directly to one another sometimes. The process has gone smoothly. There have been several very senior level meetings. The principals on which this Memorandum of Understanding would come together have been established. As for an exact point in regard to signing a Memorandum of Understanding, I am not sure, but certainly there has been a lot of progress made in that area.

I think that with regards to the project itself the notion would be that there would be one assessment of the entire project, whatever that project description winds up to be. Hydro and Quebec Hydro will propose whatever project they are thinking about, whether it is diversion of water (inaudible) from Quebec or the Upper Churchill. We do no have a project description at this point in time. That is still being worked done and discussions are probably ongoing between Hydro Quebec and our own Hydro people. I'm not directly associated with those discussions. I do not know what stage they are at. The environmental assessment will be one assessment for whatever project eventually gets put on the table.

MS JONES: Thank you for that response. I don't have any other questions but I do want to make a comment. It is this. I think, in terms of the environmental process that you have done with the Voisey's Bay development, I want to commend you for doing that. Because it was a very innovative approach to dealing with environment, and also recognizing the inherent right of aboriginal people and their country. I hope that it is a precedent setting move for other provinces in Canada. I want to acknowledge the work that you have done there.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Jones.

Mr. Parsons.

MR. PARSONS: My question is for Mr. Crocker. I notice you mentioned several times Professional Services, in particular legal services. Is that for purchases of outside legal help as opposed to: Do we or do we not use our own Justice department?

MR. CROCKER: In the case of the Labour Relations Board and also the Workers' Compensation Review Division, they would use outside, private lawyers.

MR. PARSONS: Is that because the expertise is not in our own Justice department, or due to potential conflict situations?

MR. CROCKER: I would suspect it is probably more to do with the conflict and the availability of solicitors.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you, Mr. Parsons.

Any further questions?

There appear to be no further questions. I will ask the Clerk if he would call the heads.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through 5.1.01, carried.

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

CHAIR: Thank you. I just remind the members of the Committee that our next meeting is scheduled for Monday morning at 9:00 in the House of Assembly. The Department of Justice Estimates will be reviewed.

I thank the minister and his officials for being with us this evening and for his hospitality. Thank you very much, sir. I look forward to seeing you shortly.

MR. LANGDON: On behalf of all the staff that are here, I want to thank the members of the Committee. I hope the questions you have asked have been answered satisfactorily. I must say, this is the second time for me now, the second year, and it has been good. I appreciate it. I'm sure it gives accountability as well to people that are in the House (inaudible). So I am sure I can say on behalf of the people who are here a big thank you to you for coming in and doing a good job.

CHAIR: Thank you.

MS M. HODDER: Minister, before I leave I would like to commend you and your department for the timely response to the many constituency concerns that I have to put through your department. I must say that it is one of the best departments for getting a timely response to them. That is so important to an MHA when you have people waiting on the other end. You are delayed a month or so sometimes before you get back to (inaudible) you are doing your job. I must say, I have been very pleased with the responses I have been getting.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you. I want to say to you, as I said to Tom the other day - the younger Tom -

WITNESS: Thank you, Minister.

WITNESS: I think we have started something.

MR. LANGDON: - that it is an open door. Anybody that wants to visit the department, then by all means do so. I will make the officials available to you. Anything that we can do to co-operate (inaudible) business then I am only too happy to do it.

CHAIR: Thank you kindly, sir.